Climate Sensitivity

Beltway Storm: Blame Global Warming…Or Obama?

|

Obama cares more about the tree than about the infinity!

Two views of the storms and high temperatures that have wreaked havoc on the east coast of the U.S.A. 

First up: Middlebury College Schumann Distinguished Scholar Bill McKibben plunges his Swiftian sword into the breasts of global warming skeptics: 

Please don't sweat the 2,132 new high temperature marks in June—remember, climate change is a hoax. The first to figure this out was Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, who in fact called it "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," apparently topping even the staged moon landing. But others have been catching on. Speaker of the House John Boehner pointed out that the idea that carbon dioxide is "harmful to the environment is almost comical." The always cautious Mitt Romney scoffed at any damage too: "Scientists will figure that out ten, twenty, fifty years from now," he said during the primaries…

An absurd number of catastrophes kept happening at the same time, just like in the best disaster films. On Friday, for instance, Washington set all-time heat records (one observer described it as like "being in a giant wet mouth, except six degrees warmer"), and then shortly after dinner a storm for the ages blew through—first there was five minutes of high wind, blowing dust and debris (and tumbleweeds? surely some tumbleweeds), followed by an explosive display of thunder and lightning that left millions without power… 

But if Senator Inhofe is right, we can all relax. It looks real, but it isn't—it's just nature trying to compete with James Cameron. So please don't shout fire in the global 3-D theater. Stay cool. And get a big tub of popcorn—in this epic disaster flick we're  not even close to the finale. 

Meanwhile, Breitbart.com's Joel B. Pollak faults the media for not subjecting President Obama to the same scrutiny it applied to George W. Bush after Hurricane Katrina: 

With much of the East Coast still struggling to recover from recent storms that cut power to millions of residents during a heat wave, President Barack Obama is wrapping up a comfortable vacation in Camp David. He was not too busy to visit the scene of wildfires in swing-state Colorado–and make some fundraising calls from Air Force One en route–but he somehow could not muster the strength to address the state of emergency closer to home.

Twenty-two people have died, and residents around Washington, DC are struggling to navigate roads whose signals have not worked for days. If not for the July 4th week, the disruption would have been even worse. But President Obama has left the messy job of handling the emergency to state and local officials. Damage that has been described as "worse than some hurricanes" has not moved Obama to interrupt his air-conditioned holiday.

This dereliction of duty is not happening in distant New Orleans, but right in the heart of the nation's media and political center. Yet the mainstream media has not bothered to comment on Obama's absence. As for the Obama campaign itself, it hawked t-shirts to "keep cool" while the Romney campaign actually took the disaster seriously, organizing a drive for donations of basic necessities to stranded residents, such as canned food and water.

Both arguments seem pretty opportunistic to me. All respect to Kanye, but the post-Katrina criticism of Bush was cheap. Touring disaster areas is what governors are for — and judging by states I've lived in I can't recall the presence of George Pataki or Christy Whitman or tireless firetruck chaser Arnold Schwarzenegger making much practical difference during times of sorrow.

Nor do I think anybody who's been without air conditioning in Prince George's County or displaced by wildfire in Colorado getting much relief from McKibben's suggestions about nixing Arctic drilling or kiboshing the Keystone XL pipeline. According to one skeptical study, deaths from natural disasters have been declining [pdf] since the 1920s. According to National Weather Service [pdf], U.S. weather fatalities are up in some categories and down in others. Is McKibben comfortable saying the lethality of the environment is increasing? Is the well-being of humans even the point? 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

197 responses to “Beltway Storm: Blame Global Warming…Or Obama?

  1. Weather isn’t climate, unless the watermelons want it to be.

    1. You’re confused, Mr. Free. In the winter when it is especially cold we would say that the weather is colder than usual because cold is weather, you see.

      Warmth, on the other hand, is climate. Think of the oceans and el nino; those are from warmth and are climate based things. That’s why it’s called global warming or climate change. These very scientific facts are why a cold spell is weather but a heat wave is climate. It really is simple if you study the science like I have.

      1. Your ignorance is nobody’s fault but your own, and it’s not evidence of anything but itself.

        1. Shut the fuck up sock puppet. You know nothing of math or science and presume to lecture others on what you read in the NY Times. You do realize that the Times is written at an 8th grade reading level, don’t you asshole?

          Christ you’re almost as bad as Suki the real doll and it’s one comment it makes every thread. Fuck, you assholes deserve each other.

          1. This is why you should just flat out ignore it, dude. Remember, it hates that most of all.

            1. It’s like when you are shopping at a sporting goods store. You walk by the punching bags, and you have to stop and hit one, at least once.

            2. Absolutely. It is an immoral fucking pig that has no interest in intelligent debate. Just give him the “$”

              $ = Fuck you Tony you immoral fucking pig.

              That way you can get it out of your system without actually needing to speak with it.

              1. You know what I think is immoral? Peddling willful ignorance on a matter of vital importance to the lives of human beings globally. What if you idiots are wrong and the entire scientific community is right? (What a fucking thought that is.) How will you atone for your intellectual crimes? What would Ms. Rand say to creationists? Climate change deniers are exactly equivalent to creationists. You pick and choose what science you want to believe because of craven allegiance to a political tribe. What would Ms. Rand say about that?

                1. $

                2. What if you idiots are wrong and the entire scientific community is right? (What a fucking thought that is.)

                  The current trend is 1.3 degrees per century, and that is the only thing that the entire scientific community agrees on. The rest is fear mongering done by watermelons who can’t deal with the fact that if there ever was a problem, it’s being solved by a “green” technology (natural gas) which suddenly became horrible to them the second it became viable.

                  1. Natural gas is actually a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. It is primarily methane, after all. It traps about 20 times more radiation than CO2 by volume (though it remains in the atmosphere for less time). It is not a solution to the greenhouse effect, it contributes to it. But you didn’t know that because…? The only reason is you willfully neglect authoritative information on this subject. You let politics dictate what science you believe. At least creationism doesn’t really hurt anyone.

                    1. $

                    2. Guess what methane turns to when combusted, you ignorant fuck? Nobody releases methane into the atmosphere.

                      Your’e lack of knowledge is breathtaking.

                    3. Natural gas is actually a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. It is primarily methane, after all.

                      Followed shortly by:

                      The only reason is you willfully neglect authoritative information on this subject.

                      And what authoritative information did you willfully neglect to not understand that you burn natural gas to make energy, not release it into the air. Christ, and your standard accusation is that we ignore the science? Any amount of gas released into the air during capture is both minor and will be contained as soon as the technology becomes viable (because, gasp you can make money off of it).

                    4. Yes, natural gas itself is released in small quantities, but burning it still releases CO2, as it is a hydrocarbon (as much as half of the CO2 tonnage of oil or coal in 2004 and projected to be worse than coal by 2030).

                    5. You fucked up, and turned to google for the answer you wanted, and got ^this.

                      “Well methane releases CO2! Ha!” Asshole.

                      Did you have to look up “hydrocarbon” as well, dumbass?

                    6. ALL the climate alarmists you love agree that when burned natural gas has a lower CO2 profile than other fossil fuels. This includes the whole fuel cycle. That you don’t know this or willfully choose to ignore it is yet one more reason you should not comment on climate related matters.

                      Oh yeah, $

                3. You dumb bastard. See, I can tell just from this comment that you have no idea what the scientific consensus on global warming even is.

                  As far as a majority consensus, all that scientists can agree upon is that global warming is happening. It stops there. There is no consensus regarding the consequences or the severity of the impact upon humans by global warming. Nor is there anything close to a consensus on whether or not it can be reversed, and if it can be reversed which methods would actually work. Keep in mind that most of the “solutions” to global warming are trillion dollar affairs that would keep rising and third world nations in the shitter for generations to come. But that doesn’t concern you, the only thing that concerns you is that, “SOMETHING OH MY GOD MUST BE DONE!”.

                  Look up how Seattle tried to enlist the help of climate scientists to design their sewer system rehaul. There was no way to make definite recommendations based upon current data, and that was a small, by global standards, project. You want to fuck with the world’s economy and energy production. The fucking WORLD’s, the entire goddamn thing, and you don’t even have the data to tell you what the problems will even be, if a solution is even possible and what solution would actually work.

                  1. So get down off of your high horse you ignorant bastard and quit aping the bullshit you read in the Timez. Like I said earlier you’re getting 8th grade solutions to the most complex and chaotic puzzle man has faced.

                    1. You want to “fuck with the world’s economy and energy production” far more than I do. You’re just too dumb to realize that doing nothing isn’t really doing nothing, it’s allowing further alteration of the chemical makeup of the planet’s atmosphere. You are the radical, even though you are passive.

                    2. You’re just too dumb to realize that doing nothing isn’t really doing nothing, it’s allowing further alteration of the chemical makeup of the planet’s atmosphere.

                      Doing nothing? If you’re right about CO2, you should be on your knees sucking free-market cock. The only reduction we’ve had (and it’s already dropped almost as much as Kyoto aimed to in their best case) has been natural gas technology becoming profitable.

                      No, when you say “doing nothing” you mean “not massively redistributing wealth and increasing government regulation”, which you reveal as your true goal.

                    3. Natural gas is a hydrocarbon. Burning it releases CO2. It is not a solution. It is only being peddled as such by industries that are looking for the next thing to be paid to drill for.

                      You are the one who is letting political ideology get in the way of your believing in facts. Yeah more regulation will be necessary, but just maybe it’s the case that deregulatory zealotry isn’t the right path? Your premises are misguiding you.

                    4. Natural gas is a hydrocarbon. Burning it releases CO2. It is not a solution.

                      Really? Cause it’s already lowered CO2 to levels proposed by those peddling regulation and wealth distribution as a solution.

                      Yeah more regulation will be necessary

                      Hasn’t been so far.

                      free market -1

                      regulators – 0

                    5. It is only being peddled as such by industries that are looking for the next thing to be paid to drill for.

                      Only recently. Up until it was a viable technology, the watermelons were singing it’s praises.

                    6. Natural gas is a hydrocarbon. Burning it releases CO2.

                      But at far less quantities then burning oil or coal.

                      It is not a solution.

                      Yes it is. If less CO2 goes into the air then your “problem” is solved. Do you even read about green house theory at all? The earth can absorb large quantities of CO2 without changing atmospheric concentrations….you do understand that right? Or do you seriously think every molecule of Co2 is going to OMG KILL US ALL!!!

                      It is only being peddled as such by industries that are looking for the next thing to be paid to drill for.

                      So big bad industries without moral baring or government mandate solved the problem….but that does not count cuz they did not “care”.

                    7. Okay, let’s go to war with China and India so that they won’t open so many darned factories. ‘Cause they ain’t gonna enter into an economic suicide pact with a bunch of green weenies in Copenhagen.

                      Sometimes I am envious of you tony. To live in a world where all you have to do to solve any problem, real or imagined, is to steal some money from working people and throw it at the problem; with no unintended consequences as well! Boom! Problem solved, just as long as you “DO SOMETHING OMG!!”

                    8. In my estimation all humans in the industrialized world are contributing to the problem, are are thus tasked with solving it (for their own good), though polluting industries have committed the extra crime of peddling propaganda to confuse the easily confused on matters of scientific fact. At any rate, all I’m advocating for is no one getting away with harming other people without paying for it. Why are you in favor of that?

                    9. I like how you speak in generalities because it hides the monstrous consequences of your intentions.

                      Come on dude, give us something specific. You’re the scientist (I know this cause you got an A on your senior project) give us the facts, man.

                    10. I am not a scientist, and definitely not a scientist working on climate change, so I defer to those who actually are. Who do you defer to as reliable sources?

                      The most monstrous consequences are from doing nothing, per the science. The technical solutions would be among the most ambitious ever attempted by human beings, but they are not by any means out of reach. Politics and ignorance are the biggest hurdles.

                      Cap and trade used to be a conservative means. Now conservatives just revert to science denying idiocy. I think a purposeful tax on emissions or some other means of making clean energy economically competitive and dirty energy prohibitively costly–not even deliberate social engineering is necessary, just making people pay for the damage they cause.

                    11. Sorry for the lack of a predicate. I’ve dipped into my July 4 booze stash.

                    12. T o n y|7.3.12 @ 9:37PM|#
                      “Sorry for the lack of a predicate. I’ve dipped into my July 4 booze stash.”

                      Shithead, there is no excuse for you.

                    13. I think a purposeful tax on emissions or some other means of making clean energy economically competitive and dirty energy prohibitively costly–not even deliberate social engineering is necessary, just making people pay for the damage they cause.

                      The problem was solved by making natural gas cheaper then oil or coal…

                      Chew on that one kido.

                    14. Why do you support every bullshit scheme from the fossil fuel industries? Most of you even trumpet nuclear, as if that would even exist without massive government research and investment. You’re just playing on a team and it doesn’t appear you even realize it. Natural gas is a greenhouse gas contributor.

                    15. Fun science facts for Tony.

                      Fossil Fuel Emission Levels
                      – Pounds per Billion Btu of Energy Input
                      Pollutant Natural Gas Oil Coal

                      Carbon Dioxide 117,000 164,000 208,000

                      Should also point point out that natural gas can be turned on and off far more efficacy then coal. Which means more efficiency. Which means less CO2 emissions.

                      It also allows for smaller scaling of power plants which
                      means shorter power lines which means less power loss from transmission. Which means less co2 emissions.

                4. T o n y|7.3.12 @ 7:47PM|#
                  “You know what I think is immoral?”

                  No, shithead, I neither want to know or care.
                  Your immorality is well documented and you have thereby removed your opinions from any interest at all.

                5. It’s neither moral, nor immoral.

          2. Suki is a real doll?

            1. It’s a character in a book. It used to make posts referring to the author as daddy, sick shit man. Now it just makes jokes about liberals seeing racism everywhere (see below).

              Click the orange under his name, if you dare!

          3. You do realize that the Times is written at an 8th grade reading level,

            Only because grade levels have been dumbed down.

            Fifty years ago it would have been a 5th grade level.

          4. Thanks General. You saved me from making this comment myself. Nothing pisses me off more than a non-scientist telling me what is and isn’t good science.

        2. u seem to have enamies here tony Why do you coment.

          1. Your observation implies a cause and an effect. Don’t bother. It is chickens and eggs all the way down.

            1. tony is a chiken i dont get it

              1. Did his posts cause his enemies or did his enemies cause his posts?

                What came first the chicken or the egg?

                Impossible to determine and probably contains an infinite number of time paradoxes.

          2. Maybe some lurkers will see what a bunch of bubble dwelling science denying cultish idiots libertarians are and decide not to opt in.

            Freedom means tolerating no dissent whatsoever!

            1. i think freedom meen agreaing with you’re friends then everbody happy

            2. T o n y|7.3.12 @ 8:18PM|#
              “Maybe some lurkers will see what a bunch of bubble dwelling science denying cultish idiots libertarians are and decide not to opt in.”
              More likely, any lurkers will see what a worthless piece of shit you are, shithead.

              “Freedom means tolerating no dissent whatsoever!”
              Yes, and? No one has yet run you off, shithead.

        3. $

          1. You are playing this like a champ, friend.

            1. Fuck that immoral pig! He deserves no respect.

    2. McKibble is no watermelon. He’s red on the outside too.

    3. And they’re surprised and offended when we ignore them. Morons.

      1. What kind of dipshit institution are you when you make McKibben a Distinguished Scholar?

        1. The Dipshit Insititute? I hear ProL got his law degree from there.

          1. That is incorrect. I went to the Lawrence J. Taylor Law School.

            1. . . .for my JD and LL.M. The LL.M. was in Advanced Theismann-Breaking Studies.

              1. What did you get your undergrad in? Dipshittery?

  2. McKibben gave a guest lecture during an honors course I had to take to take advantage of the priority housing. It was an absolute waste of an hour. Even more of a waste than the guest lecture my roommates and I pregamed.

  3. Everybody talks about the weather, but thanks to the Koch Brothers, nobody does anything about it!

  4. Where was McKibben when we were setting record lows this winter?

    1. Undoubtedly schooling his minions that “Weather isn’t climate!”

    2. You mean winter 2010/2011?

    3. No dude, it’s not global warming, it’s climate change. If we don’t stop using technology, the climate will keep changing.

      Of course, I absolutely agree with environmentalists on that.

  5. For the love of Christ. These sorts of straight-line wind storms are pretty damn common. In fact, I seem to remember more of them 15 or so years ago.

    As for the heat, this still isn’t anything like 1988.

    1. Actually, you are wrong.
      Since Jan. 1, 40,000 record highs were recorded, with only 6,000 record lows.
      All time records set just this week in Atlanta, Macon, St. Louis, Dodge City, Columbia, and more.

      1. Everyone knows that the Earth was created in 1850, AND IT’S ONLY GOTTEN WARMER. AAAAAAUUUUGGHH!!!

      2. “All time record highs” for the last what, 300-400 years? We don’t have any accurate data for temperatures much beyond that.

        1. All time record high since about 1880 or so. That seems to be the earliest the weatherpeople talk about. 132 years.

          1. Yeah, exactly. That’s what drives me nuts about the “ALL TIME RECORD” garbage.

          2. All time record high since about 1880 or so.

            That is probably not correct. Most of the 2000 weather stations did not exist let alone the airports and towns they sit in…never mind over the past 100 years the area’s at which they are measuring temperatures at have all been asphalted over.

          3. What about ice cores and tree rings?

            1. What about them? Do they compare to the precision of the records obtained from modern real time observation?

            2. The ice cores and tree ring data don’t support the theory.

      3. Just below the surface of the earth it is MILLIONS of degrees! Al Gore told me so.

      4. All time records set just this week in Atlanta, Macon, St. Louis, Dodge City, Columbia, and more.

        All records in cities that happen to coincide with a huge expansion of the Urban Heat Island.

        Despite the fact that the US is headed towards the “goal” of 1990 CO2 levels.

        Whatever the hysterics, one thing is certain: There’s always a need to collect money from everyone.

    2. I can only imagine what the weather report was like for the Cretaceous Period.

      “It’s another hot one out there today, with highs in the 120’s and 4000% humidty. So, it’s another cave-burner! I recommend that everyone stay as cool as possible, avoid chasing prey and stay at the watering hole. Back to you Og.”

  6. Not sure what your point is, Tim. The criticism of Bush was for lack of leadership…agree or disagree, its a valid point to consider in any President.
    What McKibben is speaking about is science, and forgive me, but I don’t believe he ever made the connection between XL and air conditioning this week…you did. What he claims is that things will only get worse if we do not address CO2 in atmosphere from humans. Of course, he is joined by every single science organization in the world. None disagree. Guess they just haven’t convinced you yet.

    1. The global warming scam is over. Better invest somewhere outside of carbon credit markets. The liberals are too stupid to stay in control long enough. Time to elect the neocons and invade Iran now. We can talk about some other pseudo science hoax again in 4 years when the pendulum swings back and the stupid voters elect the lefties again. Now it is time for scary terrorist hoax again. Fascist Wars/Eco-fascism, choose your poison.

      1. Well, you got half right. Neocon outlook is in fact a poison. But too bad that climate change is science. Can’t argue with mother nature, Hyperion.

          1. And this one is automatically one of them because?

            1. And this one is automatically one of them because?

              Cuz they have been constantly wrong in predicting what global temperatures will be for the last 20 years.

            2. $

          2. Which is to say, what has superseded it?

            1. Which is to say, what has superseded it?

              I haven’t said that the theory of anthropogenic climate change has been superseded. However, I (and any serious scientist would agree) don’t claim that it is a proven scientific law either. Fact is, we need more data either way.

              What I do know is that with the incredibly complex and mathematically chaotic system that climate is, to think that we understand enough to influence the system to produce effects that we want is pure hubris. And a top-down, coercive methodology is sure as Hell not going to produce the effects that we want.

              1. All you are, then, is ignorant of where current science is. There is no controversy in the scientific community. There hasn’t been for a long time. Same with evolution. You’re just ignorant and you need to read more, and not rightwing blogs.

                1. $

        1. Cold fusion, steady state theory, and Piltdown man are science, too.

          1. Don’t forget phrenology.

            or scientific socialism

      2. If you only have one bullet who do you shoot, The neocon or the environ-terrorist scam artist? You shoot the necon then beat the hippie to death with the stock of the gun.

        1. Well, it depends on the gun, doesn’t it? With a .50 BMG, I can shoot BOTH of them.

          1. Even with that option, I’d still prefer beating the hippie to death.

            1. Hippy blood is hard to remove from clothing. It also causes drug dogs to alert on you more often.

          2. The problem with that is, ya gotta wait for them to line up. Might be quicker K’s way.

            1. Ok, I’ll take a 40mm Bofors then. Explosive shells mean they just have to be somewhat near each other.

    2. . What he claims is that things will only get worse if we do not address CO2 in atmosphere from humans

      And what is Obama doing about it?

    3. THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!!!

      Fuck, you people are like broken records stuck on FULL RETARD.

      Get a new load of shit. This one is boring.

    4. What he claims is that things will only get worse if we do not address CO2 in atmosphere from humans.

      last i checked this “problem” has been solved.

      http://wattsupwiththat.files.w…..12_eia.png

      The US is expected to drop its CO2 emissions to 1990 levels this year.

      The no end in sight trend of shutting down coal plants and replacing them with natural gas power plants is expected to drop them much further over the coming decades.

      1. But we still have the right to own private property and utilize some of our own resources. So the problem is not solved yet.

      2. How dare you imply that this so-called problem has been solved without the need for more hand-wringing and government control over every aspect of our lives as if that wasn’t really the whole point in the first place? Sir, I ask you again, how dare you?

    5. Not sure what your point is, Tim. The criticism of Roosevelt was for lack of leadership…agree or disagree, its a valid point to consider in any President.
      What Lodge is speaking about is science, and forgive me, but I don’t believe he ever made the connection between China-men and the velocipede this week…you did. What he claims is that things will only get worse if we do not address the luminiferous aether in the atmosphere. Of course, he is joined by every single science organization in the world. None disagree. Guess they just haven’t convinced you yet.

      1. OH shit, we’re arguing with a bot.

      2. B+.

        Minus points for no Raelian references.

        1. People need to go more old school and quote von Daniken.

          1. I went through a “Holy Blood Holy Grail”/Graham Hancock/conspiracy theory phase in my 20’s and read parts of Chariots of The Gods.

            Even though I was ready to believe guys like Hancock and Michael Baigent von Daniken was just a little too freaky deaky even for me.

            1. Carl Sagan really disliked him:

              “I also hope for the continuing popularity of books like Chariots of the Gods? in high school and college logic courses, as object lessons in sloppy thinking. I know of no recent books so riddled with logical and factual errors as the works of von Daniken.”

              1. The IPCC is giving them a good run for their money.

      3. The only thing Lodge cares about is putting a stop to Archie’s infernal antics.

    6. Umm, from the excerpt it seems pretty obvious that McKibben is making the same mistake that deniers make in the winter time; that is, confusing weather for climate. His connecting of global warming and the latest round of high temperatures/big storms is pretty explicit.

      Regardless of what your beliefs are regarding global warming if you take what the data says as true Mr. McKibben is making an ass out of himself and bringing science down with him. No, I repeat, NO credible climate scientist is making (publishable) detailed local weather pattern predictions based on climate change data now. NONE. And anybody claiming local weather variation is caused by climate change is speaking not as a scientist but as an advocate.

    7. Yo Jack – what relationship does McKibben’s scholarship have to science?

      1. Forget McKibben. Try science in National Academy of Science, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, Crop Science Society of America, American Chemical Society, American Physical Society, and all others.
        They all say the same thing, echoing McKibben.
        But don’t let science get in the way

        1. Argument to authority FTL.

          1. Those are valid authorities on this subject. Who are you reading who is more valid?

            1. T o n y|7.3.12 @ 7:52PM|#
              ‘Those are *INTERESTED* authorities on this subject. Who are you reading who is more valid?’

              FIFY, shithead.

            2. These statements by scientific societies are often written by the officers at the top of the society. I have never in my life voted for any officer of the ACS (American Chemical Society) and I believe for the most part people who are active in these are more interested in politics than science. The statements are NOT voted on by the members of the societies and will only be edited if they are sufficiently outrageous to piss of 2/3 of the members. If the statements are not really brought to the attention of the members then they may never get pissed off in the first place. So the statements mean something but they are not really the official position of 164,000 chemists for example. I only pay to renew my membership every 2-3 years, usually when I want to present at one of their meetings.

              Chemists, meteorologists, geologists, and physicists are more skeptical about CAGW than biologists, sociologists, climatologists, environmental scientists, etc.

              1. Hey, Bill. Missed your reasoned response as I was enjoying the 4th.
                I agree that statements never reflect 100% of all members, but they certainly reflect the majority…otherwise they would eventually be modified, or rejected. These statements have stood for years. All of these statements on AGW are getting more ominous, not less. And remember NAS says 97% of all climatologists agree.
                And you could not be more wrong that Chemists, geologists, etc. are more skeptical. They believe MORE in AGW. It is why I named the societies that I named.
                The skeptic side only has individual scientists who disagree. So go ahead and disagree…but know that science is not on your side.

            3. There are many “Environmental Science” majors that have never taken a real college level science course. One of them, Kevin Trenberth, who is quoted at length by Seth Borenstein in this article, does not even know how to fit a straight line in Excel or in ANY other program available to him on his own computer. That tells me a lot right there about his level of scientific expertise.

              1. True, Bill. So…on the other side we have revered scientists like Rush Limbaugh and Lord Monckton. They’re in the media just about everyday, much more so than Trenbeth.
                Care to tell us their credentials?

        2. If you say “science” as many times as possible in a single post, then it’s science.

    8. The worst-case mean temperature increases according to global warming theory are far too low to cause record high temperatures, even 100 years from now (let alone now!). Record temperatures are, by nature, freak events, and completely unrelated to the global warming phenomenon.

    9. What he claims is that things will only get worse if we do not address CO2 in atmosphere from humans.

      Which, by the ways is bullshit even if you buy AGW theory.

  7. Don’t worry, there will be global cooling again in the DC area, right around December. Count on it.

    Funny how the liberal dingbats are always talking about natural selection and natural processes, but they are always wanting to control everything by coercion and force. Anyone who thinks we can keep the climate the same over a long period of time, without some vast new technologies, are just plain stupid. Adaptation is the only means of survival. We have the tools to do that. Hell, humans have already survived one ice age with almost no technology at all. Liberals are such a bunch of whining pussies. The only thing that can really save us is if all liberals go extinct like natual selection would dictate.

  8. An absurd number of catastrophes kept happening at the same time, just like in the best disaster films. On Friday, for instance, Washington set all-time heat records (one observer described it as like “being in a giant wet mouth, except six degrees warmer”),

    Jesus H. Christ what a douche. This fucking liberal shitbags and their “Weather isn’t Climate, except when it is!”

    Come on down to Seattle, where we too are having record weather events. Why, it’s July third and I think we finally touched 55 today?

    *checking current temperatures*

    Ooooh 56! BOOM, Summer is here! 56 degrees and climbing!

    1. Paul, it is now ‘climate change’, remember? So in effect, the alarmists cannot be wrong, because the climate WILL change, that is without a doubt. Just that no one buys into the crap anymore outside of tenured researchers getting huge grants to find the right results, and carbon credit scammers like the Goracle.

      1. Oh, and the consortium of douchebags that make up the UN, who want FREE money from the developed world to steal for their own personal gain.

      2. You mean the entire scientific community? On what other issues are they wrong and Rush Limbaugh is right?

        1. T o n y|7.3.12 @ 6:27PM|#
          “You mean the entire scientific community?”

          Hey, shithead has no lack of lies to post!

      3. You mean the entire scientific community? On what other issues are they wrong and Rush Limbaugh is right?

        1. Fuck Limbaugh.

          AND Bill Press, Ed Schultz, and Thom Hartmann.

          Just for starters.

    2. But I can see the sun, Paul! That’s something!

      God this summer sucks monkey balls so far.

    3. Russia had a heat wave two years ago.

      The settled science confirmed it was only the weather.

      http://www.astrobio.net/blog/?p=1179

      The same thing will happen to this heat wave.

      OMG OMG OMG the US had a drought?!?! Just like it has every 15 years or so!!!

      The world is coming to an end!

    4. The absurd thing about the catastrophes that keep happening with power in the DC area is that people keep losing power there for days and each time they act like it was the first time ever! If only there was a way to have a more reliable power grid than North Korea.

      1. 1994 republicans took house, 2000 republicans had senate house and white house. 2006 democrats took house and senate. 2008 democrats took white house. 2010 republicans took house…

        To be fair it would appear for many there it is their first time….

    5. Come on down to Seattle

      You do realize that this is further proof that you live in Ballard.

      Only a person living in that hole would claim Seattle is down from anywhere.

      1. Slip of the tongue. I noticed that after I posted it. Only people from Canada can come ‘down’ to Seattle, and we certainly don’t want any of that.

        Ballard is actually one of the major Seattle neighborhoods (excluding the off-brand neighborhoods like Crown Hill) that I’ve never lived in.

        I did live in Magnolia for some 14 years so I spent a fair amount of time in Ballard. And that was back when it truly was a sleepy little norweigian neighborhood. Now I go there and I hardly recognize the place.

        1. God damn, Paul, going back and watching Almost Live shows how many Seattle in jokes were crammed in that show. Which I completely missed when I watched the show in the early 90s.

          1. The entire show was one Seattle in-joke. I haven’t watched the episodes in years… but when thinking about bad parking in Ballard, it makes me nostalgic for the old days because Ballard isn’t the neighborhood they were making fun of in the 90s. Now it’s full of performance artists and hipsters.

            All the old stores with medical equipment in the windows are gone. I haven’t seen an Uff Da sticker in a decade, let alone any references to Lutafisk.

      2. How about Maine being “Down East”? Down from what, the Pole? And then it’s not “East”.

        … Hobbit

  9. When will this sinful country face the truth that the Beltway storm was God’s wrath over the ObamaCare decision?

    1. I will buy into that before I buy into the climate change scam. Shit, Congress is so fucking evil now that the storm was probably looking for their sorry asses.

      1. God took Andy Griffith to punish us.

  10. Just for reference, the June data isn’t up yet:

    Temperature Data

    1. so the trend is 1.3 degrees per century….

      Plug that number into any IPCC model and the effects are marginal at best.

      Oh yeah and they are lower then any model claiming Human caused global warming.

      You really should not be linking to that graph McCracken….it disproves everything you believe in.

      1. “it disproves everything you believe in.”

        I am truly laid low by the news. I’m going to go cuddle up with some linear regressions now and ask if they still love me…

  11. NRDC: “Jury is still out on Obama’s Climate Record”

    When this article was written, we were three fucking years into Obama’s record (75% of his entire fucking presidency if he only gets one) and “the jury is still out”.

    NRDC, Objectivity at its finest.

    http://switchboard.nrdc.org/bl…..g_the.html

    The commenters are more honest by orders of magnitude:

    I find this article and many others like it straining to justify Obama’s record on his promnises about the environment and energy in general and global climate change in particular very frustrating. Call it like it is – he has disappointed us all who thought he was going to make a difference.

  12. Keep it up with the science denier crap. That will make libertarians more legitimate!

    1. http://www.spc.noaa.gov/misc/A…..oclimo.png

      By the way it is called a Derecho and Washington DC gets one every 4 years.

    2. By the way here is a fun article about how the NYT blamed 2009 record cold on natural factors but 2000 record warmth on OMG MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING!!!

      http://climatedepot.com/a/2266…..al-Warming

    3. You’re the one who’s denying science, Tony. If you knew anything about the scientific method, you’d know that a theory is not eternal, unchanging, and to be unquestioned.

      1. When using “unquestioned” in regard to global warming, you use it with the preferred german accent, “unqveschuned!”

        Makes it more science-ey.

      2. It is when it’s settled. Don’t you know what settled means?

      3. I was reading Gary Taubes earlier today. (Prior to working on nutrition he was a scientist and science reporter). He was discussing the scientific method, and he mentioned the null hypothesis and how it was every scientist’s duty to try to prove it wrong. I thought about M Mann and others scrambling about, hiding contradictory data, suppressing opposing viewpoints, coming up with bogus model to obtain favorable results, etc. and wondered how anyone could call this science.

        1. Pish posh, BP. Science is a democracy, and now that there’s consensus, the science is settled. Tony says so.

      4. Yet another example of a little education being worse than none at all. Where do you suppose the real science is being done in this field?

        If you knew anything about what you’re talking about, you’d know that you too are making a claim, and a far, far more outlandish one: that every credible scientific organization on earth is involved in a massive conspiracy to dupe the human race for some purpose. You are grasping at the same pseudointellectual straws Intelligent Design advocates did. Read the DC Court of Appeals decision on EPA regs for a little enlightenment. Or maybe even a fucking scientific source. Have you ever even tried? Or is your mind made up already because your political kin tell you what to think, even to the extent of cultishly denying scientific reality?

        1. T o n y|7.3.12 @ 7:59PM|#
          “Yet another example of a little education being worse than none at all.”

          Shithead now tries sanctimony as a substitute for discussion.
          And fails.

        2. Oh, and too good to pass up:
          T o n y|7.3.12 @ 7:59PM|#
          …”Read the DC Court of Appeals decision on EPA regs for a little enlightenment.”…

          According to shithead, a court of law is now instructing us concerning issues of science.
          Sort of like, oh, Dredd Scott, right, shithead?

          1. It did a pretty good job on intelligent design too.

            It doesn’t take a PhD to understand where current science is. It just takes a little reading and an appreciation for reliable sources.

            1. T o n y|7.3.12 @ 8:15PM|#
              “It doesn’t take a PhD to understand where current science is.”

              To paraphrase, ‘the science will fluctuate’, shithead.
              ———————–
              “It just takes a little reading and an appreciation for reliable sources.”

              None of which requires the solutions you desire, shithead.

              1. I’ve not said anything about policies. Your paranoia over solutions is clouding your basic judgment. I’m just talking about kindergarten stuff so far. Believe in the scientific method over industry-backed hack sources. Not that hard.

                1. T o n y|7.3.12 @ 8:30PM|#
                  “I’ve not said anything about policies.”

                  True enough for this evening, shithead. One more half-truth; you’re shooting par.

    4. tony why do u hate collectivism

    5. T o n y|7.3.12 @ 6:29PM|#
      “Keep it up with the science denier crap. That will make libertarians more legitimate!”

      A lie followed by a false concern! New combinations of dishonesty, shithead!
      I’ll bet you thought it was clever.

      1. If you knew what was good for you, you’d listen to me in this one instance.

        Being selective about what science you believe is the fast track to total, irredeemable intellectual bankruptcy. Your economic bullshit survives on a bunch of hand waving and speculation nobody can disprove, but you’re just flat wrong here and you’ll be just as discredited as creationists, and don’t be surprised if people start questioning every claim you make about anything. You will not win this one.

        And have any of you taken a moment to consider the implications if you’re wrong (and the entire scientific community is right)? Would you feel bad for being on the side of the people advocating policies that will kill and displace millions? Does ignorance absolve you?

        1. $

        2. T o n y|7.3.12 @ 8:04PM|#
          “If you knew what was good for you, you’d listen to me in this one instance.”

          Shithead, you have zero idea about what you post.
          You are THE most dishonest, sleazy, sanctimonious, ignorant twit who has ever graced this site with your bullshit.
          You have been, twice in my experience, less than despicable. In which cases I responded by addressing you as Tony. This ain’t one of them, shithead.

          1. I don’t seek the respect of idiots.

            1. T o n y|7.3.12 @ 8:20PM|#
              “I don’t seek the respect of idiots.”

              You don’t get the respect of geniuses, shithead.

              1. I’m sure there were at least a couple geniuses at my university when it made me the single most lauded graduate in my class, winning the most outstanding senior prizes in both of my majors and best senior project in the honors program. Maybe not quite the marks you received from uncle pig fucker when you were giving him a handie in the barn, but our talents are diverse.

                1. T o n y|7.3.12 @ 8:34PM|#
                  “I’m sure there were at least a couple geniuses at my university when it made me the single most lauded graduate in my class,…”

                  Yeah, shithead, we’re all well familiar with you un-deserved arrogance.

                2. Tony, this is the internet and you could say that you were awarded anything. We’d have no way to prove or disprove your claims so we are forced to base our opinions of you solely upon what you post here. Mostly you come across as a dishonest, slightly clever hack whose only solution to any problem is giving the state more power over individuals.

                  And for the record, nobody in the real world gives a shit that you got an A on your senior project. You sound like Al Bundy reliving the glory days.

                  1. Well Ayn Rand once told me I was special and near-superhuman, but I stopped believing her bullshit in 9th grade, so I have to rely on academics.

                    1. T o n y|7.3.12 @ 9:39PM|#
                      “Well Ayn Rand once told me I was special and near-superhuman, but I stopped believing her bullshit in 9th grade, so I have to rely on academics.”

                      Ha, ha, shithead.

                    2. i ham a Monkey frends name ann and she coment on blogs real funny almose like human

                  2. “And for the record, nobody in the real world gives a shit that you got an A on your senior project.”

                    Au contraire! Shithead does. Why, I’m sure shithead has his 5th grade hall-monitor certificate framed and hung above his desk!
                    His accomplishments since then? Well….

                3. Tony went to Hollywood Upstairs Medical College?

    6. Keep repeating the word “science”. It really works.

      Like when the researchers found that there hasn’t been one fucking ice crystal lost from Antarctica. Just respond with “Science science sciencey sciencific!” and all will be well.

    7. Like you’re one to speak. You don’t believe in creation science, and that has science right in the name!

      1. I make an effort to keep current on as many fields of science I can. Anything I can’t get to, I certainly don’t make ridiculous fucking claims about global conspiracies.

        1. T o n y|7.3.12 @ 8:14PM|#
          “I make an effort to keep current on as many fields of science I can.”

          Shame you do it so poorly, shithead.

  13. The funny thing, of course, is that so many high temperature records are still left from the 1930s. Must be because of the Model T?

    1. It’s from German armament plants beginning to ramp up production.

      1. But the efficiency of the centrally planned Soviet GULAG should have offset any carbon footprint the German armament would have had.

      2. No it’s from concentration camp chimneys.

        1. But they were reducing the population so the carbon was offset.

          Plus those V2 sites didn’t use mechanized construction. They used more sustainable, organic labor– the rockets were handmade by Jews… with Pride!

        2. THEY OFFERED THE WORLD ORDER!

          Oh wait, wrong guy.

          1. Of course the true crime against humanity perpetrated by the Nazis was pollution.

  14. its hot where i live but its suumer i expetc it LOL

  15. all the clamor about global warming because of records set this week, no mention of when the old records was set. But that would mean context, it would spoil the “we’re burning up!!!” narrative, and people would ask why all the hysteria when the old record was set in 1952 when the terms ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ did not even exist.

  16. T o n y|7.3.12 @ 8:11PM|#
    “Natural gas is actually a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.”

    This from the jackass, AKA shithead, who claims to know what ‘science’ tells him.
    I guess it’s possible to post something more ignorant than this, but I’m having a hard time imagining what that might be.
    Hint, shithead: What happens when natural gas is oxidized? Given your stupidity, you have 24 hours to ‘figger it out’.

  17. I really like the sound of this dude. Wow.

    http://www.Planet-Privacy.tk

  18. Barack Obama doesn’t care about white people.

    1. He sees dead people ….

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.