C'mon, get with the program. If it's hot outside, it's because of global warming. If it's cold outside, it's because of global warming. If there are a bunch of major hurricanes, it is because of global warming. If there aren't a bunch of major hurricanes, it is because of global warming. Global warming is responsible for everything that happens outside... and it won't be long before we get rid of all you denialist pigs who are in the pockets of the oil companies and who are condemning our great-great-great-great grandchildren to live in a world that is about, oh, 1/3 of a degree warmer than it is right now.

Verrrrrry funny!

But as we all know it's not the weather down here in the US that's important. What's important is the weather around the poles. That's where the change due to global warming has been most dramatic and has the most dire consequences. The collapsing Arctic ice cap and the rapidly shrinking Greenland ice caps are illustrative of what's happening up there.

I'm not sold on anthropogenic global warming as yet, still seems to politicized to me and I still have a strong grain of "question authority." But, while this is extremely funny, I'll just point out weather does not equal climate.

You're right Larkin. Everybody knows that the ice caps have been the exact same size for the last 3.5 billion years and have only started changing in the last 50 or 100 years or so.

/lying-lefty-babble off

Riiiiiiiiiiight!

I've never seen so much goal post moving by the left (who do it constanly, as they're proven wrong constantly) as there is on this issue.

And the growing Antarctic ice cap is EVEN MORE proof of global warming!!!

Let us hope that Algore is freezing his knickers off right now. But the reality is that he's probably sitting in a nice warm mansion dreaming up more silly ideas.

OBTW, Larkin: If you're really worried, send an e-mail to Mr. Sun and tell him to quit screwing around with things down here.

Larkin - Hear me now but believe me later: The Algore movie is totally wrong. The real evidence is, while the Artic is having its ebb & flow (as always) it's fine - the ice cap will remain intact. Likewise with Greenland. Some day, when the current (true) evidense becomes common knowledge you'll agree that the pundits you listened to were all wet.

gc

How can we predict climatic changes 75 yrs from now, but are somehow unable to get an accurate 5 day forecast?

Maybe Kim thinks the glaciers and ice caps that are melting will now grow and refreeze with the recent ice storms?

Those wacky conservatives are grasping at straws again -- a sure sign they've lost the battle on this issue.

remember the Vikings settled in Greenland for the nice climate of that day(i.e. it was much warmer there than today)....the Romans grew grapes as far away as England!

Global Warming is an insult to intelligence and common sense its self.

Two Questions:
1. Wasn't there an ice age a while back and doesn't every scientist say we are emerging from the last ice age? Ummm, doesn't that mean warming?
2. Does the activity of the sun affect the temperature of the earth? How come we never hear about the recent (cyclical) over-activity of the sun?

With all due respect Lee I have to call BS.

The last several times I've had an exchange with you, you've been reasonable, let's hope the streak holds.

YOU AND I BOTH KNOW if the temps in any major city are 1/2 of 1 degree above normal on any given day the lefties declare it proof of man made global warming. If they are to be listened to, then, by the same token, this should be proof of global cooling.

This post is not a sign the conservatives have lost the debate. This is (rightfully) pointing out the irony of the situation and the hypocrisy of the left.

Indeed, it is the wacky left's continual citing of daily weather to prove unfounded theories that proves they are the ones grabbing at straws.

And you know it.

Poor Lee; he's decended into a life where everything is a win/lose political struggle.

I'll spare you doing the research Lee, finding the truth about what is going on with both the climate and the weather is not a matter of finding or building concensus. You, young man, can puff out your chest and loudly proclaim everyone else to be wrong, an idiot, and completely unqualified to even have an opinion (Gee, that sounds familiar), but whether you win a discussion, lose it, or just drown out everyone else, it will have zero effect on what is actually happening.

Bottom line Lee: it doesn't matter a fetid dingo's kidney how much you read about "global warming", what you write is just your opinion. And we all know what they say about opinions. I might add, one sign of maturity is when you recognize that not everyone is interested in yours.

I KNEW this was going to be a post here! Combine Drudge's weather obsession with some easy push-back at Al Gore's current fashionability. Subtract the current bad news on the legal and legislative fronts, and Viola! another quota-post. Now I'm not a partisan for a man-made cause for the Arctic ice caps melting, but if there is excess moisture in the air due to evaporation, doesn't it have to come back down somewhere? Possibly as snow? Remember, the Great Ice Age was not uniform latitudinally: Europe was covered, but North America not so much. Maybe it works that way in reverse. It's the tilted axis of the earth's rotation in relation to the sun, and the sun and earth's aspect to mars. (you heard me! MARS!)

I moved about 8" of 'global warming' off my driveway this morning.

bryan, if you were trying to write a paradoy as funny as steve strum's above, you failed. If you were trying to be serious, then you're just sad.

Rodney, that was the post of the day!

LOL.

"This post is not a sign the conservatives have lost the debate. This is (rightfully) pointing out the irony of the situation and the hypocrisy of the left."

Oh, I disagree -- it most definitely is. The WORLD consensus is that Global Warming is a real problem, with very real and serious consequences. Even the White House is admitting that now -- but around here it's business as usual; deny and lie and pretend the problem isn't real.

The denials and efforts to minimize the problem are now coming DAILY at Wizbang. Linking to cheap pot-shots like this one of Drudge's, and the one yesterday on Gore's "cooling effect", in an attempt to downplay the seriousness of the issue sure sounds like a loud admission of defeat to me. Has there been one post on Wizbang that says "oops, we may have been wrong about this"? Naw - it'll never happen.

No longer able to deny the problem exists, the right now attempts to make light of it, and mock those who were correct from the beginning. That spells defeat, in my opinion.

1 million sperm, and you were the fastest??

So, what specifically are Gore, Kerry, and Edwards doing to reduce fuel consumption?

>The WORLD consensus is that Global Warming is a real problem,

No it's not. So a UN panel declared victory. Big deal. Besides EVEN IF I give you the mythical "consensus" debate it is meaningless. Ask Copernicus.

>Has there been one post on Wizbang that says "oops, we may have been wrong about this"? Naw - it'll never happen.

DUH! That's becasue we're right.

>No longer able to deny the problem exists, the right now attempts to make light of it, and mock those who were correct from the beginning. That spells defeat, in my opinion.

ummm maybe you have reading comprehension problems. I'm OFFICIALLY denying the problem exists.

Because it is a hoax.

Compliance with Kyoto will cost England and Germany 5% of GDP each and over 1 million jobs in England and 1.2 million jobs in Germany. Anybody want to guess what it would cost the US?

The White House now disagrees with you, Paul - as they desparately attempt to straddle the fence and not lose face on this issue.

Bush team changes its tune on global warming

Apparently concerned that Bush was not being perceived as on the global warming bandwagon, White House officials released an unusual open letter Wednesday contending that "climate change has been a top priority since the president's first year in office."

"Beginning in June 2001, President Bush has consistently acknowledged climate change is occurring and humans are contributing to the problem," said the letter, signed by John Marburger, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

But the record isn't quite so clear.

The letter cites a June 2001 speech by Bush, quoting him as saying that, "We know the surface temperature of the Earth is warming. ... There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to warming. ... And the National Academy of Sciences indicates that the increase is due in large part to human activity."

But the parts of the speech excised or ignored by the letter give a somewhat different impression. For instance, the citation deletes a sentence that asserts that "concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution" -- a time frame suggesting that the contemporary world might have played only a small role.

Moreover, Bush's mention of the National Academy of Sciences was followed quickly by a sentence that cast doubt on the notion of human contribution to climate change. "Yet the academy's report tells us that we do not know how much effect natural fluctuations in climate may have had on warming," Bush said at the time.

"We do not know how fast change will occur or even how some of our actions could impact it," he added.

Critics see such discrepancies as evidence that the White House is trying to take positions on both sides of the debate. "The president is all over the map," said Daniel Becker, a global warming expert with the Sierra Club.

They contend that Bush soft-pedaled on the issue early in his presidency because of pressure from corporate interests, such as oil companies and operators of coal-fired power plants, that oppose regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. They note his frequent statements that technology is the answer to the problem.

"America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil," Bush said last month in his State of the Union address. "And these technologies will help us be better stewards of the environment, and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change."

The recent release of a United Nations commission report proclaiming that global warming is incontrovertible has put additional pressure on Bush to appear responsive.

Deny, minimize, and now embrace and pretend it was your position all along - sounds a like a classic Bush flip-flop on this issue.

I appreciate your honesty and your position, Paul, but you are among the shrinking minority now, and the pot shots and cheap jokes we see on Wizbang are clear evidence of that.

If we can agree that the founder of Greenpeace is not some oil money bought scientist, then let me quote him.

"Extremist groups share a common perception about the world", Moore said. "They are anti-science, anti-technology, anti-trade, anti-globalization - not just free trade, but all trade. He said people who embrace extremist views and philosophies believe all large machines are inherently evil, and - worse - science is used to justify positions "that actually have nothing to do with science."

and

Moore outlined the extreme positions of opposing sides of the climate change issue, including the commonly held belief that increases in atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuels' emissions are warming the planet. "Climate change, to me, is one of the most interesting subjects because it points out the limitations of science," Moore said. "Most people think that if you take enough people in lab coats and throw enough money at them, then you can find the answer to any question. Of course that isn't true. Science actually has its absolute limit." He said there are so many variables that trigger climate change - other than CO2 - that it is "impossible to sort out the root cause."

Moore emphasized that the most important point in the climate change debate is "the fact that there is only one planet Earth, and it's very hard to do statistics on a sample of one, when you're trying to predict the future. If there were 50 planet Earths that were identical, you could increase CO2 on 25 of them and leave the other 25 alone, and you might get statistical probability." Moore said scientists who produce studies about global warming are reduced to best guesswork, plus some questionable computer models.

All parties need to engage in a "logically consistent global analysis" of data involving current scientific, environmental, social and governmental policies relative to how people interact with each other and the biosphere, Moore said. He cautioned the audience not to "turn the Earth into a junk heap, but manage it carefully as stewards. Learn to be better gardeners of the Earth ... and may the force be with you."

From his website www.greenspirit.com

Now, can you respond to the substance of his allegations and not the associations?

I guess if it doesn't happen in the US it doesn't exist?

Beijing (AFP) Feb 6, 2007
Skating has been banned on the melting ice of Beijing's lakes, trees are blossoming early and people are shedding their heavy clothes as China experiences its warmest winter on record. The temperature in the capital hit 16 degrees Celsius (60 degrees Fahrenheit) on Monday, far above the historical average of just below freezing for this time of year and the highest since records were first compiled in 1840.

TOKYO, Feb 9 (AFP) Feb 09, 2007
Last month was the world's hottest January on record, in further evidence that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming, Japanese scientists said Friday.
Temperatures across the planet were 0.45 degrees Celsius above average in January, the highest since figures were first compiled in 1891, the Japan Meteorological Agency said.
It said that temperatures were particularly high in eastern Russia and northern Europe.

Besides EVEN IF I give you the mythical "consensus" debate it is meaningless. Ask Copernicus.

The difference is that Copernicus claimed to disprove unscientific consensus with science. Whereas you are trying to disprove scientific consensus with non-science.

Mundane, thank you.

More and more the people are catching on to this lefty hoax. No matter what Lee desperately tries to tell us.

The calmest hurricane season in years, and this year's cold winter, just at the peak of the liberals screams of global warming doomsday hysteria? Priceless. And God's way of telling the libs to STFU.

Bwhahahaha

Slightly off-topic, but can someone please explain to me why writing "Algore" is to be taken as a swipe at Gore? Presumably it's pronounced the same way, so I don't get it. For example, I don't see how writing "Georgebush" would mean anything. Does "Algore" have meaning, or is it just copycatting somewhere else it was used in a different context?

Hey Jo, very funny, now explain my post above yours. Are you saying that God loves Commies because he has blessed China with such nice weather?

"Compliance with Kyoto will cost England and Germany 5% of GDP each and over 1 million jobs in England and 1.2 million jobs in Germany. Anybody want to guess what it would cost the US?"

Excellent question, and precisely the kind of dialog that should be taking place -- and if Kyoto isn't the answer, let's find a better solution.

Different context as far as I know. I always took the meaning the same as some one would say "Al Reuters" as in Al Jazeera.

Obviously, I could be wrong, but that's just my guess.

Brian: "algore" is a play on "Igor" , begun by Rush Limbaugh back in the day. That's my take on it.

Well, but then it would still be two words: "Al Gore". Because it's not "Aljazeera".

Ah, Rush copycats. That explains the lack of sense in it. Though one wonders, then, who is "Igor"?

Brian,

Since Al is already separate from Gore, I figured you'd put them in one to make the point. Like I said, I don't know where it came from and was only guessing at it's original meaning.

The WORLD consensus is that Global Warming is a real problem

Oh, it's a WORLD consensus. Well then it must be right if the world says so.

Last month was the world's hottest January on record, in further evidence that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming, Japanese scientists said Friday

So if this February is one of the coldest on record for the midwest, what is that evidence of?

Remember, the Great Ice Age was not uniform latitudinally

I don't remember that, but how did the Earth warm to recover from it if man was not around to unleash greenhouse gases?

It did come from Rush and it's been around quite awhile. You pronounce it like AL gore. It's cute.

clancy, I like your web log entry about the blue socks /black socks in-the-dark mix-up the best of all the 166 versions I've heard so far. Your mother's proud, I'm sure.

J.R. quit asking difficult questions. It's a consensus, ya know, and as Ellen Goodman says, you're now as bad as a Holocaust Denier. lol.

brian said: "Ah, Rush copycats. That explains the lack of sense in it. Though one wonders, then, who is "Igor"?".... dammit, brian! Don't embarrass the Brian/Bryan legacy by not knowing that Igor was Dr. Frankenstein's lab assistant/servant as Gore was Clinton's #2. Get it? GOOD.

Canadian Climatologist puts the smackdown on "global warming/climate change" loons.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19409

the University of Va. climatologist that was on H&C not long ago was one of the better smackdowns of that religion I've seen.

In the entire history of earth, there has never been global "climate-stay-the-same"! It's always changing - either you adapt or you die - I think the liberal god Darwin said something to that affect.

Also, humans are _PART_ of the earth's ecosystem! So _IF_ human activity causes changes to the climate, so what? The sun's rays heat the earth, volcano eruptions spew tons of gas and ash into the atmosphere which tend to cool the earth, plants convert CO2 to O2, oceans dissolve and release CO2 into the atmosphere, buffering CO2 output from plants, volcanos and fossil fuel burning.

Don't embarrass the Brian/Bryan legacy by not knowing that Igor was Dr. Frankenstein's lab assistant

No, it's pronounced EYE-gor.

Brian

the algore answer

A long long time ago... Rush Limpbarf began using "algore" as in "Igor" from Frankenstein, one of many of his asinine routines repeated ad nauseam as part of the brainwashing of his minions of Pavlovian puppies, like many here at Wizbang. Rush has a similar routine w/ "dingy" Harry for references to Democratic Senate leader Reed.

It's another variation of Insanity's "Robert KKK Byrd."

These right wing radio pigs are past masters at indoctrination & brainwashing. And their sycophants repeat the master's call.

At the ring of one of their bells a lot of Wizpuppies salivate on cue.

So, when you see someone use "algore" just realize it is another automaton from the right.

BTW not unlike the way these automatons use "Democrat Party" for Democratic Party. They mean it as an insult...they think. But they actually demonstrate that they are just salivating puppies who hear their bell rung.

The earths temp. has risen .01 degree. The argument is what caused it. The left is always quick to blame people and especially the nasty Americans. I want to know if it is natural cycles, does the axix wobble at times? The unfortunate thing is the subject has become political, which means nothing will happen either way.

I wish the lefties would pursue terrorists with the same conviction and alarmist action as they do the weather. ww

BTW not unlike the way these automatons use "Democrat Party" for Democratic Party.

I remember you mentioning that before, though I don't recall seeing it. Sure you're not thinking referring to someone as a Democrat?

As when we first spoke, it just seems funny that someone with your handle gets so annoyed out how people refer to Democrats.

While the data that we have is still scant, it would appear that we are part of a solar system. All planets in the system have consistently experienced periods of global warming and global cooling. One planet has some arrogant inhabitants called leftists or liberals - they seem to believe that they and others of their species can change the properties of the solar system with rather minute changes of the environment on their planet. Some day they will evolve to comprehend the data/world/solar system around them.

The point being, step back, consider the big picture and try to grasp a bit of the science rather than straws that support ridiculously simplistic theories. There is a big difference between the politics of global warming and the fact that we have come a long way, but still have a long way to go to limit some types of pollution. Most all of the advances in this area though have come through scientific advances and technology, not through limiting use of resources.

I have been a scientist/engineer for over 20 years now - the most disturbing thing happening today is letting media attempt to interpret and communicate scientific knowledge/conclusions. It is much akin to having a 5 year old interpret the Constitution and then believing him.

Heralder

I wouldn't be using the handle were it not for the Republics who insist upon using "Democrat Senator" or"Democrat Party." The usage was promoted in the early '90's by Gingrich and the Republic architect of "no-speak," Frank Luntz who uses study groups to devise language usage that gets people to endorse something that they would otherwise not support or oppose something that they would otherwise favor.

For example, the use of "death tax" for the Estate tax. And, typically the Republic Pavlovian puppies salivate on cue.

As long as commenters here persist w/ this usage of "Democrat" for Democratic I will keep my handle.

politicals

"with rather minute changes of the environment on their planet"Tell that to LA denizens who deal w/ smog, altho because of restrictions the situation has mitigated.

But, go to Hong Kong to view Victoria Island from Kowloon and tell us whether you can see it. 35 years ago, you could. Or land in Beijing and as you ride in from the airport look at the soot in the air that limits your view to a couple of thousand feet, if that.

Or Tehran... among many locations.

Tell those people these relatively minor changes that have occured w/ some "scientific" presentation that says humans cannot affect the planet..

aRepuklican:

As long as commenters here persist w/ this usage of "Democrat" for Democratic I will keep my handle.

It's a deal. I'll keep using Democrat, you keep your handle.

Pukeface is obsessed that someone, somewhere, is using "Democrat" instead of "Democratic," and believes that it is his right to "punish" the readers here (somehow) for that offense. I don't quite see why he is going to put someone he despises in charge of his own sobriquet, but it must make some sort of sense to him.

But my patience with his notion of "collective punishment" (which is actually a lot closer to "collective mild irritation and self-degradation" is wearing thin. It might be time for that name to disappear...

J.

Calling him Algore is disrespectful and makes conservatives look bad. Name calling is wrong.

"Pukeface is obsessed that someone, somewhere, is using "Democrat" instead of "Democratic," "

Bush recently apologized to Democrats for his continued incorrect use of "Democrat Party" in place of "Democratic Party".

I suppose he was somewhat embarrassed that, as President of the United States, he didn't know the name of the the opposing party - but at least he pulled off the apology with a laugh.

In light of the earth having been much warmer when the Vikings first explored Greenland and portions of the Canadian coast, and much cooler during the Little Ice Age of the 17th and 18th century, a question: Can anyone tell me what temperature the earth OUGHT to be?

"Can anyone tell me what temperature the earth OUGHT to be?"

Just right!

FelchFace

When you have used something other than "puke face" I have not used "felch Face' as a form of address. When others have used "puke," or when others have used "arepuke" or other similar forms, I have not responded w/ a snotty form of address, with the exception of a couple of offensive and consistently silly commenters who I'll leave unnamed here.

"But my patience with his notion of "collective punishment" (which is actually a lot closer to "collective mild irritation and self-degradation" is wearing thin."

If it's merely a "mild irritation," why the big gun?

More importantly, why can't you and others here simply use proper English language? Or, is it more important to you and your obsequious puppies to hurl the implied insult to a political group rather than make whatever point you think that has some modicum of validity?

Would you eliminate someone because they find it offensive that you and your followers prefer to march in lock-step w/ the implied insult dreamed up by Gingrich/Luntz?

Jay, I thought from, what seems to me to be your attempt for reasoned and logical posts, that you would be above such juvenile tactics.

Perhaps a definition at the outset might have helped the discourse (not that everyone her reads every word before posting).

"Global warming" means the notion that the current global warming trend is due to human actions and not phenomena outside our control.

We really shouldn't get excited about cold snaps and snowstorms - they are effects of redistribution of heat/cold that could be part of a climatic warming trend. Or not.

I still find it hard to accept that cyclical solar activity and earth based environmental cycles are not more important than carbon emissions when it comes to overall global climate. One good volcanic emission dwarfs all we do with our puny internal combustion engines.

My my there pukeface you used some mighty big words there. Being an old country boy,I had to get out my Webster. Still don't know what you said but it could of been that you was back tracking a little. Hmmm.

Epador - you might be interested in the essay here - yes, there IS global warming, caused by methane release, AND if we hadn't started releasing methane close to 5000 years ago, we'd be in pretty chilly conditions at the present time - probably 2 millennia into the slide towards the deep freeze.

It takes into account solar cycles, various earth precessional cycles, and also accounts for certain 'blips' in the CO2 and methane levels.

It's long, but pretty thourough. It made ME a believer in the possibility of global warming, because it very clearly laid out the data to back up the claims. But in this case, it makes the anti-PC claim that global warming is a GOOD thing.

"Can anyone tell me what temperature the earth OUGHT to be?"
Just right!

Now that is the essence of true wit.

As for the whole "Democrat(ic) Party" argument that has so many of your knickers in a twist. May I just say something.

Most people don't give a shit.

Really. They don't.

And the whole "Algore" thing? Eh, mildly amusing, but not really worth arguing about. Especially coming from hypocritical leftists who shriek howls of derisive laughter from such clever constructions as "Chimpy McHaliburton", or "BusHitler".

Really, can we get some adults in here, please?

I mean, our Congress critters from either party wouldn't hold up ten minutes in a UK Parliamentary debate. And "Question Time"?---

JLawson - I guess I am guilty of contributing to global warming since as I have gotten older I have found that I have been releasing more methane gas than previously. I asked my doctor about this since my wife was complaining about it. He said to tell her that I was a "primary gas former" (Doc has a sense of humor). My wife was not impressed! I think that a lot of others commenting on this post are primary gas formers also!

There's certainly a legitimate debate about global warming, although the scientific consenus seems to agree that it's a serious issue and that man is the cause. But really, can we stop the foolishness? Making a global warming swipe every time it snows was unfunny the first time it was done years ago. Can't you come up with some original material? I don't know what's sadder, saying you just shoveled 8 iomches of global warming out of your driveway, or applauding that comment as somehow being new or original. Really, we get it. Perhaps you could save evryone some time and just post the words "global warming" every time it snows. Then we can all fill in the tired jokes and move on.

And Paul, I have to make special mention of your Copernicus comment. Despite the fact that Copernicus was the scientist who was being opposed by the unscientific, your comment reads as though scientific consensus is worthless. So is it your point that we can never know anything scientifically, or that science itself is useless?

Puke,
Given your ire regarding the use of the term Democrat vs Democratic, what do you think about the party's official website being democrats.org?

BTW, do you get your talking points from media matters or the New Yorker?

There's certainly a legitimate debate about global warming,

There is no debate. The "scientific consensus" you describe has already declared the debate over. When a group like the IPCC starts letting critical scientists into the fold and starts considering different modes of global warming other than human-caused, then the debate will occur. Until then, we will be left with summaries for policy makers (the conclusion of the IPCC's report) coming out before the actual raw data.

So is it your point that we can never know anything scientifically, or that science itself is useless?

When science is used to further a political idealogy without critical analysis, then yes, it is useless.