Friday, January 28, 2011
The snow/climate change connection & some other Notes
Oh God I was homebound yesterday not because I couldn't go out but I didn't want to lose my parking space, the space I spent a good hour shoveling out (garbage cans are so yesterday). The 7th snowstorm of the season up here in the Northeast, snowiest January on record for Central Park where there was 19" of the white stuff on the ground yesterday. This is the time of year when you browse through large swaths of the conservative blogosphere and you'll see the predictable large-scale photo of the latest blizzard with the title "What Global Warming?" and a few potshots at AlGore so yesterday there was some Japanese scientist on the Today Show saying maybe this all has to do with global warming. Seems there might be more moisture in the Gulf of Mexico these days colliding with that rush of Arctic air coming down from Canada and you really have to love the sheer philosophical tenacity of the global warming crowd, whenever you're theorizing and encounter contrary evidence spin it your way. Now I've been theorizing my whole life about people, things whatever but you're bound to encounter things that don't always support your theory every now and then. Some people become more devoted actually when this happens and have an uncanny ability to work the odd stuff back in but that's not good theorizing imo. It's like with the few people and they're not in the majority by any stretch but when you lose alot of weight your co-workers think you're sick but when you tell 'em two or three times the deal they still stick with the erroneous theory ("Z-man has been losing alot of weight lately. It can't really be all that fish and veggies and exercising, must've been sucking some mean dick. I mean does he ever talk about a girlfriend?" chatter chatter) You know persisting in bad theories is, well just plain bad and can cause all sorts of trouble, a real snowjob you could say. Now I'm more open to theories of climate change than your average conservative but a snowstorm a week beginning the day after Christmas is still a snowstorm a week beginning the day after Christmas and if we had glaciers forming on top of skyscrapers in downtown Manhattan we'd still have the same Japanese scientists blaming it on some jetstream of warm air down south. So temperatures are rising folks but expect more snow. Yeah I thought of doing a blog on Obama's SOTU and his reemergence as a conservative (did he actually say something about unnecessary regulations and parts of the health-care law being bad for Small Business?) but this latest commentary on the winter we've been having up here in the Northeast is just too rich. BTW re this work thing soap feels you should work during a blizzard if you're scheduled to go in and Beth feels in general if you're scheduled X amount of hours during the day you should work those X hours. I just feel you should be able to use your last ten or fifteen minutes to wash up and rap and you have to use your own personal judgement about the weather. My position can best be summed up: in this here 21st Century there should be a more rational way to work. I challenge anybody on this stuff but if you want to talk about the SOTU instead I got no problem. BTW if you're driving in the City and your car gets stuck Bloomberg says you may be towed at your own expense. This guy STILL doesn't get it!!:))
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I see you are getting more than your fair share of snow there. Have you considered trading in your
ReplyDeletecar on a pair of good snowshoes?
I don't see any contradiction. Weather patterns are global. The important thing to observe here is that things are unusual, the weather pattern this year is abnormal compared to historical data.
ReplyDeletePeople love to use the fact that one section of the country is getting snow as some refutation of a global crisis, but they don't stop to realize that it's not just the Northeast that's being affected, and that something like global warming can have all kinds of effects as the systems get disrupted.
That's pretty basic science. For example, a simple change in the Gulf stream current would change weather as we know it all along the eastern seaboard. So would a change in the currents off the west coast. One phenomenon effects another and so on; weather is a global system, not some kind of tri-state only or even national-only problem.
Beth feels in general if you're scheduled X amount of hours during the day you should work those X hours. I just feel you should be able to use your last ten or fifteen minutes to wash up and rap
ReplyDeleteLet me throw it back to you this way: say you bought a ticket to see Lady Gaga, but she didn't sing "Poker Face" or even "Telephone" because she felt like the last 10 minutes she wanted to wash up and rap. Or you went to a movie theatre and the guy showing the movie stopped it with 10 minutes to go, because he wanted 10 minutes to grab a cup a joe and hit the bathroom before his shift was over?
To Saty - it is pretty commonly agreed upon that global warming is a hoax, so the more people use huge snowstorms to justify their cause, the sillier they look.
ReplyDeleteBeth we used to agree more:)
ReplyDeleteBTW if Gaga wants to spare me the last few minutes of her act because she has diarrhea I got no problem.
ReplyDeleteTo Saty - it is pretty commonly agreed upon that global warming is a hoax, so the more people use huge snowstorms to justify their cause, the sillier they look.
ReplyDeleteThis depends on who you ask. It's illogical to think that CO2 in vast quantities can be continually pumped into the air, while simultaneously clearcutting hundreds of thousands of acres of trees that remove CO2 from the air, that no buildup of CO2 will occur or that said buildup will have no effect.
Again, the key with the weather patterns are their abnormality. No one can dispute the melting of the glaciers at alarmingly fast rates; you can ask the Inuit who have seen their villages drowned and you can ask the Greenlanders and Icelanders about their fishing. These are the people who actually live there, so it'd only be someone irrational who'd argue with them about the changes they have personally witnessed in the past few years.
That being said, any shift in the system has global consequences. The key is to look at the changes that have occurred since the Industrial Revolution.
Now, many people don't want to look at these kinds of things objectively because they're afraid it will somehow cost them convenience, or money, or luxury. But an honest assessment of the facts-which is hard to get, because people don't want to give up anything at all for the betterment of the planet and others-is hard to come by.
You can also obtain some valuable objective, scientific information at:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/what.html
and here as well:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Here's a short quote:
Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995.
Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).
Those would be the objective facts, and not someone's attempt to discredit science to avoid personal inconveniences.
650,000 years? More like
ReplyDelete15 million ..reminds of an old physical chemistry prof, "In God we trust-all others bring data". Whether the data
is accepted, not understood or rejected appears to depend on
wishful thinking, or
which news source
one uses for their scientific understanding...
BB-that quote was from NOAA's palaeoclimatology page. It strikes me as amazing that people continue to attempt to refute the data; not only is it an illogical theorem but it's irrational even on the surface. A system (any system, down to the human body) cannot tolerate a nonstop barrage while simultaneously taking away the system's ability to self-correct. The result is inevitably a breakdown. You don't need a degree in physics to figure that one out; any kid can come to the conclusion without any difficulty whatsoever. But for political reasons and the fear of having to make some personal sacrifice, people try to insist that it's just not so. Far as I'm concerned that's just plain evidence of an appalling lack of basic logic.
ReplyDeleteYou're absolutely right; these people choose to believe only those things that will benefit them personally, and despite the overwhelming evidence, continue to attempt to discredit and refute them in an effort to preserve their personal convenience and luxuries, even though it be at the expense of the entire planet.
I could list hundreds of links that are of scientists who think it is a hoax, so what makes your link "the" magical one that is right? Answer: there isn't one shred of evidence that there is any sort of global warming problem, so your link is nothing special.
ReplyDeleteNow, you may go on with your life thinking there is a dire problem and you need to do something about it, that is fine, you go right on ahead. But don't you dare expect legislation and start telling me what cars to drive and what light bulbs to have so that treehuggers everywhere are happy while liberals are profiting from it like Al Gore, THEN I really have a problem with the religion of the greenies.
You think NOAA doesn't know what they're talking about?
ReplyDeleteYou think the Inuit whose villages have been drowned are lying?
You think the Greenlanders and Icelanders who depend on their ice packs for hunting and fishing are full of it?
You think the fact that multiple nations are negotiating for the control of new areas opened up since massive areas of ice melted is some sort of false propaganda?
These are facts, Beth, not anyone's opinion. You can believe what you want, but the facts remain regardless. Your quote expresses what I said: people choose to believe what personally benefits them, and refuse to believe anything that might impact them personally, whether it be financially or convenience wise. That's a selfish approach at the expense of the entire planet.
I simply don't buy the connection between CO2 and any sort of weather impact, and many scientists also say the same thing as me. It isn't about me being selfish, it's about me not taking the word of a bunch of people who are directly profiting from initiatives because of junk science and who they themselves don't cut back on emissions one iota. They are hypocrites and you may wish to do what they say but not do themselves, I am not falling for it. Sorry if this offends you.
ReplyDeleteI am all for saving the planet, if it needs saving, I don't think it does. It will self-correct. I am more concerned with clean water myself.
ReplyDelete"...many people don't want to look at these kinds of things objectively..."
ReplyDeleteGlad I'm not one of them. Looking at it objectively, one would have to ask why so many of the "models" use surface temperatures and not atmospheric temperatures. Then, taking surface temperatures into account, one would have to objectively ask what effect placing a thermometer and temperature gauge next to say an air conditioning unit outdoors facing the afternoon sun might have on the validity of temperature data and the model in general.
"I simply don't buy the connection between CO2 and any sort of weather impact.." If you have
ReplyDeletesignificant technical data, advise you rush
across town and set them straight...
Before I plow through this from where I stand 7 snowstorms in the Northeast (maybe an 8th next couple of days) since the day after Xmas constitutes contrary evidence and any honest theorizer has to concede their counter-influence if you will and so it still amazes me how the global warmers can spin this their way. By this sort of logic three feet of snow in Manhattan would mean what exactly? that AlGore is even righter?
ReplyDeleteSoapie makes a good point. When I was growing up my Mom had one of those big circular thermometers right outside the window and when the sun hit it you'd get all these bizarre temperatures. George Will has talked about how at one times there was alarmism about global cooling but that was back in the day. Yes the Earth goes through cycles and it's easy enough to google or bing stuff and be an expert on everything but again and I'm repeating myself the winter we're having up here is not the best evidence for global warming imho. Hell when it hasn't been snowing it's felt like 5 or 10 degrees out on some nights. Just passed Lake Gleneida the other day on my day off. That's in Carmel NY and a few folks were ice fishing so call me a rube or a yokel if you want but that constitutes further contrary evidence in my book:)
ReplyDeleteNew York weather is a pinpoint in terms of global
ReplyDeleteclimate. Remember last summer? The term global weirding termed by Ian Morris may better explain
the oddities of microclimatology vis a vis
long term planet warming....
I agree with Beth here, nothing's been proven and sure I got a week off coming up in March and can bing with the best of 'em but from my rather meager knowledge of the subject what we're talking about here from what I've read anyway is like it's one degree warmer in general than it used to be, stuff like that. Truth be told if the planet really does warm alot more than this in the future and we even got dinosaurs roaming around none of us is gonna be around anyway so personally speaking in terms of my priorities I needed deodorant today, some shaving cream, am still looking for a small bag of rock salt and what to do with anchovies. Know what I'm sayin'? I haven't married the issue you could say, don't care one way or the other.
ReplyDeleteYou will care when they jam legislation down our throats with Cap and Trade (which will make the likes of Al Gore rich and will cost the rest of us dearly) and stupid green initiatives that do nothing but control us, cost us money, and meanwhile the earth will self-correct and as someone mentioned a few years ago we were headed to the next ice age, so I am not believing the crisis hype anymore.
ReplyDeleteYou will care when they jam legislation down our throats with Cap and Trade (which will make the likes of Al Gore rich and will cost the rest of us dearly) and stupid green initiatives that do nothing but control us, cost us money,
ReplyDeletewhich is a stunningly perfect example of this:
You're absolutely right; these people choose to believe only those things that will benefit them personally, and despite the overwhelming evidence, continue to attempt to discredit and refute them in an effort to preserve their personal convenience and luxuries, even though it be at the expense of the entire planet.
The only truly comparable complex system one can use in an analogy with the earth is the human body. I'll try to keep this simple and in little words.
If you take someone's body (the earth) and feed it chemicals, filthy water, and poor food (massive quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, billons of tons of garbage into the oceans, toxic chemicals and radioactive waste into the earth), then take away the person's immune system, kidneys, liver, and spleen (hundreds of millions of acres of forest clearcut and never replanted, which are the organs the person would use to fight disease and infection (the ability to take co2 out of the air), it will be virtually expected that the person develops a fatal illness.
You cannot reasonably, rationally expect a person whose bodily defenses against toxins and pathogens, on a cellular and organ-based level, to be able to ward off illness.
In the same way, you cannot reasonably, rationally expect the innumerable complex systems that make up oceanic, atmospheric and geologic processes to undergo an increasing onslaught of pollution and 'be able to self-correct'. This is essentially a delusional approach that ignores facts (see Inuit, Greenlanders, Icelanders above, as well as hundreds of years of recorded climactic data proving that the average temperature of the earth is increasing, and hundreds of thousands of years of co2 levels' data, also above) and chooses to believe only those things that result in a personal benefit.
The level of self-centeredness of such an approach is, sadly, typical of a capitalist mentality, which values profits and personal luxury and comforts over people, and simply ignores facts that are personally inconvenient.
Just wondering, Saty, do you drive a car? If you do, how can you put your own personal luxury ahead of the environment that you claim we all need to save? If you yourself cannot be without a car (and I know you do drive one) then your little chiding here trying to act all superior to me is bogus.
ReplyDeleteNot chiding, just curious;
ReplyDeletehaving set fire to the
Cuyahoga ten times has Cleveland made any progress?
BB, but you are muddying the waters (pun intended!) You are trying to give an example of a environmental problem where the cause/effect can be determined without a doubt and the fix indisputable, into this discussion where a cause/effect cannot be determined. Sorry buddy, this time you are off base.
ReplyDeleteJust wondering, Saty, do you drive a car? If you do, how can you put your own personal luxury ahead of the environment that you claim we all need to save?
ReplyDeleteHi Beth, in fact I do drive a car as I live ten miles from the nearest gallon of milk and 32 miles from my job. If public transportation were available I would surely take it. Until then, I have no option but to own some kind of vehicle (and electric vehicles don't have the range we require or we'd own one).
However, in our house, which runs on electric set to timers to save energy, we have fluorescent bulbs and energy-saving appliances. We recycle EVERYTHING. We live on six wooded acres that were selectively cleared (deadwood and diseased trees only) just enough to fit the house in. In addition we have planted over 100 perennial plants since we've moved in, including 16 heirloom and species roses, 7 fruit trees and half a dozen grapevines, all grown organically.
We have a large garden that is also managed organically and in which I grow a lot of things that get canned (reusing the jars from year to year) for winter. The seeds we use are non-hybrid open pollinated varieties so that seed can be saved from year to year.
This year we have switched to raw unpasteurized milk that comes in half gallon Mason jars (which get refilled once a week) from cows that are raised without hormones or antibiotics, and who will never be sent to slaughter.
Whenever there is an option to use a recycled item (such as paper products), we take it. If we have to use a product that isn't recycled, we find a way to recycle it ourselves (such as two-liter Coke bottles being used to protect tomato seedlings). Food waste is composted using the bokashi method and ultimately returns to the garden. Grass, leaves, and garden trimmings, etc, also get composted. Recycled lumber scraps and extra carpeting left over from when we built our house were recently utilized to build a staircase for our dog so she can get on the bed by herself (she's old). Older furniture gets repurposed and my husband recently installed a set of virtually brand-new cabinets that came from the Habitat store, which otherwise would have gone to a dumpster.
Things we don't use anymore, like the three remaining unbroken dishes from the set I got in 1992, small kitchen gadgets, pots I don't use and clothes that are way too big for me now all get given away to people who need them. Wool sweaters get felted and then made into things like mittens and hats.
We are considering changing to a tankless water heater that uses much less energy than a regular tank and investigating the possibility of installing solar panels on the house.
So I may drive a car, Beth, since I have no option but to do so, but in every other aspect of our lives we remain aware and actively involved in doing everything we can to reduce waste and pollution, and take care of the environment, not only for ourselves but for everyone's benefit.
Another example of recycling: guitar and bass strings, if they can't be boiled and restrung, have been used to create garden trellises to keep up the tomatoes. So have pieces of fabric from clothes that are too torn up and/or permanently filthy (mostly my husband's work clothes) to give away. Other clothes that are too old and raggedy to give away but still nice in spots get cut up and used to make all kinds of crafty things like placemats, teapot cozies, coasters and the like. Old coffee mugs that have a crack have been used as little planters (herbs grow nicely in these). Just about a week ago I planted radishes in a cardboard box (left over from some shipment we got) lined with a piece of old plastic. They're growing nicely in front of the kitchen window. I've also used things like old dishpans and even old five-gallon buckets (you have to line them because usually something gross has been in them).
ReplyDeleteWe got some big barrels from the peanut factory in Henderson and turned them into rain barrels. The rainwater gets used to irrigate the plants. This comes in exceptionally handy when we have a drought and saves me a lot of work hauling water to hither and yon all over.
The pumphouse we built was made of brick that was leftover from a job. In the backyard I have two dozen concrete block (also leftover) that are going to be used as the foundation of a mud oven that's going in come springtime. Even the little tables we have on the porch by the rocking chairs were made from wood scraps that I painted with scenes of lighthouses (not Michaelangelo by any means but cute in a rustic Grandma Moses kind of way).
There's lots of ways to reuse and recycle things everything around the house with a little thought and creativity. It saves money. It saves energy. It benefits the environment by creating less waste to go to landfills, leach into water tables and destroy wildlife habitats (and in some cases, wildlife itself). And we have the satisfaction of knowing that we are making a small contribution to the health of the planet and thereby to every single person that lives on it.
"Sorry buddy, this time you are off base." Well,
ReplyDeleteBeth, it sure wouldn't be the first time! My point
was that the problem was figured out in hindsight
(the river caught fire 10 times), and that possibly
somewhere along the timeline there was data which predicted that. My home state had papermills
along the rivers when I was a kid-no swimming, no fish, just funny smelling murky stuff. They finally
cleaned the place up (I was amazed that ANY midwest rivers could be
clear and full of fish), but as always it was a battle between the vested
interest of those businesses-investment, employment etc. and the
fishermen, landowners along the streams and communities which drew
drinking water. Again, it was hindsight, not foresight. I guess we
all more or less agree with the former and argue about the latter.
Saty - you should be super pissed that Al Gore is profiting from global warming scams and he doesn't even do half of what you do for the environment. Doesn't that irk you?
ReplyDeleteBB - they knew what was the problem with the river, they just chose poorly and did nothing. Global warming has not been proven as being caused by anything other than normal climate fluctuations, so it is not the same thing.
If people chose to do something they think will help the environment, more power to them, er, I mean less power to them??
But when certain people are going to profit from forcing people to do things they think may help, well then I am skeptical and am not going to simply buy into the hype.
Beth,
ReplyDeleteWhat irks me are people who can look at the facts and then go to incredible, insane, irrational lengths to refute them, and then when that doesn't work, attack the situation from another, no less insane or irrational angle, in a mad attempt to justify their own selfish beliefs.
That's what irks me.
Have a great day.
Enjoy the Kool Aid, Saty.
ReplyDeleteSaty, there are no FACTS in this case, there is speculation. So, you have decided to look at just one side of the speculation (which is pretty typical for you, you wear blinders). But there is an opposing viewpoint, YOU are the one who isn't willing to see another side of the issue, which irks me greatly.
ReplyDeleteI don't care if you CHOOSE to recycle or drive or not drive or use certain light bulbs, it is (supposed to be) a free country where YOU can do that, if you wish. My beef is with those who want to force feed us crap that IS DISPUTABLE.
If you can't get that through your head, then I cannot help you.
There's nothing at all wrong about the existence of opposing viewpoints, God knows we need them and let's not forget those scandalous climate change e-mails. Saty you mentioned fluorescent lights which I HATE. Working 8 hours under 'em on some days and I really do think it effects everyone and in a negative way. You can google the bad health effects of fluorescent lighting and you don't have to be autistic to be sensitive to it. You can have your fluorescent bulbs but let me keep my incandescents.
ReplyDeleteThere's only one place in the house worth having the CFLs and that's the bathroom. You don't need to be blinded when you wake up in the middle of the night to piss.
ReplyDeleteOK I had to take a sec there to google that there little acronym. Fluorescents at work, just hate 'em. If I want to work in a factory I'll work in a factory.
ReplyDeleteNow they are talking lighting with solid state gadgets ...
ReplyDeleteIMO, the lighting of the
Edison incandescents is closer to the natural solar spectrum, while the
CFL types (blame the excited atoms) glow at
discrete wavelengths. So,
they can be obnoxious. After 50 years of working
under florescents, they
didn't bother me that much, since I filled my
basement railroad with them. Being cheap, I like
the energy savings ratio of the CFLs..and being simple, I figure there's light and there's dark; and to paraphrase soapie,
Tis better to light one little candle, than to piss in the dark....
So back to my original point:
ReplyDeleteScientists have been collecting weather data for over 100 years. Seven of the last ten years have been the warmest on record. The data they have collected is fact, not speculation.
The Inuit have had their villages drowned as water levels have risen due to ice melt. This is fact, not speculation.
The Greenlanders and Icelanders have had their fishing industries negatively affected by the mass melt of their ice. This is fact, not speculation.
Countries around the world, including Norway, Russia, and the US, are frantically scrambling to claim sovereignty over new polar areas opened up by the massive ice melt. This is fact, not speculation.
NOAA has collected over half a million years of data regarding atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. The PPM of carbon dioxide have risen dramatically since the Industrial Revolution and continue to rise at alarming rates. Fact, not speculation.
You have conveniently failed to address any of these facts in your eagerness to ignore them and claim repeatedly that they are speculation.
You may wish to check in with the Inuit, the Greenlanders, the United States military, and NOAA and see how much speculation they've got going on.
The bottom line is, Beth, that when you're confronted with facts, you change tack. You start in with Al Gore, with cap and trade, with anything that might distract from the actual reality of the situation. This is called a red herring, and basically, to anyone with eyes to see, it doesn't work.
Address the facts, instead of trying to distract from the issues.
Those facts do not mean that the cause/effect has been proven. Now as I have said a million times, you are free to do as you see fit with what you think is right, and leave me alone to do the same. And we are each free to think the other is wrong. Freedom is great, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteI'm getting from you Saty a sort of presupposition that all of the things you address in that most recent post aren't suppose to be that way.
ReplyDeleteIf I'm not mistaken, there was a time when Greenland wasn't covered in snow and ice. There was a time when presently frozen lanes were not frozen and thus open for shipping.
Our record keeping of climate and temperature information is so infantile that it is impossible for us to even begin to imagine what might be a constant temperature or what is "normal" in terms of global temperatures and overall climate data of the world.
People can ignore the facts, choose to disbelieve them, make heroic efforts to refute and discredit them, and in the end they still remain facts.
ReplyDeleteThere are those who believe the world is hollow. No matter how many seismic studies you show them, regardless of the geologic data you can explain to them, they're going to continue to believe the earth is hollow.
That's their issue. The fact remains that the earth is solid (although technically an extremely viscous semi-liquid beneath the Moho). All their belief, all their conviction, and all their devotion to discredit the facts don't change the facts.
The facts are there regardless.
Blah blah blah. The only thing I took from that was that "the facts are there regardless."
ReplyDeleteIndeed they are. Now perhaps you'd like to comment on the very facts I posted?
"...there was a time when Greenland wasn't covered in snow and ice. There was a time when presently frozen lanes were not frozen and thus open for shipping.
Our record keeping of climate and temperature information is so infantile that it is impossible for us to even begin to imagine what might be a constant temperature or what is "normal" in terms of global temperatures and overall climate data of the world."
Saty: "The PPM of carbon dioxide have risen dramatically since the Industrial Revolution."
ReplyDeleteSo what's the solution? We all know how Pol Pot's agrarian utopian society worked out.
"The bottom line is, Beth, that when you're confronted with facts you change tack. You start in with Al Gore..."
But let's face it, there's just something about Al Gore that's vaguely annoying. My liberal cousin said once he'd vote for him, he's kinda the Meathead of the family so for me I can't help thinking of my liberal cousin when I think of Al Gore. I think soapie raises an excellent point, let's just posit your facts Saty. Why are they bad? It's not so much the facts it's the spin people put on them and then you talk about the last ten years. All I know is from where I live the last 3 or so winters have absolutely sucked around here, 'splain that.
The thing about Al Gore is that he doesn't practice what he preaches, and the whole carbon credits doesn't lessen the amount of carbon, it just gives him income because he has a stake in the carbon exchange company! It is so ridiculous that he is the poster boy for "global warming".
ReplyDeleteIt has been so damn cold lately, it makes me want to use more carbon in case it really does warm the earth!!!
ReplyDelete(kidding, Saty, don't have a cow)