Click to bookmark this page!

- Contact Me -
Include your email address

<< September 2005 >>
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
 01 02 03
04 05 06 07 08 09 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30

Just in case you weren't sure...
If you want to be updated on this weblog Enter your email here:

rss feed

Shameless Self-Promotion

Buy this book (not just because it contains two of my op-eds):
Americans on Politics, Policy, and Pop Culture:
The 101 Best Opinion Editorials From

An Interview With the G-Man:
My first (hopefully not last) experience in live radio, being interviewed by G. Gordon Liddy!

Joe Mariani

Number of people freed from totalitarian dictatorships by precision use of American military force under George W. Bush:
50 million in just two years

Number of people freed from totalitarian dictatorships by anti-American Bush-bashing terrorist-appeasing whining elitists:
Zero. Ever.

The problem seems to me to be the definition of "free speech". Liberals define it as anything they want to say or do that opposes America. I say "speech" ends where "action" begins. Once you pick up a gun for the enemy, throw a rock at a cop during a "peace" march, send money to a terrorist organisation, or travel to Baghdad to block an American JDAM with your ass, you have crossed the line from free speech to costly action.

Saying the War on Terror is all about al-Qaeda is like saying we should have fought the Japanese Naval Air Force after Pearl Harbor. Not the Japanese Navy, not the Japanese Army, not the Empire of Japan -- just the Naval Air Force.

Complaining about the "waste" when human embryos are destroyed instead of being used in medical experiments is a lot like going to a funeral and complaining about the waste of perfectly good meat.

Blaming CO2 for climate change is like blaming smoke for the fire. CO2 is largely a following, not a leading, indicator of a rise in temperature.

Cavalier's First Theorem:
Every time, Liberals will fight to protect the guilty and kill the innocent, while Conservatives will fight to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.

Cavalier's Second Theorem:
Liberals are just Socialists who want to be loved... then again, Socialists are just Communists who lack the courage of their convictions.

Cavalier's Third Theorem:
Any strongly moral, hawkish or pro-American statement by a Liberal will inevitably be followed by a "but."


Infamous Monsters of Filmland

Day by Day: Chris Muir's witty comic strip with a political bent

The Ultimate War Simulation: Why does this scenario seem so familiar?

What Kind of Liberal Are You?
Save me the trouble of figuring out what kind of idiot you are

Blame Bush
Because Bush is to blame... for everything

Sacred Cow Burgers
Web Archive

Satirical Political Beliefs Test

Communists for Kerry

Cooper's Protester Guide

Fellowship 9/11: Sauron never attacked Rohan, Saruman did! Yet a small group of elitists convinced Middle-earth to divert resources from the real war to attack Mordor for personal gain.


When Democrats Attack
Did prominent Democrats switch positions on Iraq just to attack President Bush for political gain? (See the updated list.)

Was Iraqi Freedom Justified?
An honest, step-by-step analysis of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq that Congress voted into law shows that it was.

Saddam's Philanthropy of Terror
Details of solid ties to organised international terrorism

How The Left Betrayed Iraq
by Naseer Flayih Hasan

Did We Botch The Occupation?
No, not of Iraq: of Germany. Read the media's take on how we "lost the peace" in 1946 and compare.

Debunking 8 Anti-War Myths About the Conflict in Iraq

Pictures from Hate Bush/Hate America/Hate Capitalism/Hate Israel/general wacko rallies
- by Zombie

Jihad Watch

Useful Links

Share your wish list with friends and family

Free online file transfer - even works with Android phones

Reviews of hotels, flights and sites
Convenient comparison shopping

Reading Material

The best right-wing news and commentary

GOP USA Commentary Corner

Men's News Daily
The New Media
a project of Frontiers of Freedom

SF Chronicle watchdog and conservative news

American Daily
Analysis with political and social commentary

The Conservative Voice
Conservative news and opinion

News By Us
...not news bias
Conservative and Libertarian Intellectual Philosophy and Politics
Practical conservatism for the common man

Analysis, Commentary and Opinion on the Real World
Philly news and blogs

Now Reading

The Fatal Conceit:
The Errors of Socialism
by F. A. Hayek

Articles Previously Published at

- When Good Liberals Go Bad - 05/29/03
- How Stupid Do Democrats Think You Are? - 05/31/03
- Who Are These 'Rich' Getting Tax Cuts, Anyway? - 06/02/03
- How Can We Miss The Clintons If They Won't Go Away? - 06/04/03
- Whining of Mass Distraction: How To Discredit A President - 06/05/03
- Liberal "Rules" for Arguing - 06/10/03
- Liberalism: Curable or Terminal? - 06/14/03
- Filibustering Judges: Hijacking Presidential Powers? - 06/17/03
- Is Hamas Exempt from the War on Terror? - 06/22/03
- How Malleable Is The Constitution? - 06/26/03
- Rejecting Our Biological and Cultural Heritage - 06/30/03
- I Need Liberal Assistance, Now! - 07/02/03
- Bring Them On - 07/03/03
- We Need You Arrogant Warmongering Americans...Again - 07/09/03
- Much Ado About Nothing, Again - 07/13/03
- Double Standard: Blindly Blame Bush - 07/18/03
- Was WWII Also Unjustified? - 07/20/03
- Clinton Backing Bush? Don't Bet On It! - 07/24/03
- How To Be A Hypocritical Liberal - 07/28/03
- The Clinton Legacy: In Answer to Mr. Stensrud - 07/30/03
-What Is 'Good News' To Liberals? - 08/02/03
- Bush's Big Blunder - 08/06/03
- The Meaning of Right - Why I Supported the Iraq War - 08/10/03
- More Liberal "Rules" for Arguing - 08/14/03
- You Can Have Cary Grant; I'll Take John Wayne! - 08/19/03
- Where Is The ACLU When It's Actually Needed? - 08/25/03
- Who's Afraid Of The Big Bad Ten Commandments? - 08/28/03
- From The Weasels: Thanks For Nothing - 08/30/03
- The Liberal Superfriends - 09/02/03
- Liberal Superfriends 2: The Sequel - 09/05/03
- Saddam and 9/11: Connect the Dots - 09/08/03
- Throwing Away the Southern Vote - 11/02/03
- Libya: The First Domino Falls - 12/20/03
- Is the UN Playing Games with American Politics? - 03/04/04

Blogs to Browse

Across the Pond
Arts for Democracy
Betsy's Page
Bill Karl
Blonde Sagacity
Bull Moose Strikes Back
Common Sense & Wonder
Conservative Pleasure
Dangerous Logic
Everything I Know Is Wrong
Freedom of Thought
Sally Girl
Korla Pundit
Mark Nicodemo
Michelle Malkin
My Arse From My Elbow
QandO Blog
Rebel Rouser
Sally Girl
Samantha Burns
Semi-Intelligent Thoughts
Sighed Effects
Sister Toldjah
Stark Truth
Take A Stand Against Liberals
The Resplendent Mango
The Right Society
Tom's Common Sense
Tom DeLay
Tomfoolery of the Highest Order
Trying to Grok
TS Right Dominion
Violent Daydreams
Watcher of Weasels
Word Around the Net

Locations of visitors to this page

Friday, September 23, 2005
Goodbye to Anthropogenic Global Warming

As predictable as the path of an apple falling from a tree, you can always count on Liberals to bring up the canard of human-caused global warming in any discussion that touches upon nature. You can reasonably expect that they will blame any natural disaster on our refusal to surrender to the self-destructive fallacy of the Kyoto agreement. Well, current natural disasters, anyway -- they don't seem to blame the 1900 Galveston hurricane on global warming the way they lay blame for Hurricane Katrina, nor do they accuse mankind of causing the 1868 Nazca earthquake as they do the earthquake that caused the 2004 South Asia tsunami.

Before the rain even stopped falling in New Orleans, Liberals like Robert Kennedy Jr. were already on the attack. "As Hurricane Katrina dismantles Mississippiís Gulf Coast, itís worth recalling the central role that Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour played in derailing the Kyoto Protocol and kiboshing President Bushís iron-clad campaign promise to regulate CO2," he wrote. People like Kennedy have spent years using natural disasters to demand that the Western world dismantle its industrial base, while allowing countries like China and Indonesia free reign. It's a sort of industrio-socialism, using propaganda to enforce a homogenised economic and industrial outcome in entirely different countries.

Kyoto, beloved of Liberals, demands that signatories reduce their emissions of certain greenhouse gases to below 1990 levels. The only way for America to comply would be to force companies to reduce production and spend money on expensive environmental controls. This would result in companies relocating their operations to non-Kyoto countries to avoid going bankrupt. And Liberals complain about "sending jobs overseas" now! No wonder Congress soundly rejected it in 1997. Such a move would cause the biggest jump in unemployment in the Western world since the Great Depression. Another result would be the worst pollution imaginable, from countries that have no little or no environmental regulation at all.

Polluting the other side of the planet doesn't seem as important to some Liberals as not polluting the backyards of the rich and famous, however. Indonesia is responsible for releasing one-seventh of the total CO2 (carbon dioxide) emitted every year, but Liberals never seem to mind that. They would be more strident about peat-burning in Indonesia if the reduction of greenhouse gases was their real aim. Meanwhile, Senator John Kerry and the Kennedy clan, great proponents of wind and solar power that they pretend to be, threw up legal roadblocks to prevent a company from building a wind farm within sight of their Martha's Vinyard and Nantucket retreats. "People want to look out and see the same sight the Pilgrims saw," said Robert Kennedy Jr. -- yes, the same man who attacked President Bush for not reducing CO2 emissions. By "people," he must have meant, "the important people."

At the root of all this hysteria and hypocrisy is the absolute Liberal certainty that global warming is caused by humanity, particularly industrialised capitalist Western nations. You know... the bad guys at the heart of any Liberal fantasy. It was only a few decades ago that the media was full of calamitous warnings about the coming global freeze. Liberals are sure they're correct this time, though. This time, they tell us, the world really is going to end. Scout's honor.

Proponents of anthropogenic global warming deliberately ignore the fact that the global mean temperature, along with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, have risen and fallen in an easily discernible pattern for at least 400,000 years -- all without interference from lowly humans -- and that it's just reaching a high point between cold snaps. If we all try really hard, we just might be able to add enough CO2 to trip the cycle into the next 50,000 year downslope a few years early.

The keystone of anthropogenic global warming is that the global mean temperature has risen sharply in the last 150 years, since scientists began to measure it. Of course, in order to make their case, Liberals have to ignore the fact that we're still emerging from the Little Ice Age -- a cold spell that gripped the Northern Hemisphere for centuries, until about 150 years ago. Of course the temperature is rising. But is it really due to human influence?

For years, Conservatives have tried in vain to explain to eco-freaks and enviro-nazis that the Earth is largely self-regulating, when they're the ones who often claim it's a living organism. There's a reason we talk about cycles and seasons. When the level of CO2 rises -- which plants certainly don't see as "pollution" -- it triggers natural modulating influences. Higher temperatures melt ice, which causes heavier cloud cover due to moisture, which reflects more of the sun's light back into space, which lowers the temperature. And so on.

When CO2 levels fall too low, natural processes cause it to be released from the soil -- as seems to be happening now. Researchers from the UK's Cranfield University found that some 13 million tons of carbon are being released from the soil every year, as Reuters recently reported. "Since the carbon appears to be released from soil regardless of how the soil is used, the researchers conclude that the main cause must be climate change itself. Though they could not say where all the missing carbon had gone, much of it may be entering the atmosphere as the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane, which many scientists say is causing global warming." Scientists from Germany's Max-Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry wrote, "These losses thus completely offset the past technological achievements in reducing CO2 emissions, putting the UK's success in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in a different light." In other words, many Kyoto signatory nations have crippled their industry, spent vast amounts of money and caused rampant unemployment for absolutely nothing.

Science -- not junk science based on hysteria and ideology, but real science based on data and reason -- suggests that global warming is driven more by the sun than anything humans have done. A recent study by Swiss and German scientists indicates that the sun is burning hotter than it has at anytime in the past thousand years. "The Sun is in a changed state," stated Dr. Sami Solanki, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research. "It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently -- in the last 100 to 150 years." Does that time frame sound vaguely familiar? It's about the same time the Little Ice Age began to end -- the same time that Liberals claim humans began to cause global warming. Isn't it clear that the sun is the real cause? Shouldn't we at least examine this before ruining our economy for nothing?

Every experiment must have a control, or a source of data uncorrupted by the experiment itself. There are no humans on Mars, and there's no way we could influence its climate. Yet Mars is also experiencing global warming, which strengthens the hypothesis that Earth's global warming is heliogenic, or sun-based, to the point of positive proof. It's simply not possible that the sun could cause environmental warming on Mars, but that similar warming on Earth is caused by SUVs and capitalism.

In the absence of any evidence to support it, the anthropogenic global warming argument is as dead as the dinosaurs whose ancient remains I put in my gas tank this afternoon. I'm going to celebrate with a cookout.

Hat tip to Mike's America for the Cranfield University story.

Posted at Friday, September 23, 2005 by CavalierX

September 23, 2005   09:44 PM PDT

Shrimp on the barbie!

Count me in, Cav!

September 23, 2005   09:57 PM PDT
But... you don't LIKE shrimp. I was gonna throw a Bambi on the barbie, seeing as it's hunting season...
September 23, 2005   10:42 PM PDT
Go for broke. Throw them both on. I'm sure none will go to waste
September 23, 2005   11:49 PM PDT
You don't understand. Bobby K, jr. ain't made of the same stuff as his father. He's made out of the same shit as his Uncle Teddy!
Who Needs Civil Liberties?
September 24, 2005   03:03 PM PDT
Hey girlieman, your article has all the intelligence and insight of a Michael Bay movie. If you don't understand the science and massive agreement among the scientific community in regards to global warming, then you are only doing your children a disservice. Unless you don't give a crap about their future, I would urge you and all of your misinformed and angry readers to do a little research. We're all in this together buddy, whether you like it or not. We mess up this world and our children pay for it. Hurricane Katrina and Rita, two category 5 hurricanes just 3 weeks apart from each other, are just the tip of the melting iceberg.
September 24, 2005   03:46 PM PDT
LOL! Now that was pure comedy gold! Typical Leftist reaction when faced with facts instead of blind acceptance. Start with an insult, then move on to scream the same disproved argument, only louder. Kid, science isn't democratic. If it was, we'd still be certain that the Sun revolves around the Earth. If you can't accept the results of scientific inquiry when it conflicts with your ideology, please go back to your cave.
September 24, 2005   06:00 PM PDT
I don't understand. What part global warming do you dissagree with? Rising temperatures are documented. There's no controversy there.

Maybe you need read the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which involved hundreds of scientists from many countries.

This report basically states that:
"The earth's climate has changed over the last century and there is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Moreover, evolving computer models are predicting that temperatures should continue to rise over the 21st century."

So, if there is something we can do about it, why shouldn't we? Why are you afraid of America taking the lead on this?
September 24, 2005   06:12 PM PDT
Its funny. In the same study that you site regarding the increasing temperature of the sun, it clearly points to the human contribution to global warming.

"The study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase. This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate the natural factors involved in climate change"

Your own research contradicts you.

Ha ha!
September 24, 2005   06:23 PM PDT
>I don't understand. What part
>global warming do you dissagree

The cause to which it is attributed without proof, of course. Didn't you bother to read the post before commenting?

>hundreds of scientists from many

Science is not based on concensus, but evidence, fact and logic. Would you like a link to the petition 17,000 scientists signed, begging the US government not to listen to the anthropogenic warming fanatics? Here you go:
September 24, 2005   06:29 PM PDT
>In the same study that you site
>regarding the increasing
>temperature of the sun, it clearly
>points to the human contribution
>to global warming.

Poor guy. You didn't notice that that statement was made by an entirely different person from the scientists who produced the evidence, did you? And he produced no evidence to refute the claim, or an alternate explanation, did he? And you didn't notice that even he grudgingly agreed that the sun affects global warming, did you?
September 24, 2005   06:32 PM PDT
>So, if there is something we can
>do about it, why shouldn't we?

You didn't even NOTICE the Cranfield University research, did you? Every bit of the CO2 emission reduction was offset by natural processes. Stop interfering with nature!
September 25, 2005   12:15 AM PDT
>>So, if there is something we can
>>do about it, why shouldn't we?

>You didn't even NOTICE the Cranfield
>University research, did you? Every bit
>of the CO2 emission reduction was offset
>by natural processes. Stop interfering
>with nature!

Your statement does not make logical sense. Are you saying that if we reduce CO2 emissions by 1000 pounds per day, then nature will magically create 1000 pounds of extra CO2 every day, thereby offsetting our efforts exactly. This is ridiculous.

It's a fact that if we reduce our emissions, there will be less emissions. The natural generation of CO2 is completely independent of our contributions to global warming.

It seems that all you want to do is deny that there is a problem.

If 1000 people come into your house and tell you have a gas leak, would you try to fix it? Or would you ignore it.

I already know your answer.

I'll bet you work for a tobacco company.
September 25, 2005   05:01 AM PDT
>It's a fact that if we reduce our
>emissions, there will be less

And it won't make any difference at all in the long run. How do you plan to shut down the SUN, eh?
September 26, 2005   01:55 AM PDT
Answer my question.

If 1000 people come into your house and tell you have a gas leak, would you try to fix it? Or would you deny it?
September 26, 2005   06:15 AM PDT
They say that there are no stupid questions, but they are wrong, as it turns out.
September 26, 2005   12:00 PM PDT
Its a very commonly used technique by weak minded people to insult the question rather when they can't come up with an answer.

Q: Why is there so much pork in the recent energy and transportation bills?

A: That's ridiculous.

If you are unable to debate then there is not hope for either of us. Such a shame. Goodbye.
September 26, 2005   02:34 PM PDT
ďIf 1000 people come into your house and tell you have a gas leak, would you try to fix it? Or would you deny it?Ē
Personally I would deny it. All of my appliances run on electricity.

One of my old college professors used to say ďThatís a good question, but Iím sorry you are stupid.Ē
September 26, 2005   03:25 PM PDT
>insult the question rather when
>they can't come up with an answer

But the question makes no logical sense; it leaves out all context. A slightly more proper scenario would be if those 1000 people told me I had a gas leak, but 100 other people told me the gas leak was coming from the house next door, and compared the neighbor's unusually-high gas bill with my normal bill to prove it.
September 26, 2005   07:31 PM PDT
Again...using logic only scares liberals away. It's rather exasperating, I have to admit.
September 26, 2005   07:47 PM PDT
An interesting development: after this post was reprinted at, the executive producer of G. Gordon Liddy's show on Radio America contacted me to set up a phone interview on the air tomorrow (27 Sept). Anyone who wants to hear me stammering and forgetting my own name can listen in at sometime between 10am and 1pm EST... if they do, in fact, put me on the air.
Neal J. Lang
September 27, 2005   01:50 PM PDT
"One of my old college professors used to say 'Thatís a good question, but Iím sorry you are stupid'."

As a great general once said: "Don't get stuck on stupid!"
Neal J. Lang
September 27, 2005   01:55 PM PDT
"Its a very commonly used technique by weak minded people to insult the question rather when they can't come up with an answer."

Hmmm! Such as?

"I'll bet you work for a tobacco company."

I see!
September 27, 2005   04:51 PM PDT
The purpose of the left is to use environmental non-science (rhymes with nonsense) because the environment transcends our borders giving them the ability to claim that our sovereignity must not count when we are ruining the planet for other countries, hence we need a UN or ONe World Government to control the USA.

Just the ONE World communist movement in disguise!

Why did the avowed (he never dis-avowed communism) Soviet leader, Michael Gorbachov become head of green cross of the world? This after the country he led was one of the worst polluters of the planet ever.
September 27, 2005   07:23 PM PDT
>I see that you have deleted my
>comments from your blog. It's
>looks like you are afraid for your
>readers to see a point of view that
>contradicts your politically
>motivated ideology.

Actually, it was because you're a talking-point-spewing partisan hack without an original thought to keep you warm at night, but you go ahead and think whatever makes you happy.

>Your censorship of my opinion

This blog is private property. I didn't like your earlier insults, especially after you emailed them to me and I destroyed your talking points privately. You should have spared yourself the embarassment.

>Your facts are wrong that the sun
>is driving global warming.

I might change my mind to think that Liberal bloviating drives global warming.

>The effect of greenhouse gases
>on the Earth's atmosphere has
>increased 20 percent since
>Since 1990, the sun has not
>increased in irradiance

Because, of course, Liberal physics tell us that things happen instantly. The second you take the frying pan off the fire, it's room temperature, right? Has it DECREASED? No. If the sun has stopped brightening, we'll probably see a smaller increase in global mean temperature in the next decade or two. Anyone who ever cracked a science book would know that it's not the direct effect of the sun, but the effect of the carbon released from the soil that warms the atmosphere.

>A solid scientific understanding
>confirms that greenhouse gases
>such as carbon dioxide
>accumulate in the atmosphere as
>a result human activities.

Right, so the sun causes global warming on Mars, but its radiation magically bypasses the Earth. Hey, I'm still waiting to hear what kind of SUVs the Neanderthals were driving that began the thaw after the last ice age. Oh, well.
September 27, 2005   11:11 PM PDT

If you take Newsmax at it's face value, you should have your head permanently removed and replaced with something that works like a real brain.
September 28, 2005   03:00 AM PDT
You mean the New York Times, I think.
September 28, 2005   01:01 PM PDT
>the idea that global warming is
>real is not my original idea

Nobody said it isn't happening. Try reading the articles you comment on.

As for the rest of your post, all you've told us is that groups of scientists who get grants to study anthropogenic global warming keep telling us that they need more grants to study anthropogenic global warming. Until you -- well, they -- address heliogenic global warming on Mars as well as the fact that the Sun increased its output at about the same time they blame humans for the start of global warming, you -- and they -- are just spewing junk science in hopes that we won't notice. You also need to explain why you think the increased CO2 won't trigger a cooling cycle, as it has thousands of times in the past -- why you think that the Earth is so delicate that even the slightest increment in CO2 will wreck the cycle. It's all hysteria. It's all lies. And people like you repeat it like obedient little parrots.
September 28, 2005   08:06 PM PDT
>this stuff about mars and CO2
>causing cooling

You really ought to read articles before you comment on them. Maybe, you know, follow the links embedded in the text or something. It would save you some embarassment, at least. And as for the Earth's heating/cooling cycle, perhaps you should have paid attention in high school.

>a stunning reduction in arctic sea
>ice at the end of this summer

And an increase in antarctic ice. So? Are you still laboring under the odd delusion that I think global warming is not taking place?

>The questions you say the
>scienctists must answer have
>been answered.

True. The sun's energy warms the soil, which releases carbon into the atmosphere. As CO2 increases, cloud cover thickens, which reflects more sunlight, which cools the planet. A similar cycle apparently happens on Mars. My five-year-old nephew would have no trouble understanding this. Is he more intelligent than you?
September 29, 2005   06:51 AM PDT
By "credible" and "legitimate," you mean "supported by Liberal groups" and "dependent on grant money." You're actually saying, "I won't believe the facts until someone who has a vested interest in convincing me that humans are responible for global warming tells me they were wrong about that." Is that really what your argument has come down to -- forget the data, you want some Authority to tell you what to think? It's sad to see people behaving like sheep.

By "this stuff about Mars," are you trying to say that you don't believe NASA's data? But you were so quick to throw NASA data around earlier, when you thought it suited your argument to do so.

To disbelieve that warmer temperatures eventually lead to cooling is to ignore the most basic facts of climatology. More moisture in the atmosphere means more clouds. Clouds, overall, reflect solar radiation more than the Earth's surface does. Look up "cloud albedo forcing" sometime.
September 29, 2005   09:03 AM PDT
>goes to an article about soil carbon


>I found that the only sources for
>this theory are right wing
>ideologues with an extreme
>conservative political agenda

So only Conservatives believe that the sun puts out light and heat?

>dust storms on Mars, which are
>magnifying the Sunís constant

So you prefer to ignore the recent proof of the Sun's increased output over the last 150 years because it conflicts with your predetermiend viewpoint. Not much point in having a discussion with someone who does that, to be honest. I think you'd be more comfortable in left-wing echo chambers like KOS or DU.
September 29, 2005   04:31 PM PDT
>recent anomalous warming on

Do you mean the anomalous warming that took place 25,000, 125,000, 225,000 or 325,000 years ago? Or more recently, did you mean the anomalous warming that took place just before and after 700 AD? Or the "Medieval Warm Period?"

>Your link still points to an article
>on soil warming.

You must be looking somewhere else. It points here:

>No, Iím not ignoring the report,
>Iím reading it.

You're obviously not looking at the data, but letting someone interpret it for you in a way that fits your preconcieved result. See, when you look at data that the sun has warmed, and that the earth has warmed in the same time period, and you say, "must be a coincidence," then there's no point in speaking with you further.

>I said that the sunís contribution is
>tiny compared to greenhouse

Maybe you just don't understand that greenhouse gases are released from the soil itself by the effects of the sun. I refer you to the Cranfield University study.

>As far as I can tell, this is just
>your own personal fantasy

Right. And anthropogenic global warming is yours. Go sit in the corner with the flat-earthers.
September 30, 2005   06:55 AM PDT
>Your insistence that global
>warming is a liberal lie

When it becomes necessary for you to lie about what I've said in order to make a point, you've already lost.

>There has been no effective
>change in any solar energy since
>about 1950

And when you have to ignore any data that conflicts with your talking points, you become laughable.

>As far as I can tell, only right wing
>fanatics share your opinions about
>global warming.

Only left wing fanatics like you place ideology ahead of evidence. That may work for you at Democratic Underground, but it doesn't wash in the real world.
October 1, 2005   02:26 PM PDT
Looks like some scientists are beginning to admit that the Sun plays at least a part:
December 3, 2005   01:42 PM PST
As Chris Folland of the UK Met Office said, "No model has ever been run of an atmosphere wi th increased greenhouse gas concentrations that hasn't produced a warming".

Perhaps you don't care that models predict that by 2050, the world temperature will have risen by 2 degrees, and that countries like Bangladesh will be drowning, and thousands will be dying, but some of us do.

As for your geological argument, that argument sn't sufficient anymore- th rate at which CO2 for example, has risen over the past 200 years has out done those changes dramatically. As for the other temperature varying argument- that geological argument doesn't work, as this is the first human-impacted time, and it greatly differs from the variants in previous millions of years.

Do actually do some research before you make conclusions on what you are talking about. Even George Bush these days admits that Global Warming is occuring. And that definitely means that there is something going on. Maybe Kyoto isn't the way to go, but remember, if the CO2 emissions don't slow down, in 50 years, there will be much more to worry about than terrorism or the economy. All it's going to do is make the poorer countries pay for the greed of the richer.
December 3, 2005   02:57 PM PST
Poor Nysh, didn't bother to read the article before commenting on it. Of course warming is occurring. It's perfectly natural. The Earth warms, the Earth cools, the Earth warms again... in a process driven more by the Sun than SUVs. No amount of "caring" will stop it, nor will anything we poor humans do halt the inevitable geological processes that have been going on for millions of years. Of course... the punch line to all this is the recent Liberal screeching that we now face a new Ice Age. Oh, when will you Chicken Littles get your fearmongering straight?

Leave a Comment:


Homepage (optional)


Previous Entry Home Next Entry