Why the shift in terminology on climate? Because it's difficult to discuss a hoax like global warming, when it's fricking freezing! And in unseasonably cold winter weather, storms recently pounded the Northeast. I have spent most of this week in Las Vegas, the location chosen by my team, because we wanted to "go somewhere warm." It has snowed two days in a row, 11" in some areas. When it snows in Vegas, well that's sort of like 'hell freezing over'. Global warming, Vegas style!
It may surprise some readers to learn that in the 1970s, "global cooling" was all the rage. Concern peaked in the early 1970s, partly because of the cooling trend that began in 1945. Two decades of a cooling trend suggested a trough had been reached after several decades of warming, and partly because much less was then known about world climate and causes of ice ages. Although there was a cooling trend, scientists were perfectly well aware that predictions based on this trend were not possible - because the trend was poorly studied and not understood. And like our mainstream media of today, the popular press of this period reported global cooling generally without the caveats present in the scientific reports. So the boogeyman of the 70s, according to liberals was that man was creating a world that would be colder than a bucket of penguin doo-doo.
In 1966 Caesar Emiliani, author of the Quaternay Hypsithermals predicted that a new glaciation would begin within a thousand years. At least he kept is narrow for us. And in the next decade Emiliani warned,
"Man's activity may either precipitate this new ice age or lead to substantial or even total melting of the ice caps." But wait… in "The Modern Temperature Trend", The Discovery of Global Warming, Spencer Weart writes,
Global climate change incorporates tsunamis, monsoons, cyclones, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, dust storms, lake effects, landslides, sink holes, sink links, busted pipes, tidal waves, rogue waves, Miss America waves, and world peace…and anything else that these snake oil salesmen want to add. Can I get fries with my impending ecological disaster of choice brought on by global climate change?
And the alarmists knew that even the most stupid people, yes even liberals had finally caught on to the ruse of discussing the subject of global warming only during a blistering hot summer and at a blistering hot location like Death Valley. Hawaii at a constant 80 degrees would offer "just another stinky day in paradise". And God-forbid they pick a cold climate to host a global warming meeting? It's difficult to discuss the destruction of the world from global warming, when it's colder than the hair on a polar bear's butt.
So scientists on the other side of this hoax are now fighting back, most recently 650 prominent scientists speaking out. 30,000 others are suing Al Gore over the hoax. I guess they want their part of the Nobel Peace Prize money. To them I say, "Tax Gore's liberal ass".
So where do I stand on all of this? I believe in global warming. I believe in global cooling. Is man affecting both? Sure. To what degree? I'd say man's impact on "earth" is about as significant as a butterfly's wing flapping disrupting airport travel.
So call it what you want, global warming, global climate change, or whatever, it's just another alarmist attempt to take money out of your pocket. Going green is not about saving the earth, but it is indeed about going "green", which is to say that liberals are always looking for a way to pick your pocket. Those shifty band of hooligans!
That's my rant!
© 2008 Kevin Jackson – The Black Sphere All Rights Reserved