iOwnTheWorld.com

You know, here in Central New York, we have a saying, “If you don’t like the weather here in Syracuse, wait ten minutes.”

It must make the Global Warming Frauds apoplectic that weather doesn’t stay the same. It’s hot! It’s cold! It’s windy! It’s calm! It’s rainy! It’s dry!

Newsflash: IT’S WEATHER

+3

The Global Warmists liked to lecture the deniers by saying “It’s the CLIMATE, not the WEATHER, STOOOOOPID!”

Then when none of their climate models panned out, and there has been no evidence of the climate warming, they switched the message to
“It’s the WEATHER, not the CLIMATE, STOOOOOOOOOPID!”

+3

Sorry if I scream but… IT’S THE FRIGGIN WEATHER AND THAT IS WHAT WEATHER DOES, IDIOTS…I feel better now.

+3

BigFurHat someone needs to point them to a thesarus , those two words are interchangable.
There would be no climate if we did not have weather. Besides that is all semetics, the important thing for them to convince enough folks that without the all knowing gov’t controlling all aspects of our lives, the world as we know will end.

If giving up control of how much water i flush, what kind of light bulb i can buy, what kind of car i can drive and how far i can drive it, is not the end of the free world what is?
It is 42 deg and sunshine mid dec here in northern Indiana, why is that a problem for anyone but the owner of a ski slope?

+3

I don’t get it…why do I need more blankets in the winter then in the summer?

+2

Man made global whatever. The inconvenient ruse.

+4

From Michael Crichton’s speech, Complexity Theory and Environmental Management. (This is an MHT file and IE will load it but other browsers may just save it to your computer.)

If we want to manage complexity, we must eliminate fear. Fear may draw a television audience. It may generate cash for an advocacy group. It may support the legal profession. But fear paralyzes us. It freezes us. And we need to be flexible in our responses, as we move into a new era of managing complexity. So we have to stop responding to fear:

Is this really the end of the world? Earthquakes, hurricanes, floods?

No, we simply live on an active planet. Earthquakes are continuous, a million and a half of them every year, or three every minute. A Richter 5 quake every six hours, a major quake every 3 weeks. A quake as destructive as the one in Pakistan every 8 months. It’s nothing new, it’s right on schedule.

At any moment there are 1,500 electrical storms on the planet. A tornado touches down every six hours. We have ninety hurricanes a year, or one every four days. Again, right on schedule. Violent, disruptive, chaotic activity is a constant feature of our globe.

Is this the end of the world? No: this is the world.

It’s time we knew it.

Michael Crichton was a believer in Global Warming and environmentalism. Then he applied the scientific method and did critical research. He changed his mind. He knew that AGW was not happening and even if it was, it is impossible to gauge that 100 years out.

So, when he was a believer, he was a great author. When he dared think about the subject, he became an average Sci-Fi writer.

+1

O.k. – you folks may believe, with some convincing evidence, that there is no global warming, climate change, global weirding, or whatever the trendy name is today. But is that any reason not to spend trillions of dollars, and restrict liberty and freedom, on this issue – whatever it is?

Wow – this liberal mindset is getting much easier, now that I am learning to eliminate logic and easily foreseeable consequences from my analysis.

+3

Actually, I stand corrected – the climate is always changing, so there is that. But the fact remains that the climate is changing faster or slower because of the types of light bulbs we use, the cars we drive, that fact that you don’t smoke the same cigarettes as me, and because I don’t know how white my shirts can be.

+3

I was thinking about this yesterday, and wrote up some questions for ‘believers’ to answer. My experience is that they have no facts, apart from ‘thousands of peer-reviewed articles say so’, and they never have solutions. Sorry for the length.

I am perfectly happy to discuss Global Warming, or Climate Change as most now call it.
I am perfectly willing to accept claims that climate change is real. Of course it is real – the climate is constantly undergoing change, and I don’t think anyone at all is denying that. Some are denying that there is currently a global warming trend, certainly, and there is some evidence to support those claims. But for the sake of discussion I am perfectly willing to accept claims that global warming is real, and that it is partially caused by humanity. But I need to know your response to the following questions to determine: A) whether you know enough to actually carry on a discussion about problems and solutions, or are just spewing rhetoric in an attempt to control others; and B) what solutions you propose, and their viability.

1. I assume that your primary goal in behavior modification is to reduce CO2 output. Please tell me if otherwise – I would love to learn more if this is not the case. So for CO2 output reduction, what numbers and timing do we need to see? Do we need to slash output to 10% of current output worldwide, immediately? Would a 5% reduction have any impact? How much time do we have to implement? Of course we will be talking in round numbers, so generalities are ok.
2. Assuming that your focus is on CO2 – why? What about H2O, what about methane, what about other molecules that have a greenhouse impact? What about molecules, or other activities, that have an offsetting impact? Can we increase production of something that will have a cooling impact?
3. Back to CO2. We want to reduce output – how would you go about it? Keep in mind that solar panel manufacturing takes time and money, to build plants and then to manufacture panels and associated equipment. You can’t just have 10,000 square miles of panels tomorrow. Keep in mind also the pollutive impact of construction, and the environmental impact of implementation. This applies to other energy-producing methods as well. What can be done, quickly, to reduce CO2 output?
4. A major concern of activists is the rising sea level. What do you think it would take to prevent the sea level from rising? Do you think there are ways to cope with a rising sea level? Realistic estimates range around 1-2 feet over the next century.

0

@Wyatt — How apropos, you listening to Out Of Our Heads.

+1

@Left Coast Dan — The only question I want the ‘tards to answer is:

Before any theory can be considered scientific, it must be capable of being proven false. Please tell me HOW can AGW or ACC be proven false?

Remember that Einstein’s theory that light is the ultimate speed limit can be proven false. Just find something that travels faster than the speed of light. We haven’t yet, but that doesn’t mean we won’t. So even Einstein can be proven false. How do you prove the theories of AGW and ACC false? I don’t want data — this isn’t about data. This is at a level deeper than that. This is at the very root of what is and what is not science.

That question will never be answered by the koolaidians. Because if they say cooler temperatures, then they’re stuck to only rising temperatures to be proof for the theory. If they say fewer storms or less drought, etc., then they are stuck with more storms and more drought. They don’t want to be nailed down. Like all socialist slogans, they need to have AGW and ACC “proofs” be open-ended so everything proves them right. Which isn’t science. That’s religion.

+1