A couple years ago when extreme cold slammed the southwest, it was not called a polar vortex, blamed on global warming or being treated so glamorously. It was considered a freak dip in the jet stream. Now it’s a polar vortex. Not only that, but global warming wonks are using the fact that there are a couple of ships trapped in the Antarctic ice as proof that we’re dealing with global warming and not global cooling. That’s nice, but one needs to take into account the fact that the southern hemisphere is dealing with ‘summer’ and we are dealing with ‘winter’. A little basic geography would be nice. The shift in the Antarctic ice could be indicative that maybe we need a little big of global warming.
While we’re on the subject, the actual scientific reason that they are having major polar ice melt in Antarctica is due to subterranean volcanic activity.
I’ve said it before, and I will say it again. Climatology as a science is built on a very false premise. That premise is “recorded” temperature. Global warming supporters get all orgasmic over ‘recorded’ temperature and history. The problem is the fact that accurate recorded temperature goes back ONLY as far as the 1870s. Granted, I have a problem with numbers and dyslexia, but that’s only about 144 years. Even if you believe the creationist version of the history of the planet, and it is about 6000 years old, then we have a problem. It is even worse if your brain is unwashed and you comprehend that the planet is a couple billion years old. If you do the logical science thing, than RECORDED TEMPERATURE for 144 years, let’s round it out to a nice 150 years, then basing any theory on 150 years of several billion is stupid. Quite honestly, I don’t see much difference between global warming true believers and extreme creationists. They are both taking an illogical leap of faith.
You need to go back and actually study written history. Historic cold happens.
“...“The atmosphere will often repeat itself,” said forecaster Bob Oravec with the National Weather Service in Maryland. Historic cold events in January 1994, 1985 and during the 2009 first inauguration of President Barack Obama, for instance, happened when the atmospheric patterns looked similar to what we are seeing this week. But that doesn’t explain why extreme winter weather may be on the rise….”
In fact, the first time I ever heard of climate change was back in the early 1970s when I was reading an essay by the late Stephen Jay Gould. He wrote that we were geologically between ice ages. I suspect, had he survived his cancer, we would be hearing something entirely different about climate change. Unfortunately, I suspect Gould was correct, in that we are still living within ice age parameters. If so, then we’re in serious trouble, far greater trouble than we would be with global warming.
Global warming or pure dumb luck?
“…And while some non-scientists and lobbyists argue the cold waves disprove tomes of peer reviewed science on global warming, the scientists themselves are not suggesting this at all — although they have a range of opinions on the cause of the events.
On one hand some researchers put it down to dumb luck, Overland said. After all, four out of five winters isn’t a lot to go on. On the other hand, there have already been connections found between Arctic warming changes in the northern jet stream which cause weather patterns to slow and increase the changes of heat waves and droughts. Perhaps the dramatic warming of the Arctic is changing the wintertime behavior of the polar vortex as well.
Whatever the cause, Overland points out that the waviness of the polar vortex is not permanent, and can switch back and forth, from wavy to a nice, tight circular pattern in a matter of weeks, as has happened already a few times this fall and winter….”
Please note that I said ‘global warming’ and not climate change. I think we are dealing with global climate change. I don’t mind admitting that I’ve been a Newt Gingrich fan since the space funding wars of the early 1980s. If you care about science and space, then you’d better be willing to admit that the only reason we even have a space program is due to Newt Gingrich. He’s a science wonk. He’s a good one. Just because he’s not an ultra liberal, and happens to be a Christian should not discount the fact that the man is into science. Guess what? So am I.
Newt is correct about warmer temperatures and a thriving humanity. Unfortunately, we’re dealing with an industry where global warming is treated as zealously as the far right evangelicals treat dominionism. I really don’t see much difference between the two groups. You dare criticize and you’re treated viciously. Neither side is capable of listening to reason.
Historically, Newt Gingrich, historian is 100% correct. Humanity flourishes during during warming periods. What most people don’t understand is that the era of the Roman Empire – the time of Christ, was about 4 degrees warmer than it is now. When some sort of a global catastrophe occurred, almost in sync with La Morte de Arthur and the end of the Roman Empire as a western power, temperatures crashed. It was a time of death, starvation, and the rise of plague, which would eventually nearly decimate Europe. About six centuries later, the world started warming. We entered into the glories of the high medieval period.
Climate change is very, very real. So are the dangers of pollution. So are the dangers of fracking, destroying our water table, and generally allowing a few individuals to destroy our world for their own financial benefit.
The real problem with rational discourse is that the far left has made a religion out of global warming and the far right has made a religion out of religion. Because of their irrational behavior and almost hatred, refusal to look at either side, voices of reason are being lost in the shuffle. I for one, long for the days of honest and honorable scientists like Stephen Jay Gould and Carl Sagan. I’m as suspicious of global warming scientists as I am far right religious freaks. They are no different, just different ideologies.
When it comes to science and history, Newt usually gets his facts correct. Sure, he may editorialize, but we all do that. But – he has a track record of doing a good job with science fact. This time I agree with him 100%. Sure, 65 million years ago, the temperature was higher. So was the oxygen content in the atmosphere. By the late 1700s, London had been transformed into a polluted, filthy, deadly mess of smog, smoke, filth in the streets, and death. It had a climate all its own. When the city began to clean itself up, the climate changed.
There’s a lesson here, for both right and left. The problem is both sides hate themselves so much, neither gives a damn about listening to the other. They’re both vicious and nasty to anyone who dares to disagree with them. I don’t know about you, but I’m quickly reaching the pox on both your houses point of view.