Political News and Commentary with the Right Perspective. NAVIGATION
  • Front Page
  • News
  • Multimedia
  • Tags
  • RSS Feed

  • Advertise on RightMichigan.com


    Get the RightMighigan.com toolbar!



    Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?

    Raise the curtain.

    Okay, Now They're Just Playing With Us

    By The Wizard of Laws, Section News
    Posted on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 11:49:56 AM EST
    Tags: AGW, Al Gore, climate, global, laughs, planet, time, warming (all tags)

    Cross-Posted in The Wizard of Laws

    As you may know, the case for anthropogenic global warming (AGW), if there ever was one, is collapsing. Phil Jones, the director of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, ground zero in the war on carbon emissions, put another nail in the coffin when he admitted to the BBC that there has not been any statistically significant warming since 1995.

    Apparently, the fact and effect of Jones's about-face is taking some time to drift over to the AGW zealots here in the colonies. Or perhaps they're just snowed in and can't receive transmissions from the home planet.

    Take, for example, Jane Lubchenco, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NAOA). Lubchenco was asked whether she agreed with Jones that there had been no statistically significant warming since 1995. Of course, she couldn't admit it, so she fell back on the old "that's a stupid question" posture, saying that "it is inappropriate to look at any particular short period of time to discern the long-term trend."

    Huh? What was that? Inappropriate to look at a short period of time? She's kidding, right?

    From 1940 to 1970, we were in a period of falling temperatures, prompting the usual nutcases to run screaming into the streets about "global cooling." But that stopped, so they ceased their hysterics, gathered themselves, and made lemons out of lemonade by redirecting their efforts to fight the illusion of global warming. Pretty resourceful.

    So, was there actual warming from 1970 to 1995? Let's say there was -- that's only 25 years. Is 25 years somehow enough time to "discern the long-term trend" but 15 years isn't? What is the cutoff? And to what are we comparing the number of years to conclude whether they constitute a "short period of time" or a long-term trend? To the life of Earth?

    As I thought about these things, it finally occurred to me -- this is all just one huge joke! After her interview, Lubchenco went back to her office, called Al Gore or some of her other pals and had a good laugh:

    Lubchenco: (Laughing hysterically) And then, I said you can't use the last 15 years because it's too short a time!

    Gore: (Doing that Precious Pup-type snicker) Oh no you didn't! That's too much! Did they believe you?

    Lubchenco: (Wiping tears from her eyes) Of course they did! I'm the NAOA Administrator; I know all about science and stuff.

    Gore: Oh man, I wish I could have been there. It would have been just like when I won the Academy Award. For best documentary! We slapped that thing together in a weekend! And they bought it! God, I love Hollywood.

    I think I would have more respect for these people if they really were just putting one over on us for laughs, rather than pushing this ludicrous agenda as an excuse to ruin our economy and seize even more power.

    Fifty years ago, conservatives gathered at William F. Buckley Jr.'s home in Sharon, CT, to sign the Sharon Statement, a collection of conservative principles. Two in particular apply here with gusto:

    That the market economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand, is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government, and that it is at the same time the most productive supplier of human needs;

    That when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation; that when it takes from one man to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both[.]

    < In the MACKINAC CENTER Sphere Today | Now, That's Experience! >

    Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

    Display: Sort:
    Thats Funny (none / 0) (#1)
    by grannynanny on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 01:42:35 PM EST
    A Dutch skater made the same statement to an NBC reporter the other day at the Olympics.  As soon as he was done with his event the NBC reporter shoved a microphone into his face and asked a really assinine question and the skater replied:  "Are you stupid?"  

    If only more people would ask the same of these scientists and reporters.  Only change it up a bit - "Do you really agree with Bill Maher and think the American public are that stupid?" We are not stupid and they will find that out come November.

    Cato Inst. says otherwise (none / 0) (#2)
    by mcdirt on Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 09:18:45 AM EST
    Climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute, one of the leading and most credentialed of climate change skeptics has told multiple audiences, including one at the Detroit News climate change panel during this year's auto show, a much different story. He says that using mid- and late 1990s global temps as the jumping off point from which to suggest there has been "no significant increase" since then is misleading, since the most powerful El Nino ever recorded was responsible for extraordinarily high temps in that part of the decade. He has warned audiences at skeptics' forums never to make this argument, because it such a blatant  deception and so easily undercut that it undermines the credibility of other skeptics' positions that he considers credible.

    Display: Sort:


    Make a new account

    Tweet along with RightMichigan by
    following us on Twitter HERE!
    create account | faq | search