George Will on global warming

Clean if you think radioactive waste is clean, of course. Furthermore, it's not a "renewable" source of energy under current technology either. Uranium and plutonium will run out someday too.

 

Yeah, the Vikings ran out in Greenland once.

 

So I'm finally catching up on Monday night's two-hour 24 and one of the commercials is the perfect example of the chicken little scare tactics of the global warming crowd, with the commercial putting a little girl on railroad tracks ahead of a roaring locomotive and then the words fightglobalwarming.com.

Talk about absolutely no shame. C'mon lefties, let's see you stand up for that commercial.

 

Never saw the commercial, so I can't comment. But if you're looking for a global warming believer to change their tune and say, "Yes, Tony, you're right. It's all a fantasy concoted by the 'liberal' media," you'll be waiting a LOONNGG time.

 

The only thing I don't like about that ad is that it makes the train look bad.

Long live the railroad.

 

I, for one, am completely ashamed.

 

How about this news? Seems that Antarctica temperatures aren't cooperating with the computer models for global warming.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php

And this quote even exposes the agenda, wouldn't you say?

"We're looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment," he said.

We're looking for? How about just going in with an open mind and seeing what you find?

But no, there's no agenda.

 

Yeah, it's worse.
(from the link)
"Bromwich said that the increase in the ozone hole above the central Antarctic continent may also be affecting temperatures on the mainland. "If you have less ozone, there's less absorption of the ultraviolet light and the stratosphere doesn't warm as much."
That would mean that winter-like conditions would remain later in the spring than normal, lowering temperatures.

"In some sense, we might have competing effects going on in Antarctica where there is low-level CO2 warming but that may be swamped by the effects of ozone depletion," he said. "The year 2006 was the all-time maximum for ozone depletion over the Antarctic."

Bromwich said the disagreement between climate model predictions and the snowfall and temperature records doesn't necessarily mean that the models are wrong.

"It isn't surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world. These are global models and shouldn't be expected to be equally exact for all locations," he said.

 

Wow. Just wow.

Fenian, has your reading comprehension degenerated that badly? You cite "lowering temperatures" as more evidence of "worse" global warming?

Please tell me you're not that stupid because if you are, I may have to stop bothering with your complete lack of logic and do something more productive like solitaire.

The guy is admitting that the computer models are faltering. At least he has a little intellectual honesty. Obviously, you don't.

 

The RIGHT has been in the White House since 2001.

The RIGHT controlled Congress from 1994-2006.

The RIGHT had the ability to conduct any kind of profiling it wanted --- just as it has been able to do every other thing it wanted --- and chose not to (at least not visibly). The left would have been powerless to stop them.

Tony, it takes stupidity to the nth power to keep blaming the left for problems when the right has been in complete fucking control for this entire decade.

By the way, when someone gets placed on a "no-fly" list, it's because there was something in their PROFILE that set off a red flag.

Class dismissed.

 

Fenian is not saying that. The scientist you cited is saying that. That's all lifted directly from the article you cited.

 

Glad to see you can read that it's the scientist saying that. But he's saying it's leading to LOWER temperatures. That means cooler, not warmer, which, hence, kind of shoots down the "warming" idea. Do I need to draw a picture for you?