Weeping Face in Arctic Ice! Or, Global Warmingers' Version of the Virgin Mary Grilled Cheese Sandwich Revealed!
Remember the good ol' days in Bushitler's AmeriKKKa when the religious freakazoids where shaming fetuses by making them ask morally outraged pharmacists for the Plan B emergency contraceptive after having unprotected sex? When we were awash in magical (read: religious) thinking and right-wing Christians were seeing the grim visage of apocalyptoid preacher John Hagee every time they split open a pomegranate (once known on the East Coast as "Chinese apples")?
And if you don't remember any of that, you surely remember the Virgin Mary Grilled Cheese Sandwich saga and the tale of the Jesus Potato, don't you? Those were signs of how retarded and gullible we were as a society, right?
Yeah, those sure were good times. But now that we've pushed past all that religious crap in everyday culture and can finally breathe good, clean, cosmopolitan air with a president who doesn't speak a foreign language and stumbles when pronouncing heads of state's name, we can take a gander at secular versions of the same crap. Now it's global warming that's making found sculptures.
THIS sad face, eerily etched into melting Arctic ice, has been dubbed Mother Nature in Tears by astonished environment experts.
The weeping image was "sculpted" by water pouring from a glacier retreating under the effects of global warming.
Lecturer Michael Nolan captured the photo at Norway's Austfonna ice-shelf. The glacier has been vanishing at the rate of 160ft a year for 12 years.
Michael, from Arizona, US, regularly visits the area. He said: "Every summer there is less ice. I was struck by this image of a face - a saddened, motherly face, crying about our inability to reduce global warming."
As Baylen Linnekin (hat tip!) puts it, "see whatever you want, dude."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
That is totally Michael Jackson's death mask.
"That is totally Michael Jackson's death mask."
No way. Michael is still alive.
"I was struck by this image of a face - a saddened, motherly face, crying about our inability to reduce global warming."
Oh give me a fucking break. She's probably crying because Obama is trying to ram through bullshit legislation to make turdnuggets like old Michael there feel warm and tingly.
Without religion, people don't stop beleiving, rather they believe anything.
On Althouse they came up with a great term for these people "eco-douschebags". There was a post on there a couple of days ago about a sign in a hotel lobby that read something to the effect of "our begal slicer is used on both organic and non-organic products". In eco-douschbag land organic is now like Kosher and does not tolerate cross contanination.
we can take a gander at secular versions of the same crap
Secular? That's debatable.
"Every summer there is less ice. I was struck by this image of a face - a saddened, motherly face, crying about our inability to reduce global warming."
If anything it looks like some housewife in her late 30's with a cold pack on her face sleeping.
And you know what?
MOTHER NATURE, IF SHE WERE REAL, WOULDN'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING!!!
This planet has existed for over 4 billion years! 4! BILLION! YEARS! It does not need our help to "save" it or any other such nonsense. Other than blowing it completely apart, this planet can take ANYTHING we can currently do to it and it'll be just fine for another 5 billion or so years until the Sun destroys it.
There used to be ice 30 feet thick in Illinois. Did mother nature cry when that ice melted? Did she rejoice when the ice melted and turned into the great lakes? Fucking eco-douschbag moron.
I could be wrong, but it looks like they cropped off the right side of the picture where the thing is whipping us the finger.
In other news, the face on Mars is mysteriously missing.
Oh fer cryin...that's clearly Sally Kellerman from her heyday in the 60's.
Everyone seems to have missed the most important fact here.
Everyone seems to have missed the most important fact here.
What was the rate of retreat of this glacier 1,000 years ago? 500 years ago? 250 years ago?
I know know, pesky details get in the way of the orthodoxy.
I see dead people
Looks much like my face after my boyfriend Dale and his drinking buddies make me do bukakke!
The glacier has been vanishing at the rate of 160ft a year for 12,000 years.
No one missed the point Tony, we just don't care. See, we independent types have this ability....called adaptation.
Mother Nature in Tears
Mother Nature is ugly and has a busted up grill.
Maybe I'd care about the planet if it was prettier.
That "they believe anything" quote is from GK Chesterton. Sorry, but people believing anything includes organized religions who also believe all sorts of crazy stuff. It bugs me how religious people act as if their stuff is somehow less crazy.
Mary's house in Italy anyone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_della_Santa_Casa
Please ignore my first post. I forgot that I troll on environmental issues under "Chad."
Strange. I saw the face and thought it was crying out for more yummy carbon. I'll leave my coal-powered hummer running overnight to do my part.
first: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA good gravy people
second:
"Michael, from Arizona, US, regularly visits the area [in Norway]."
Hmmmm, how does he get from Arizona to Norway I wonder?
Looks more orgasmic than sad, to me.
And it's long been known that Arctic ice dramatically melts every...single...fucking...summer...in...known...history...and then it magically reforms in the winter!!!! OMG!!!!
The ice is melting!
Completely OT, but I wonder what the Feministing crowd would think of this Fail.
Here, some facts.
What, like denying scientific reality because your quaint little economic philosophy can't handle it?
What a retard.
I'm just waiting for all that ice covering Greenland to slide into the sea.
Never mind, a co-worker just informed me that's not possible. So much for my hope that most of Cali would end up under water. 🙁
Dammit, why can't I remember to switch over to "Chad"?
More proof that AGW alarmism has become a new religion.
What face? All I see is a lamp.
How much do you think the "Buy Now" price will be for it on eBay?
I'm going to idle my car a bit longer today just to make that poor little glacier cry even harder.
And Tony, I hope those glaciers are retreating. If they start advancing on a net yearly basis, it means we're in another ice age and it's going to be a lot harder to grow enough food to feed your fat ass.
Funny, I saw the picture and though "Photoshop".
Here, some convenient facts.
FTFY.
I asked about *this* glacier of over a significant amount of time, not a cherry-picked trend line that shows what you want it to show.
Here, some facts.
What, like denying scientific reality because your quaint little economic philosophy can't handle it?
It's been a long, long time, so I thought I might update my nonexistent and/or apathetic audience with what's going on in my life.
Nothing much, that's why I haven't been posting. Let's see. I've lost about 50 lbs the old fashioned way: very unhealthily. Basically I've stopped feeding my oral fixation with food and replaced it with ramped up quantities of booze and cigarettes. I want to look damn good for that open casket!
I work a cushy but boring 8-5 M-F job where I basically get increasingly excited as the hours pass about the prospect of going home and doing nothing every day.
I'm spending a lot of time reading and obsessing over the presidential election. Kind of a waste of life since my vote won't matter, but it's good fun. After initial reservations I've decided to throw my considerable (completely nonexistent) influence and support behind Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Why, when I'm such a libbrul and she's obviously in the pockets of AIPAC, the neocons, blahblah, blahblah? (or is she a bleeding-sickle socialist? I can't keep track) Because she has a most impressive political machine that I think can beat the coming swiftboating, and she's a woman and I'm gay and I can't resist a diva. Also, she's got Bill and the Democratic establishment and frankly all I care about is Republicans and their soul-crushing existence being beaten to a bloody, whimpering death like they deserve.
Just signed a new lease so I'll be in my apartment at least until May. Nathan's still my roomie and that proves tense and highly absurd sometimes, but at least it's not lonely or dull. We're in the middle of what I've propagandistically termed a decorating blitz, but it's more of a decorating smart-bomb-missing-its-target-and-hitting-an-aspirin-factory kind of situation. Anyway the current plan is to begin thinking about possibly buying a house next summer, depending on whether I want to get off my lazy butt and do something with my life or ease ever more apathetically into my current routine/rut. We shall see.
THIS sad face, eerily etched into melting Arctic ice, has been dubbed Mother Nature in Tears by astonished environment experts.
You keep using that word, "experts." I do not think it means what you think it means.
I don't fucking know. In my book if you're a global warming denier you're no better than an intelligent designer moron. There is absolutely no reason you guys have to be anti-scientific in this context. All it does is paint you as ideologues and idiots. The world's glaciers and ice caps are disappearing at an alarming rate, and you guys fall over yourselves trying not to notice, and God knows why. It's either because you really are a bunch of rightwing morons who jerk off to Michelle Malkin or because the prospect of global warming being real means--horror!--governments might actually have to do something. I mean I know why Reason behaves like an unscientific propaganda rag, but surely CATO isn't paying you guys to be idiots?
Could've made book on the enviroweenies getting all hand-wringy over this "sign"...
Let's all get ready...US govt will fix all the ills. Govts are good at running fiscally nightmarish budgets and waging wars. Anything more is asking too much. Raising taxes...something else done well.
"being real means--horror!--governments might actually have to do something"
I mean I'd love to hear a libertarian solution to climate change. But we don't get that here. We just get a bunch of morons denying reality so they don't have to think about it. Doesn't help the cause much, I must say.
You idiots will fall for anything. No wonder you're Republicans. I haven't even posted anything on this thread yet.
Tony, Arctic sea ice shrank from 1979 to 2005, since then, it has begun expanding again. The summer ice cap in 2008 was 9% larger than the minimum reached in 2007. The gain in just one year was greater than the loss over a whole decade during the 1980's and 1990's.
The world's glaciers and ice caps are disappearing at an alarming rate
Some of us consider evidence that we're not sliding back into another fucking ice age as less than alarming, if not downright comforting.
And I chose to live in Hawaii, where the temperature approximates something far worse than the most dire worse case scenarios for global warming on the Mainland. And guess what? It's really, really nice here. Liberal envirowackos from cold places like Minnesota come here regularly to escape the snow and ice, and don't see the fucking irony at all.
Tony, Tony, Tony, you're behind the times, buddy.
You're supposed to ignore the Antarctic ice cap, because it's above its average.
Citation needed, you say? Okies!
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg
Now you have to focus on the Arctic ice cap, because it's below the arbitrarily-specified average!
Ice CAP, not ice CAPS, man. You're clearly behind on your propaganda!
So the world's climate scientists are wrong because it's nice in Hawaii?
You know, one of these days, Tony's head is going to explode when he finally realizes that the environment isn't as cut and dried as he thought and I just hope I get to see it.
Cap and trade is not a solution. And the US consumer would end up paying more; corporations pass on these costs, duh.
How's about supporting wind / solar as supplementary but not primary sources, and get rid of ethanol. Pursuing more stores of natural gas, right here in the ol' USA, which burns cleaner to boot. Nuclear power...France and Japan use it, so why don't we. But dear god, it could get scary...the US has plenty of coal but let's just ignore that for the moment. Since it's not really an option, is it.
What the hey is China planning to do with all them coal-fired plants though ?? I don't see them or India signing onto anything. That's ~ 2 billion people still shittin into the wind...
The world's climate "scientists" are wrong because they're modeling something without fully understanding it. Furthermore, they're going into their studies with preconceived biases that directly affect their work. As an engineer who uses models on a daily basis, I can tell you that it's impossible to make a model of a complex chaotic system that's worth more than nothing. They use some damn impressive technology, but the results produced by that technology are useful only as an indicator of how little we really understand about what drives our climate.
They might as well be playing Quake all day. If there weren't millions of dollars in federal government grants supporting their fiasco, their efforts would have precisely no value.
I guess we had better start resuming detonating hydrogen bombs at test sites.
Maybe a layer of thick dust in the upper atmosphere will cool things down (TTAPS study).
The TTAPS study was pretty accurate.
See the TTAPS study, Tony.
You do remember history, right ?
DanD,
It is not controversial in science that climate change is happening and that it is caused by humans and that the consequences are likely to be devastating. That is the scientific consensus. You can claim bias or conspiracies all you want but you can't deny that reality. You may think you have better information than the people working all over the world whose job it is to understand this phenomenon, but probability suggests that it's you who has the bias and not the world's climate scientists. And being an engineer doesn't impress me. I was shocked by the number of creationists and scientific illiterates who majored in engineering when I was in school.
Tony, Mike Hulme who is a professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia in the UK who helped write reports for the IPCC that are commonly cited by alarmists and one of the most prominent scientists declaring that "the debate is over" and that man-made global warming will be a catastrophe has come clean about the uncertain state of scientific knowleged about global warming in his new book "Why We Disagree About Climate Change". He wrote on page 75 of the book that "the three questions examined above - What is causing climate change? By how much is warming likely to accelerate? What level of warming is dangerous? - represent just three of a number of contested or uncertain areas of knowledge about climate change." On the IPCC's credibility, he admits it "governed by a Bureau consisting of selected governmental representatives, thus ensuring that the Pane's work was clearly seen to be serving the needs of government and policy. The Panel was not to be a self-governing body of independent scientists." All of this is what the skeptics have been saying for years. Hulme has admitted that his views on global warming are inseparable from his politics. He's a self-described socialist. Hulme has admitted, "We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilise them in support of our projects." Hulme is not practicing science, he is using science to promote his socialist agenda.
Well. Looking at the info bookworm just added, climate change sure as hell looks controversial in science now.
Link.
"An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion."
You guys could be right. It could be a massive worldwide conspiracy of scientists under the control of evil socialist governments in order to... do God knows what. But I really think the burden of proof is on you guys. And you can't even articulate a coherent reason why the world's scientists would decide to engage in such a conspiracy, beyond paranoid speculation.
"That is the scientific consensus."
Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch carried out a survey of 500 climate scientists and found a full 35% of the scientists did not believe climate change to be caused by human activity. In my book, such a large percentage as that shows there is no genuine consensus among climate scientists that man's activity is causing climate change.
Holy fucking shit. Wikipedia?
Oh yeah, the second part, here's the line you didn't quote:
"A few organisations hold non-committal positions."
Non-committal...meanting they don't fucking know.
and just before that little quote, we have this one:
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:
Now, isn't the IPCC the organization who's report bookworm just shot all to hell with one of the author's own words from a book he wrote? I think it is!
Yeah...there's no reason to doubt the almighty liberals [roll eyes]
Attention all OKC H&R chubby chasers: I'm having an absolutely FABULOUS party this weekend and you're invited! We'll be rocking out to Pet Shop Boys and Rick Astley all night! Just bring a bottle of Boone's Farm, astroglide, and a bag of flour!
P.S. Goatees and mullets are a big +!
Tony,
Actually, I totally agree that climate change is happening. It's laughably obvious. There's no such thing as a static climate.
I don't care how many climate modelers sucking the gov't teat tell me that the planet will warm, I still won't believe them until they can give some convincing evidence. And this is coming from a former liberal and former believer in the anthropogenic global warming suggestion.
What's "controversial" is extrapolating our poorly obtained data x years into the future based on models that incorporate the assumptions and biases of their creators instead of empirically-derived data. We probably agree that climate is not static. So, pick any average timespan you want. Now, pick another, shorter timespan. The "climate" will have had to have gotten warmer or colder within that time. It says nothing about what will happen over another given length of time.
To suggest that we can accurately predict the climate is chicanery. We can find out some interesting things (mostly about how little we really know) by trying to model past phenomena, but tweaking certain aspects of models to fit the past says little of value about the future.
Paleoclimatology is mostly an exercise in theoretical measurement modalities. Its findings are highly suspect, but it's the best we can do. Even our current temperature records have a myriad of problems that I will be happy to elaborate upon if you want to keep this up. The point I want to make with this is that we have a very imperfect way of understanding how to measure and record temperature and temperature changes on a global scale. So even saying that we can fully understand in the present how our climate changes is bunk. Ergo we don't have even the first steps in place to begin to suggest that we can predict what any part of the earth will be like in one, two, twenty, or one hundred years.
"I really think the burden of proof is on you guys."
No, the burden of proof is on those who make the claim. It has not been proven that man's activity has caused a majority of the global warming that we've experienced and that there will be catastrophic weather conditions resulting from man's activities. The burden of proof is not on us to prove a negative.
bookworm,
There are problems with the Bray and Storch surveys.
But even if there weren't, what makes YOU so sure the other 65% are wrong?
Actually, no. The earth's warming is observed fact. The preponderance of evidence is that this warming has been caused by human activity. You should know this if you're at all interested in an objective survey of scientific opinion on the matter. When the vast majority of the world's scientists believe something, the burden shifts to you to say why they're wrong.
You mean the president that can't pronounce 'Orion'? The same tard who thinks Austrians speak German?
That bright affirmative action bitch?
And I'm not suggesting any intellectual fortitude by revealing that I'm an engineer. What I'm saying is that I use models. If I wanted to learn about welding, I'd ask a welder. I employ models, so I understand their purpose, requirements, and limitations. When I'm trying to understand how air might flow over a structure of a particular shape, I have a lot of empirical data to assist me. I'm also working with closed-system situations that are not very complex and not susceptible to stochastic occurrences.
But even the best, most, expensive models out there to model such a relatively simple physical system still have limitations, and the results of the models are used as guidance towards the final design, not as a substitute for rigorous and thorough testing.
Climate models, on the other hand, are pretty much all the data that exist. Climate models are not something subject to controlled experimentation. Therefore, they are (sometimes interesting) scientific explorations, but they are not science and are not a substitute for real data and a realistic understanding of our own ignorance. Therefore they *should* have little value in the decision-making process.
But what do I know? After all, there are lots of creationists in my field.
This is simply not true.
"This is simply not true."
OK, shoot.
Keep in mind that climate has to warm or cool. Whether it is "warming" or "cooling" depends on a frame of reference that is necessarily arbitrary. To my knowledge there are no empirical data that can tell us what global climate will do in the next month. We can hazard a guess based on a lot of imperfect information, but it's still a guess and not one that would be a good idea to place a monetary bet on.
But you seem to think I'm wrong, so I'm waiting.
Once again, we hear the argument that a majority says so, so we must go along regardless of whether we agree or not. Once upon a time, the majority of thinkers thought the world was flat.
They thought the Earth was the center of the universe. They thought that objects fell at different rates becaues of their respective weights. And they thought black people were mentally and pysically deficient when compared to white people.
The majority can be wrong. You make a claim that something is happening because of people. Most of us are unconvinced. That places the burden of proof on you, despite your assertions to the contrary.
In retrospect, my sentence was perhaps vague if you didn't read my entire comment, which it seems you didn't.
Here's a less vague clarification:
"Climate models, on the other hand, are pretty much all the data that exist in support of the anthropogenic global warming suggestion.
The scientific consensus is a myth. If you just look a little, you can easily find well regarded climate scientists that dissent. Regardless, the "proof", is almost exclusively based on highly complex (but not nearly as complex as reality) computer models that are highly dependent on a lot of variables being extremely accurate. Frankly I don't trust those much, especially when the same models are applied to historical data, they don't fit without extensive data gymnastics.
Another area of concern I have is that no one has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that a few degrees of warming will be a net negative. Nor has anyone proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the small percentage of CO2 that we contribute to the very small percentage of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is forcing this warming. In fact historical data seems to indicate that CO2 increases follow warming, not the other way around.
Also, the current temperature is not unprecedented in our history. As of yet, I haven't seen any thorough examination of what the ideal temperature for human existence would be. Maybe it's actually 15 degrees warmer? Maybe we should be trying to figure out how to warm the planet, increasing atmospheric greenhouse effect allowing more arable land, and possible more stable temperature and weather patterns? The thing is, we just don't know enough to make those decisions. Nor do we have the ability to make significant changes without setting off some nukes.
As for solutions to the potential problem, they are out there. If we added approximately 50 new nuclear plants within the country, we could add dramatically to the energy availability while eliminating a large portion of the so called pollution. However don't count on hybrid and electric cars to help on the other front too much. We're running short on the rare earth metals that are necessary for electric motors and batteries that are so heavily depended on for their production. ICE engines will be around for a long time still.
"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."
Yet, temperatures have been declining for most of this decade which fits the 30 year cycle of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. From 1850 to 1880 the temperature increased, from 1880 to 1910 it decreased, from 1910 to 1940 it increased, from 1940 to 1970 it decresed, from 1970 to 2000 it increased and it has been decreasing since about 2000 and will probably continue to decrease for 20 more years. This pattern has been going on all the way back to 1470. It seems that this has more to do with our climate than man's activities. The charts that the IPCC uses don't even factor the PDO in their calculations. No wonder they predicted temperatures to continue rising this decade.
It should further be noted that the IPCC came into being with a preset pro-AGW agenda and is largely composed of non-scientists.
Looks like Rihanna after a date with Chris Brown.
Nothing digusts me more than glacial bukkake.
Frank: It could be a miracle. It could be bullshit. There's only one thing we know for sure.
Charlie: What's that?
Frank: It's a goddamn gold mine.
"It's either because you really are a bunch of rightwing morons who jerk off to Michelle Malkin or because the prospect of global warming being real means--horror!"
I'm not right wing, but I'd let her jack me off. As long as she didn't talk while doing it.
"There's no such thing as a static climate."
What about Neptune?
"Once upon a time, the majority of thinkers thought the world was flat.
They thought the Earth was the center of the universe. They thought that objects fell at different rates becaues of their respective weights. And they thought black people were mentally and pysically deficient when compared to white people.
One out of four isn't great, but still, it's one right.
What about Neptune?
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/astro/neptune.php
Again, it's silly to talk about a "climate changing" because you can't compress the behavior of climate down to one numerical value. "Climate" is a term that encompasses a swath of phenomena, each of which can be quantified in one or sometimes several ways. If someone says the "climate is changing" what they are saying is basically meaningless. The stock market is changing. Right now. And it's silly to say that because it has to change whenever it is functioning. The questions that need to be answered are "what?" and "how?" And the answer to how the climate is changing at this moment is "we don't know, but here are some observations." You can't possibly observe and quantitate every facet and every perturbation of Earth's climate. You can only observe selected windows of it, and in doing so using imperfect instrumentation that carries its own uncertainties and limitations.
It's like your eyesight. You can only see so much at once, and your perception of reality is directly affected by simple things like the curvature of your eye structures and more complex things like how the information travels from the optic nerve and is processed and distributed in the visual cortex. What you are perceiving or measuring is relative to your instrumentation or biology thereof.
I think she is sad because she has a beard.
"It's either because you really are a bunch of rightwing morons who jerk off to Michelle Malkin or because the prospect of global warming being real means--horror!"
I'm not right wing, but I'd let her jack me off. As long as she didn't talk while doing it.
Go for a blow job instead. Then, she can't talk.
If she can, then you have bigger (or would smaller be a better term?) problems.
I guess we had better start resuming detonating hydrogen bombs at test sites.
But we need dusty test sites for maximal globey coolness.
Hmm. What region of the world is notably dry and dusty?
What region of the world is notably dry and dusty?
Nancy Pelosi's vagina.
http://northwardho.blogspot.com/2009/09/crying-face-in-glacier-fake.html
http://northwardho.blogspot.com/2009/09/denial-by-photo-agency-that-crying.html
Some say it is a hoax photoshopped faked photo. see links above
OK, we can ALL agree that the global climate is changing, right? We can ALL agree that we should all strive to be better custodians of our environment, right? Then why do we continue to insist that the climate we enjoy today is the "norm" and use evidence that the climate is changing as a scare tactic to shock others into being environmentally friendly? Whether or not it is influenced by human interaction, THE CLIMATE IS STILL CHANGING. We keep thinking of humanity as an influence outside of the natural system, WE'RE NOT. We came from the system, we are part of the system. We are animals uniquely able to adapt our local environment to our comfort as well as adapt to it. It's damn time we stop debating and prepare.
In other whacky Progessives neoreligious news:
MSNBC's Schultz: "I believe Jesus would vote yes for a public option."
"Now, I have been referring to the health care reform deal as the real moral issue of our time," Schultz said. "I believe Jesus would vote yes for a public option, but some Bible thumpers don't see me eye to eye on this one."
"Fixing health care in this country is a moral obligation," Schultz said. "There isn't any way around it, at least that's how I see it and I think the public option to make health care affordable and accessible is a key, fulfilling moral obligation in this country. But some religious leaders don't agree with me on that."
Schultz lamented that some religious leaders had been campaigning against the Democratic-controlled Congress and White House's idea for so-called health care reform. He cited a letter from church leaders in Kansas that were concerned with the government's involvement in medicine.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2009/09/03/msnbcs-schultz-i-believe-jesus-would-vote-yes-public-option
Every year this granola eating tree hugger goes down to check out the damage of global warming. I am just going to assume they don't make the trip paddling sea kiyaks to get there? So perhaps someone should tell them if they stopped going they might actually help the environment out, after all that is their basic rational for all of us to not use fossil fuels.
I do love the face in the grilled cheese concept though, very interesting how shapes can actually form what appears to be a known image of someone or something.
Perhaps I will start to use the laser engraving machine I have to start etching Jesus and the Virgin Mary into pieces of lightly toasted bread. Would be really simple to pull off and the profit margins per slice on Ebay look like Bernie Madoff kind of profits. Perhaps a run of Obama on Rye would be a good seller since he has that Messiah thing going for him.
God, Tony, you are such a dipstick. The argument is not whether or not humans have some (small) effect on the climate, the argument is whether or not rolling back progress a thousand years will do anything to help. The "climate scientists" you bravely invoke (yawn) can't even agree on sunspots, can't predict rain accurately, and use the same kinds of tendentious computer modeling that your likely hero, Paul Ehrlich, used to make his, er, incorrect predictions -- like 50 million Americans dead in the 80s and 90s from starvation.
Climate science, like any other science, is never a done deal. There is always more to be learned. In this context, there is SO much more to be learned that it is just plain stupid to take drastic "corrective measures" when you don't know what to correct. The facts are pretty clear, to any up-to-the-minute climate scientist, that the Earth has gone through more, and more drastic, climate change than it is going through now -- and recently, in geological terms.
The battle is an important one, since the Tonys of the world seem to want everyone milking their own cows and cobbling shoes for the 1.2 kids you will be allowed to have. The answer, throughout history, has been more freedom for more action, more ideas, more options, more arguing, more learning, more of all of it. It's not as tidy as a Soviet Five-Year Plan, but liberty has other advantages. For one thing, it works.
Oh, I almost forgot -- Republicans? Here? Maybe a couple. Conservatives? God, call me one within earshot and I'll deck you, bub. The GOP is just as worthless as, well, your party, Tony. Unless you're really not a Dem but an Independent-for-Obama. Obama? Oh, bummer!
And how often during geologic time would human civilization as we know it been possible? Even if the changes were entirely natural (they're not) or gradual as over geologic time (they're not) it would still be worth figuring out ways to preserve the climate that has sustained human civilization for the past few thousand years--during which time civilization probably would not have even started if not for a fortunately long period of climate stability.
Current science indicates that we don't have a lot of time to begin reversing the damage before feedback loops start causing uncontrollable warming. Science already knows what's happening, why, and how to reverse it. We can start trying to solve the problem, and nobody will be forced to stop having ideas in the meantime.
One of my Hummers has a mud stain that looked like a laughing Patrick Michaels. You don't see me getting all sappy about it.
"Current science indicates that we don't have a lot of time to begin reversing the damage before feedback loops start causing uncontrollable warming."
Tony, you're still confusing models with science. Answer my criticism of climate models or chalk up another loss in your column.
Science already knows what's happening, why, and how to reverse it.
Science know if you've been naughty.
Science knows how to knit sweaters and darn socks.
Science knows how to divide by zero.
Science knows the universal solvent.
Science knows your mom... biblically.
Science isn't a person, and can't know anything. Much like Tony.
Tony,
didnt read everything...but the burden of proof def rests on whoever is making the claim...which is not the global warming disbelievers. they dont want to pass drastic legislation...you guys do...so the burden of proof is on you i would think.
DanD,
The (increasingly sophisticated) climate models are not the only evidence that exists for global warming. It's not computer models that tell us there is increase CO2 in the atmosphere or that the planet has a higher average temperature than 100 years ago, it's actual data.
As far as predicting the future, the models are far more detailed than they were 5 or 10 years ago, and will get even better. The predictions are not a mash of random possibilities but show a definite trend with an increasingly complete account of (mostly harmful) side effects. Are you really trying to posit that all predictive computer modeling is completely bogus?
Henry,
You're right. But they've proved it, you guys just don't accept the proof.
Some here are making extraordinary claims about worldwide conspiracies of scientists and socialist countries and such... these are also positive claims, for which they have no evidence, of course.
You're right. But they've proved it, you guys just don't accept the proof.
Tony, this is a physical science. Here's how "proof" works in the physical sciences. You have a set of conditions under which your idea about reality holds. You make quantifiable predictions about what will happen under those conditions. You run the experiment under those conditions. The data gathered, within the limits of measurements, matches your predictions. Every. Single. Time. Not once today and once last week and the intervening tries give wildly divergent data. 100%, or you're still guessing. And before you tell me that isn't possible, me and the rest of the bright boys in science and engineering have built the entire modern world on that basis.
That's proof, and climate scientist aren't there yet.
LO freakin L
"What region of the world is notably dry and dusty?
Nancy Pelosi's vagina."
Tony,
Yes, quite simply. When it comes to modeling a complex chaotic system such as global climate, doing so is impossible because of the large number of stochastic variables that have not and cannot be quantified. You have to be able to quantify something in order to model it mathematically.
Have you looked at the source code for climate models? Do you understand how they work? Have you studied the output of the best models and followed their accuracies? I have and do, and the numbers they put in are assumptions that are not grounded in any empirical foundation. People who understand models and aren't paid bukudles by the gubmint to make climate models scoff at climate models.
As for data, we don't have a reliable temperature record. http://www.surfacestations.org is just the beginning of a long list our problems. Are the thermometers we use today the same as we used 100 years ago? If they aren't, is there a calibration standard to ensure that their measurements are consistent over time? Are the data acquired by these thermometers presented "as is" and not sent to the hands of people with a pro-AGW bias, such as the GISS headed by Dr. James Hansen, the founder of the AGW madness? If not, do they at least have some level of transparency as to what makes them shift the temperature data upward at precisely the time periods that suit their theories and pet causes?
The answer to every question in the above paragraph is NO.
Despite the risk that you will, I'm going to go ahead and say "Don't get me started on CO2 as a driver of global temperature."
@T,
Not that I'm not on your side in this, but unless something has changed in the last 40 years since I took Algebra, I don't think it's possible to divide by zero. 😉
The Nellis test site in nevada and the area of New Mexico where the first atomic bomb was detonated.
Current science indicates exactly the opposite.
We have the technology to plunge global temperatures by thirty-seven degrees . (TTAPS study)
The TTAPS astudy is the greatest scientific paper since Einstein's "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". Why is the TTAPS study is deliberately ignored?
DanD,
Even if your skepticism were warranted by the available evidence, because climate scientists don't know everything, or even if they know very little, that is not necessarily a reason to do nothing. It's really an awful lot like a creationist refusing to believe in evolution because we don't know what caused the big bang (we only have computer models for it after all).
Since you accuse what the majority of relevant scientists of being part of a conspiracy or being so blinded by bias they collectively manage to succeed in overcoming all the checks for bias science has, let me just ask you to think about another possibility.
Isn't it possible that there are powerful people (more powerful than scientists) whose interests (not just some vague political bias) align with the anti-GW stance? Do you think they've been just sitting on their hands in the interest of objectivity all these years? Do you have confidence in the ubiquity of science in our culture? Which side do you think has the most resources and motive to deceive people?
Is it not possible that there are powerful people whose interests align with the pro-GW stance.
I mean, the obvious solution to global warming was revealed as early as 1983 and yet these "scientists" ignore that just like Japanese militarist sympathizers ignore the Rape of Nanking.
"In my book if you're a global warming denier you're no better than an intelligent designer moron."
I thought we were supposed to be like Holocaust deniers.
Fuck off, Tony. The world isn't going to die. WE are.
Is it not possible that there are powerful people whose interests align with the pro-GW stance.
Not just might be, there was an article about it on this here blog a few days ago. "GE's Political Agenda":
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/135660.html
Which is to be expected. Players are gonna figure out ways to play either side of the game.
I heard joe and jennifer got married, is that true?
wow that looks like micheal jackson !!!! freaky
http://northwardho.blogspot.com/2009/09/crying-face-in-glacier.html
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Michael Nolan, who snapped the photo on July 19, 2009, reportedly said the image looked just like mother nature in tears, "as if she was crying about our inability to reduce global warming".
But did he really use those words? WHO interviewed him? This photo story has all the markings of a hoax. A UK hoax. A UK tabloidy hoax. Is anyone looking into this? Just me? And if I am wrong? I will say so and apologize to Mr Nolan and Starcraft. But if I am right? I do not want to be right....
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Crying Face in Glacier: Fake Photoshopped Photo or Real Photo? Comments welcome below: we believe Barcroft Media with SpecialistStock is faking this
Who really took that photo and how did it get global exposure, no pun intended?
NOTA BENE: a cooment on this blog, just in, says:
As a photoshop guru, I was able to find a 700 x 459 (pixels) photo at 72 DPI on the web. There is quite a bit of bitmapping in areas that shouldn't have it, and this can be caused by using the clone or stamp tool without appropriate softness added. Unfortunately, without the original, high-res photo, it is impossible to say for certain. Using layer blending, this image can be easily created and passed off as an original, especially at 72 dpi. Low resolution is very forgiving when you make mistakes. So my expert opinion is that it's been faked, with the caveat that barcroft should make the hi-res available and just put a watermark on it to prevent theft.
The image of WHAT APPEARS TO BE a crying face looming from an icy cliff wall ON A GLACIER FACE was ALLEGEDLY taken IN the Svalbard archipelago in Norway THIS PAST SUMMER BUT HAS EXISTED FOR SEVERAL YEARS AS WELL BUT MAY VERY WELL BE A FAKED AND PHOTOSHOPPED PHOTO. Inquiring minds want to know the truth. (Image Credit: SpecialistStock / Barcroft Media)
Guest comment on UK newspaper comments says: FAKE......FAKE.....its SOOOOOO obvious!! That is clearly a Photoshop!
Many blogs on the Internet are now attacking this faked photo.
Many blogs are also saying how cool and wonderful this photo is!
So which is it? A real true photo? Or a faked photo? When was it taken? By whom? There are conflicting reports. One report says the photo was shot this past summer. Another report says this face on the glacier has existed for several years already. Hmmmm, faces on glaciers that are moving do not stay the same. Somebody might be fibbing here. For a good cause, sure. But where does truth lie?
The photo agency tells this blog: "If you speak to the World Glacier Monitoring Service, you will find that the crying face in the ice-sheet is genuine and has actually existed for a number of years." But sirs, if the face has existed for a number of years, then the face would change and move, because glaciers move and change, and drop their calves into the sea or their lakes, no? How can the face be the same face for a number of years? OUCH! But let's find out the truth. If you are correct, this blog will disppear tomorrow. Or in a number of years...
Picture: Melting Glacier
Face Weeps
Updated: Thursday, 03 Sep 2009, 8:13 AM EDT
Published : Thursday, 03 Sep 2009, 7:44 AM EDT
NORWAY - This striking image of a sad face weeping was etched into melting Artic ice on Norway's Austfonna ice-shelf.
It was captured by ''lecturer'' Michael Nolan. SURE? Dr Nolan please answer this!
Michael, from Arizona, regularly visits the area. He said: "Every summer there is less ice. I was struck by this image of a face - a saddened, motherly face, crying about our inability to reduce global warming."
The glacier has been vanishing at the rate of 160ft a year for 12 years.
On The Web:
Source: thesun.co.uk -- THE SUN IS A NOTORIOUSLY FAKE CRAP OF UK JOURNALISM TABLOID STYLE
Michael S. Nolan
About Him
info@wildlifeimages.net
http://mikenolanwildlifeimages.blogspot.com/
http://www.wildlifeimages.net/contact.cfm
I specialize in intimate portraits of marine animals. I have traveled the oceans of the world in search of what I believe are the world's most magnificent beings. Since 1990 all of my underwater images have been created while free-diving, without the aid of bulky Scuba equipment. As a result, I believe my encounters with these magnificent ocean creatures are much more personal and intimate. I currently "migrate" with the whales, spending my winters in the warmer tropical latitudes where whales mate and give birth and my summers in the cooler higher latitudes where animals migrate to feed. I insist on only photographing wild animals in their natural habitat, believing that there is no place in wildlife photography for captive or trained animals. All images on this website are of wild animals in their natural environments. In 2004 I started to capture images with a Canon digital camera system. Please be assured that I still insist on no digital alterations or manipulations to substantially alter these images. The images you see are the animals as they truly are, whether captured on film or on a compact flash card, in all their wild glory.
============================
NOTA BENE: a cooment on this blog, just in, says:
As a photoshop guru, I was able to find a 700 x 459 (pixels) photo at 72 DPI on the web. There is quite a bit of bitmapping in areas that shouldn't have it, and this can be caused by using the clone or stamp tool without appropriate softness added. Unfortunately, without the original, high-res photo, it is impossible to say for certain. Using layer blending, this image can be easily created and passed off as an original, especially at 72 dpi. Low resolution is very forgiving when you make mistakes. So my expert opinion is that it's been faked, with the caveat that barcroft should make the hi-res
Nike Zoom LeBron James Soldier
Nike Zoom Lebron V