Oh, now they’ve gone and done it

For years, global warming bunkum artists have tried to differentiate between “weather” and “global warming” because they knew that the dummies they were trying to scare would be confused when they checked the temperature outside and noticed it was twenty-below. “Don’t see no global warming here”, the hick would mumble to hisself, and go back to bed.

So “no’, the artists would explain, in very small words, “you’re experiencing weather, and there’s no connection between the two.” An example of just this line of “reason” can be found here at ABC News. ABC even dug up a “scientist” who explains that “weather is infinitely variable – climate change is not.”

Which wasn’t working very well – according to recent polls, Americans remain far more worried about unemployment rates than global warming. Thus the bunkos went back to the books and have now announced that Al Gore was right all along: global warming does cause weather.

And that’s where they’ve finally blown it, because they are now going to have to explain every jot and tittle of our “infinitely variable” weather (infinite means well, infinite) and blame it, all of it, on Al Gore’s flatulence. And it won’t work. When it hits zero in New York, we clods are going to doubt them. When it’s twenty in Seattle, even the latte swillers are going to question why exactly they have to give up their Range Rovers. Admittedly, the previous strategy wasn’t working too well but they should have stuck with that one instead of assuming an obligation to provide a daily explanation for every city around the world.


Filed under Uncategorized

28 responses to “Oh, now they’ve gone and done it

  1. towny

    the earth is getting warmer. has been for the past 50,000 years. chris, 20,000 years ago the area that your home occupies had 300 feet of ice on top of it.
    co2, increases because temp increase. not vice versa. man has had a hand in changing the composition of the face of the earth. maybe 3 0r 4% of one degree’s worth.

  2. Inagua

    Excellent analysis, Chris. But the weakness of the Global Warming hypothesis will not deter the carbon control advocates. They are already in the process of switching their marketing strategy from Global Warming to Clean Energy.

  3. Last Liberal Standing

    This is a staggering display, CF, but not in the way you intend. There are so many loose cannonballs in your four paragraphs that I don’t know where, or whether, to start. But here are two such projectiles:

    “they knew that the dummies they were trying to scare would be confused”: You might be saying that the general public, in the view of the “bunkum artists,” are mostly “dummies” who must be hoodwinked; you might also be suggesting that only “dummies” could be taken in by the global warming “bunkum.” Either way, your message conveniently ignores the fact that a whole lot of un-dumb people–scientists, educators, writers, and renowned critical thinkers from every walk of life–have been the MOST supportive of the global warming argument.

    As for the distinction between weather and climate, I have to ask if you ever heard that they’re not the same thing. I may be the worst science student ever, but I do remember being told, back in junior high school and way before the alleged “bunkum artists” were working their evil deceptions, that the two terms are not identical. Here’s NASA’s explanation, which is straightforward and consistent with what was being taught before the advent of bunkum: “The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere ‘behaves’ over relatively long periods of time.” I should point out that NASA, a group of easily scared dummies otherwise known as rocket scientists, takes climate-change “bunkum” pretty seriously. Take a look: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

  4. Chris,

    Interesting story on Yahoo this morning:


    Your comments?


  5. Global warming is infinitely preferable to global cooling.

  6. Inagua


    Assuming that the world will be a few degrees warmer in a century or so, what is the harm?

  7. Hu Nhu?

    CRITICAL THINKERS? That title tends to be self-bestowed.
    How about a couple of examples………

    Here are a couple of weather experts:



  8. Last Liberal Standing

    “How about a couple of examples………”

    Okay, I know that EVERY member of the following group is a Communist, a freedom hater, a fraud, and a laughable fool, but . . .


    • “Union of Concerned Scientists” a communist front? I absolutely agree with you, for once. Whenever you see the term “concerned” in a group’s title, think commie sympo rats (and of course, Ralph Nader) and you’ll never go wrong. This could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship, LLS.

  9. Last Liberal Standing

    “Here are a couple of weather experts:”

    1. Cool! I hope they stick to weather and leave climate to climate experts.

    2. If the weather experts held their first Climate Fools Day “at Imperial Collage London” in 2009, as posted in the Climate Realists’ very first paragraph, I’d be wary. One can use a collage for any purpose whatsoever, for crissakes!

  10. Last Liberal Standing

    “Assuming that the world will be a few degrees warmer in a century or so, what is the harm?”

    What if the warming produces a positive feedback loop? Big deal, right?

  11. Peg

    Christopher; people are entitled to practice whatever religion they wish. Still – it is unconstitutional for us to have to PAY with our tax dollars for The Religion of Man Made Global Warming (or Global Climate Change) – whatever the faithful are calling themselves these days.

  12. Inagua


    A warmer climate would be a benefit to Canada, Greenland, Scandanavia, and Siberia, and I don’t understand how it would harm other places. Do you?

  13. Last Liberal Standing

    CF and admirers,

    It took a while, but I’ve had my epiphany: The only thing that matters is proper labeling! Get your categorizing down, and you save oodles of time….

    In this corner: red-blooded Americans, lovers of freedom, spurners of government, laissez-faire fans, individualists, entrepreneurs, capitalists, realists, deregulators.

    In that corner: fools, dupes, and idiots; commies and commie symps; freedom-killers and control freaks; income re-distributors; genuflectors at the Church of Hotter Day Saints; bureaucrats; union members; teachers, scientists, scholars, and ivory-tower intellectuals; UN supporters, one-worlders, and cultural-diversity morons; anyone who’s ever read a book by Chomsky, Zinn, Vidal, or Gore; anyone who fails to spit at the mention of Pelosi, Carter, or Seeger.

  14. Nick

    Please read scientific analysis of climate change before promulgating your disconnected association of “folk” wisdom. There is no “gotcha” moment here. It is a fact that human CO2 emissions have affected the GLOBAL climate to warm. If you deny it, you aren’t motivated by facts, but by some other political/economic driver.

    From the national academy of sciences:

    • Total hogwash, and I’llbe proved right. We’re being fed a steady diet of crap by ‘scientists” who are totally dependant on a global warming thesis for their funding and their careers.

  15. pulled up in OG

    It ain’t like there’s a big window of opportunity on this little green/blue oasis. 5°C colder and New York’s under a mile of ice, 5°C warmer and it’s under a hundred feet of water.

    Comical how the same bunch that’ll cry when you put debt and grandchildren in the same sentence lose it at the mention of Al Gore.

    [Too bad cousin Henry never chimes in here.]

  16. Nick

    That is an absurd notion and tantamount to Glenn Beck conspiracy theories. You are denying basic science. You are denying basic chemistry. You are denying basic physics. Harken back to your high school science days…

    The earth is bombarded by short-wave radiating from the sun
    Around 30% of this radiation is immediately reflected back into space, but ~70% reaches Earth’s surface. At that point, a small percentage is reflected back upwards due to Earth’s reflectivity (it’s albedo), and the rest is absorbed and redistributed as long-wave radiation (heat).

    Most of the gasses in the earth’s atmosphere – O2, N2, etc. do not interact with this long-wave radiation. But CO2, CH4 do: they absorb the IR radiation, and then reflect it in all directions, to their molecular neighbors (molecular vibration), including back down to the Earth’s surface, thereby increasing the net amount of heat the surface. Essentially, an atmospheric heat trap. Here, the physics of radiative (or atmospheric) forcing come into play, based on the balancing laws of physics: as energy reaches the Earth, as a “black body” it must emit a balancing amount of energy. With atmospheric trapping occuring, the global temperature must increase in order to emit enough long-wave energy to balance the energy exchange. Thus, the more heat-trapping gases there are in the atmosphere, the more heat radiation is blocked from the balancing equation, which results in a required physical increase in surface temperature in order to get back into balance. (Caveat, this is not the most eloquently written summary of the process)

    These are all relatively simple chemistry and physics principles that happen in sequence. By denying them, good sir, you simply present yourself as a crank; unwilling to learn or listen to facts that don’t adhere to your particular world view.

    Good day

    • Nope, Nick, you are. This scam has run its length and it’s time to drop it. We were all warned by the experts that, if we didn’t stop carbon emissions by 2002 it would all be too late and we were doomed. Well we didn’t, and India and China never will even try – in fact were the western world to go back to a cave-dwelling society as you guys so fervently wish for, those two countries would replace our former emissions by 2020. So okay, we’ve passed the point of no return. The only reason now to destroy our economy and society is to pleasure you Luddites and I don’t think Americans are willing to do that. By your own “experts” testimony it’s too late to do something (I realize that you snake charmers have now found an extra-special, super-secret probation window that will allow one last chance, “and this time we mean it” but y’all have cried wolf too often), let’s instead do nothing, as see what happens. At worst, a world-wide horde of parasitic, charletan “scientists” will lose their grants and government hand-outs. I shall weep crocodile tears.

  17. pulled up in OG

    ” . . . China never will even try” ??

    “Already, in the last three years, China has shut down more than a thousand older coal-fired power plants that used technology of the sort still common in the United States. China has also surpassed the rest of the world as the biggest investor in wind turbines and other clean energy technology. And it has dictated tough new energy standards for lighting and gas mileage for cars.

    But even as Beijing imposes the world’s most rigorous national energy campaign, the effort is being overwhelmed by the billionfold demands of Chinese consumers.”


    • Well the Three River Dam hydro power sure improved the environment, and the way they mine rare earths to power those “clean” coal-powerd cars is even worse. But they have grabbed a ton of the jobs promised Americans by building windmill blades.

  18. Nick

    Don’t extend your objection to policy into an objection of science. That is the true nature of a Luddite.

  19. Last Liberal Standing


    I think your line of thinking is this:

    1. The global warming hypothesis, if taken seriously, would require major changes in our way of life, and we might have to take huge hits to our economy.
    2. We can’t know the future. No global warming alarmist can PROVE what is going to happen, regardless of computer projections or any other speculative calculations.
    3. It’s possible that we’re way too late to “fix” the problem, if it IS a problem, so any change in course that we make might well prove needlessly self-damaging.
    4. Even if we (Western nations) were to shift course, we’d still face the herculean task of persuading developing nations to follow suit. Understandably, they’d ask, “Why should we do so, before we get what’s due us?”
    5. Rather than debating the global warming issue–a process that could trigger enormous anxiety, perhaps to no advantage–it’s preferable to simply call advocates scam artists and believers dupes. By routinely portraying global warming as a hoax and casting aspersions on everyone who espouses the concept, one can let off steam (and hostility) without ever having to face an extremely unpleasant possibility.

    If that’s your rationale, I pretty much agree with you–until you hit Item 5.

  20. pulled up in OG

    Yeah, Appalachian mountain removal and Canadian tar sands are so much more photogenic.

  21. Inagua


    Would it affect your admiration of China’s coal curtailment policy to lean that China produces over three times the coal that America does? And that despite this huge production China must import coal? And that the projections for Chinese coal imports are so great that Warren Buffett purchased the BNSF Railroad in part because 25% of its business is hauling coal, a lot of which goes to China?

  22. pulled up in OG

    CF threw out the falsehood about China, not me.
    At least they acknowledge the problem, more than I can say for this joint.
    And yes, Aussie mining is doin’ just fine.

  23. pulled up in OG

    Small world – turns out the Bridgeport coal burner gets most of its coal from Indonesia!