Global Warmening Update
April 16th, 2008 - 5:40 pm
This storm is supposed to last all night and into tomorrow.
Sell your bicycle. Remove your catalytic converter. Slap Al Gore with a damp hippy.
Please. I’m begging you.
Guess what? The new plugin I’m using for posting pictures to WordPress means my thumbnails images aren’t unviewably small or out of proportion. But if you click on the larger thumbnail, it now takes you to… an even smaller version of the picture! So no more keeping pictures on web pages I get paid for you to click on.
I’m so tired of using blogging software that takes money out of my pocket, and makes me look like an idiot and my pictures look like crap. But the alternatives are all, apparently, worse. It’s hard to imagine how, but that’s what I hear.
Gore’s Law:
As an online climate change debate grows longer, the probability that denier arguments will descend into attacks on Al Gore approaches one.
I think we need a nice big bonfire. Using al-Gore and the hippies as fuel.
BTW, I’m getting to see the big pix, using XP & Firefox 2.0.0.13
But, Torrent!
Slapping Gore with a wet hippy is a good thing, even leaving off his pushing of the Hoax.
In fact, before he pushed this crap I though he should not just be slapped with one, but roomed with large groups of them…in very small rooms…with no ventilation,….cabbage and beens the only allowable food.
I get them as well with the same setup as rbj.
The pic makes me wish for that 51,000 acre ranch in New Mexico, a nice rifle, some sharpened broadheads and my horse bow, and a few elk needing harvesting.
ooh…we could lock gAlgore up in a room with a Bull Elk in rut!!!
That would smell as bad as a wet hippy, and be rather more dangerous. . .
I know, I’ve a bit of a mean streak.
Hey, I’ve no illusions of being able to convince anyone here about the science of the issue; we’ve long since degenerated into a red/blue divide on the thing. Not starting no fights here!
I just read about Gore’s law today and thought that deniers/advocates alike could get a laugh out of it. Peace
science of the situation.
Use the models Gore is using to predict the temps in 20 years and go back in time. Punch in the numbers. The results you get will not match what the temps actually were. Why should we think they will match the future?
More numbers:
Warmest year in the last 100?
1934
warmest in the last 20?
1998
We are not getting the predicted numbers.
Also,
Just what is the “Ideal Average Temperature” of the planet? Is it the temps of the Viking Scourge? The Maunder Minimum? The Ice Age? Now?
The temp is far far far far more influenced by that big Mr. Fusion in the sky than all other factors combined. And It Never Stays The Same!
Mars got warmer. Must be the SUVs.
The Sun may well be going Maunder on us.
We may well get that Ice Age they warned about in the 70′s. . . some of the same folk who now push the religion of AGW.
Gore and his ilk are not tossing the baby out with the bathwater. . . they are euthanasing it because it needs a bath.
Yea we had 8″ at my house in Divide this morning.
torrent, isn’t that law roughly the equivalent of “as the discussion of Catholicism continues, the probability that someone will mention the Pope approaches one”?
Let’s face it, the march of science and the facts on the ground have not been kind to believers in anthropogenic global warming. It’s gotten to the point where nobody except the socialists still argues for it.
Snow is like sex for women. You never know when it’s coming and you never know how many inches you’ll get.
Tim: Let me repeat. I am not here to convince any denialists that climate change exists or is a problem. I was just posting something kind of funny that I thought people could enjoy, regardless of whether they are hippy socialist tree huggers or world-destroying neocons.
To expand: Although my own political affiliations have changed since 2000, I nonetheless keep many red/conservative sites on my RSS roll, and this is one of them. I like reading VP’s site; I scan the posts every day. I saw a random comment about slapping Al Gore within minutes of seeing ‘Gore’s Law’ posted somewhere else, and I tried to share the funny.
(However, for the sake of accuracy, the law does not say someone will “mention” Gore; the law says someone will attack him. Kinda important difference.)
OK, can’t resist the one LOL comment: Do you really believe that AAAS are all a bunch of socialists? Really? You know, all those scientists around the world are just aching to bring about Marxism and are making up science to do so? I’m not attacking you; I’m just curious: you said that only socialists believe in climate change anymore, and I didn’t think that anyone outside of the Heartland Institute held positions that extreme.
Oops, hit post too soon.
Last, last question: Do you think McCain is a socialist? Or is he lying?
and so on.
I mean, either he’s saying that climate change is real, and therefore by yours lights he’s a socialist, or he’s lying to the American people about his policies and beliefs. Again, just curious how you see all this, especially in regards to Bush’s comments on climate change just recently.
McCain, as you may notice among the conservative set, is not well thought of much of the time for his liberal bent.
That he thinks AGW is a real problem is as dumb as his denial that McCain/Fiengold is a rape of the First Amendment. Those of us who didn’t want him as the nominee will vote for him to keep the morons who feel that even though there is proof that low taxes causes an increase in federal funds, it isn’t about funding, it’s about “fairness” and redistrobution….Obama’s answer to Gibson was right out of Marx’s little playbook.
JP: Oh I know how’s he’s viewed by the right (and I agree with you BTW on McCain/Feingold). I was really wondering if tim’s “believe in climate change = socialist” was an accurate statement of people’s beliefs, at least around these parts. Thanks for the reply.
Hard to imagine how this is still going on. I mean, a few of my cars have got to be making up for every Prius ever sold.
Maybe I’ll try a bigger turbo. Again.
hybrids and all electric cars are far more polluting than the greenies would have you believe.
Building and driving a prius pollutes more than an H1 hummer unless you drive them for more than 5 or 6 years (iirc) and the battery life on the hybrids is still suspect, not to mention the cost to replace will likely be more than the car is worth.
JP: I know Rush loved that article and trumpeted it on his show, but it was absolute crap. For a light sampling of how bad it was, check this article.
Also, it’s one thing to recognize that brand new technologies will out of the gate probably not be as cost efficient as those that have been around for 50 years or more. It’s another to make the leap to the laughable conclusion that the entire direction or branch of science isn’t worthy of exploration. For example, these guys keep pushing their boulder up the hill, right?
torrent, back to your original point, I thought after I hit post that it would be a more precise comparison if I said “anti-papists” (which is the typical term for anti-Catholics) would attack the Pope, but I didn’t post again because it’s a pretty minor point, not worth mentioning I thought. The real issue (to the extent that there is one) is the complete misrepresentation of Godwin’s law. Gore is prominantly affiliated with the AGW position and as such is fair game in this discussion, whereas Godwin’s law applies to areas where any Hitler comparison is totally inappropriate.
Gore’s Law, while mildly humorous, is a bit of silly fluff designed to insult and demean a certain point of view. You can hardly be surprised that the people you insulted feel insulted.
I stand by the Socialist remark. AGW’s sole purpose at the moment is to expand the reach of government deeper into our lives and our economy. It is a tool for those on the far left who have failed to win at the ballot box and have been rolled back in the courtroom (haven’t you noticed that the “cures” for global warming read like a lefty wish list?). That this tool has temporarily succeeded in convincing certain opportunists to use the lingo hardly proves it’s legitimacy. As for the scientists, the scientific defenders of AGW and Gore-style cures is shrinking by the day.
They don’t even call it Global Warming any more. It’s now called Global Climate Change. Get with the program.
Rats! Sorry, strike that last paragraph, I was looking at something else and attributed something to you that I don’t think you ever said.
Tim: Please re-read all of my posts on this thread and see where I used the term “global warming” vs. “climate change.” (pause) It must suck when your talking points bounce off the facts on the ground like that.
2nd: “Gore is prominantly affiliated with the AGW position and as such is fair game in this discussion.” For possibly the 3rd time this debate, you’ve missed a key textual point: Being associated with a political or social cause makes *personal attacks* fair game? Gore’s law makes explicit reference to personal attacks. So pro-choicers can attack, say, the Pope for his looks, or background, or jokes about molestation ala Maher or make any other ad hominem attack they chose simply because he’s associated with the pro-life movement? Are you really advancing this position?
“designed to insult and demean a certain point of view.” Wow. I thought Muslims rioting over cartoons were touchy. So pointing out that people who disbelieve in climate change often resort to personal attacks is somehow attacking *you*? Seriously? And pointing out that personal attacks shouldn’t be part of a scientific and policy debate is “insulting and demeaning”? Again, seriously?
“AGW’s sole purpose”… And we’re done. Your sentences following aren’t proof or even arguments; they conclusions and conspiracy theories, all rolled together. You claim to know “AGW”‘s true purpose or goals, and it takes more than GOP press releases to make that stuff anymmore than what it is: attempts to frame GW as a sneaky, lefty attack on all we hold dear, etc etc.
And you’re right that people agreeing with it don’t make it valid: SCIENTISTS and RESEARCH do, which you claim unsourced is an ever-shrinking group and body of knowledge. Using your words, it takes more than Republicans latching on those words to make the science go away, and the gleeful anecdotal reporting of every snow storm is just part of that.
Peace.
Ah! See the retraction. Appreciated!
JP: I posted earlier but it didn’t show up.
In re: the “a hummer is teh awesome compared to Prii” report. I know how much Rush loved the report, since he trumpeted it so loudly, but it was crap. Check this for (just a few) of the laughable errors made in that report.
(trying to remember my earlier post): Just because the first attempt at a technology isn’t perfect can’t, in any rational world, justify giving up on the entire concept. I don’t think the first airplane flew, nor maybe even the 100th, yet I somehow survived my flight to Europe unscathed, despite the crash-n-burns of the first few aviators. Similarly, just because the first few revs (produced, let’s not forget, by companies with every reason not to want to make these cars in the first place) of greener cars are more expensive doesn’t mean that all is lost! when it comes to developing greener technology in general.