We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Wednesday, May 22. 2013
Pic: This week's issue of Time also covers the subject in depth
So that's about as sobering as it gets, folks. Ten years really isn't a very long time.
I originally spotted this alarming article on a very cool AGW site called Real Science.
The original article is here.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
And I missed that original NGC post. I'll get to work on the compost heap today!
Excellent! And, I don't want tell you how to spend your money or anything, but I'd strongly suggest you spend the extra moolah and buy the 50,000' balloons. They're almost twice the price, but they do so much more good!
I recall I did feel a little hungry about 1985, and our vegetable garden didn't do as well (or was that '86?). I never knew it was everyone else's fault.
Which is why Willie Nelson had the first Farm Aid Concert in 1985!
Okay, that was fun. I spent the whole time reading the article thinking:
1. It sure sounds like a Newsweek article, except
2. Newsweek is dead, and
3. Why the hell would they be talking about cooling instead of warming?!
Obviously, I was thinking of the wrong "The Earth Is Dying!!" cycle, silly me. At some point, we're gonna need a scorecard!
I sat there thinking the exact same thing KJW did!
I loved the "almost unanimous" being bolded. I presume that's in response to the recent "97% of climatologists agree" article that was running around a few weeks ago.
Goot stuff, Herr Docmeister!
Vielen dank, gute Frau!
(for those of you scoring at home, that's Italian for "Bite me!")
And yep, you nailed the bolded reference. At the end of the 97% article I wanted to make a point (but didn't bother) about using "majority rules" for scientific truths.
One thousand years ago, 97% of all leading scientists thought the Earth was at the center of the universe.
Eight hundred years ago, 97% of all leading scientists thought the earth was flat.
Five hundred years ago, 97% of all leading scientists thought there was no connection between ape and man.
This list could go on for days.
And KJW, you're right. Who would have thought that "global climate" would eventually equal "alphabet soup"?
Yes, I remember freezing to death in the late '70s. Had to have a huge bonfire on the frozen ground to dig my grave.
It was horrible!
Having lived through the Great Blizzard of '78, I remember just how bad Global Colding was. These young whippersnappers have no idea of what we had to go through. Now all they think about is that everywhere is going to be beachfront property one of these days. They don't know what real privation is.
I remember it snowing on the San Francisco Peninsula around 1960, a first for everybody.
It's a miracle anyone survived that era.
I agree. James Taranto of the WSJ has paved the way to the realization that almost everything is Pres. Bush's fault, and especially such devastations as earthquakes and tornadoes, let alone global colding.
Nice go, Prez.
Back then, wasn't it the Russians controlling our weather?
Yes, and a fairly simple plan it was. They merely set up their ion particle generators in their puppet state of Ecuador and beamed them into the area where El Ninos and La Ninas form. You fire up those two bad boys every year and things are going to go to hell in a handbasket quickly.
Then Russia went broke, sold Ecuador to a local consortium, and America went back to global warming.
Any other history questions, that's what I'm here for.
Well, I thought of that, but I figure anything that kills over 300 people a year deserved the honorific of 'boy'. It just seems a notch above those girly storms that only kill a few hundred.
Not to belittle women, of course. Those little girlie storms try, and that's what counts.
Thanks- I knew there was a perfectly good explanation.
Ah, it's Catastrophic Anthropogenic Science Change. We are at a tipping point...
I like it - Anthropomorphic Climate Science Change - I think I"m going to trade mark that and make a zillion dollars. :>)
Note the other story referenced on the front cover: "Beyond Detente: Why We Can't Beat the Soviets."
Well, the Soviets might be out of business in Russia, but they just moved to the White House and are starting over.