Posts Tagged ‘ global warming ’

Jon Stewart and Climategate

No matter which side you’re on in the global warming debate, Jon Stewart speaks the truth here:


Global Cooling Heats Up

This is rich. The alarmists are caterwauling over the inconvenient truth that the Earth is cooling, lamenting how this fact hurts their campaign to convince us that global warming will kill us all:

The world leaders who met at the United Nations to discuss climate change on Tuesday are faced with an intricate challenge: building momentum for an international climate treaty at a time when global temperatures have been relatively stable [ME: ACTUALLY, THEY’RE COOLING] for a decade and may even drop in the next few years.

The plateau [READ: COOLING] in temperatures has been seized upon by skeptics as evidence that the threat of global warming is overblown. And some climate experts worry that it could hamper treaty negotiations and slow the progress of legislation to curb carbon dioxide emissions in the United States [WHICH WOULD BE NECESSARY WHY, EXACTLY?].

Scientists say the pattern of the last decade — after a precipitous rise in average global temperatures in the 1990s — is a result of cyclical variations in ocean conditions and has no bearing on the long-term warming effects of greenhouse gases building up in the atmosphere. [SO, YOUR DECADE OF EVIDENCE, THE 90s, SHOULD SUPERSEDE THE CURRENT DECADE OF EVIDENCE…WHY, AGAIN?]

But trying to communicate such scientific nuances to the public — and to policy makers — can be frustrating, they say.

Er….you don’t say.

Jonah Goldberg at NRO sums it up pretty well, and pretty soberly, I might add:

Now I’m open to the possibility that the explanation for the cool spell we’re in is not a refutation of the general case for climate change. Climate is a complicated thing and we could be in a short cooling period in the middle of a long warming period. Or, we might not be. No need to rehash that whole argument here. But what I find absolutely galling is the failure of the Times or the scientists quoted to take seriously the possibility that the potential cooling period is an indictment of the tactics, rhetorical and otherwise, used by the alarmists. Ten years ago the models didn’t predict any of what has transpired or appears to be transpiring. They undermined their own credibility. And now that they want to communicate “nuance” instead of fear — solely because the data forces them to — they’re having a hard time of it. Well boo hoo for them.

Boo hoo, indeed. Lucky for the alarmists, they will be able to credit Dear Leader for turning back the rising tides and mercifully cooling our collective hides, even absent of policy enactment. You know that’s coming, right?