Brr …Where Did Global Warming Go
Lol … Al Gore, not just a brilliant economist anymore; Now he is also a noble prize winning scientist? Or is he realy just another alarmist, a well paid shill for the subsidy crowd, a used car salesman that we can already all thank for Nafta and getting us on the fast track in the global race to the bottom?
Way to go on getting the price of grain up 300% Al. Cant thank you enough a**hole!
Please share widely!
cold weather, hot weather, tons of hurricanes and almost no hurricanes are all signs of global warming. Haven’t you been listening!??!
No one really understands how the ocean currents work, but there’s good reason to believe that global warming could cause the Gulf Stream to slow down or even stop. The result? The average temperature of the world would be higher. Northern Europe would be colder.
This weeks forecast.
<
p>
Boston breaks temperature record.
Your implied hypothesis that states “it’s cold outside in New England right now, therefore global warming isn’t real” is brilliant. It’s obvious that your personal observation of temperature clearly supersedes the mountains of scientific data and climate observations performed by credentialed Ph.Ds and accredited Universities that have spent entire lifetimes in the scholarly pursuit of climate science. You should write an academic paper on it and apply for research grants. I can’t thank you enough for this erudite post! With one fell swoop of the keyboard, you, nomad943, have debunked global warming and made me see that the thousands of climate scientists of the IPCC and other science academies who state that “climate change is unequivocal” are just, as you say, “a**holes”.
<
p>I have now seen the light.
The only thing you forgot to do was actualy follow the link and actualy read any of the story.
You then went on to base an entire hypothesis on something that was only said inside your own mind …
And then 4 other of your like minded boobs praised your stupidity ….
<
p>Quickly , another round of nobel prizes, one for this stooge right over he’yah and more for his jackass pals …
I don’t need to follow the link to read Jeff Jacoby. No one anywhere needs to follow any links to read Jeff Jacoby. Jeff Jacoby has never been worth reading.
<
p>On scientific matters reading Jeff Jacoby risks making one dumber.
Was the past winter in the southern hemisphere the coldest in 100 years or wasnt it?
Is the winter this year in the northern hemisphere MUCH colder than average or isnt it?
Was the WARMEST year on record 1998 or wasnt it, and if so HOW COME the world has stopped WARMING for the past decade when you all quote the messiah Al as saying end times are so emminent.
Certainly weather cycles do not exist and the thousands of PhDs that signed the letter disputing Als vaunted theory are surly all quacks and Al … NAFTA bungle aside, is an infaluable flipping genious right?
Wake up please. Idol worship is so 17th century and look what it got those people.
Do try <b>bold</b>.
<
p>PhDs apparently know some stuff about probability distributions. Even as the global climate warms up, there will be cold records set here, there, and everywhere. May I welcome you to the world of statistics?
<
p>Did the right’s favorite plagiarist actually pretend to quote some data? My, my. I’m still not reading Jeff Jacoby so you’ll have to provide data yourself — with links since I don’t trust Jeff Jacoby farther than he can be thrown. He is no reputable source.
<
p>My understanding is that 1998 was not the WARMEST year on record — or even the warmest.
<
p>By the way, Al Gore did not “invent” global warming — nor is he its messiah.
No scientist would use simple year to year (or sample-to-sample) differences as relevant to much of anything. They do filtering. With climatologists, they do filtering over five to ten year moving windows to even out the inevitable fluctuations.
fit the data to their pre-conceived notions. No scientist would ever do that.
…your name-calling is effective and persuasive. Anyone who wasn’t sold before has to be sold now.
I didnt realize that somehow who could go on your tangent could also be so SENSATIVE … well excuse me, but next time try reading something before critisizing it. Might give your viewpoint some validity IMO
sensitive not SENSATIVE
criticizing not critisizing
<
p>These are signs of haste and not of careful consideration.
like proverbial Chinese food, instantaneously gratifying, but after a half-hour, not so much.
But perhaps hurling insults at your audience isn’t the best rhetorical approach? I mean I don’t think calling five of us boobs and calling me stupid entices anyone to reconsider your position and delve deeper into whatever point you’re trying to make here. That’s just me, though, maybe I’m wrong.
from the computer….
I read Jeff Jacoby this morning over breakfast. I didn't toss my eggs. I also didn't see any scientific validity in his argument. Carried about as much weight as your continuation of his illogical argument.
Perchance you've seen articles about ice caps the size of American states breaking off and melting?
Perchance you've heard the hubub about the Northwest Passage is navigable?
Maybe you heard that in 2007 alone the Arctic lost glacier the size of Alaska? Or maybe you've heard about the rising sea levels that is forcing mass evacuations of island nations? What's that? You haven't heard that locally Cape Cod is seeing their house insurance rates shoot up because of the threat of rising sea levels?
Yeah, the only logical explanation for all this is that its getting colder.
C'mon. If you're going to make an absurdly stupid argument at least come up with some fun absurd facts that we can't easily quash down. I pay for my Globe subscription. Jeff Jacoby owes me that.
By all means, we must act now to save ourselves. Lets demand that we be taxed now. Say 2 bucks a gallon, that should do for starters, ya think?
We can give the money to the AgraBiz.. er I mean, invest it in alternative fuels ….
Its the only logical solution.
Perchance have you seen ANY scientific evidence that connects human activity to temperature fluctuations?
I have actualy seen persuasive arguments for the case that enhanced CO2 levels might be good for biodiversity of vegetation .. you know, save the rain forests.
I would think you would be all over that.
<
p>Buy a Hummer today and do your part to help save the rain forests … lol.
<
p>Next thing you know you will be beeting the drum about the peak oil myth again …
Sadly that stunt can only be pulled once in a lifetime .. or can it be tried again so soon ???
Hmm …
Might be that when the likes of AlGore choose to lower his standard of living to the level I currently enjoy then maybe I will consider further degrading my own.
Otherwise you better find a better reason to divert the energy we need to drive the economy than the “we dont want it” line you are selling.
<
p>
Yeah, saving ourselves must mean that we need to raise taxes. That is, after all, the only thing that liberals ever ask for, right?
<
p>Like those liberal bastards at the Wall Street Journal who have started a regular section on energy efficiency and alternative energy and all the companies that are making money hand over fist on it. (Sorry, no link because it is fee subscription.)
<
p>Those freakin’ hippies at GE, Toyota, Ford, WalMart!
<
p>Again, if you decide to offer a real argument let me know. Until then I’m going to go take a nap (yawn.)
What possible connection can you draw requiring an offshoot conversation discussing Wall Street cash whores?
Friends of yours?
If there is a buck to be made someone will find a way to exploit it. So what is your point? That somehow we should draw a conclusion on some basis that corporations are willing to step up and profit from government subsidies? Umm .. duh ….. isnt that how the subsidy got put in place to begin with? Why, is somehow the desire to generate alternative fuel something new, like it hasnt been exactly so for decades or beyond?
Umm, isnt the real story more that it is just recently that the US taxpayer got to pony up for the priviledge of subsidizing the entire charade, all logic aside. If a functioning market actualy was involved do you think one flipping cent of the energy to diversify would have wound up in ethanol … and from corn yet???
How about hydrogen for a real hoot. Why not just invest the entire treasury into trying to defy the laws of physics, maybe that will get some results …
Is the actual gola to creat some wild west saloon like atmosphere with the bill to get passed on to the unsuspecting us ….
Why not step back and let the most economicaly feasible solution step forward as it would on its own if subsidies didnt keep perverting the system.
My guess is that logic dictates no alternative is required unless the ground rules are about to be changed drasticaly …
Stay tune for coming attractions ….
Methinks thou dost protest in a wholly illogical manner with no basis in science, economics or the tax code.
<
p>You brought up taxes as the means to solve the problem so I attempted to point out, as many environmentalists and organizations have, that the problem of global warming is going to have to, in large part, be solved through economics. The aforementioned companies are making tremendous amounts of money by reducing their own emissions (reducing their own energy costs mostly through conservation) and by selling products that offer consumers the opportunity to reduce emissions.
<
p>As for Government subsidies, there aren’t many subsidies I am aware of. Install solar panels and you get a subsidy. Purchase a hybrid vehicle and you get a subsidy (though the regulations are such that you can’t get a subsidy for a Prius, among others, any more.)
<
p>If you want to talk subsidy craziness how about the $13 Billion tax break oil companies received3 Billion tax break oil companies received? Now THAT is a subsidy!
BTW, Georgie is the only one who is pushing for a hydrogen future. Everybody else (hydrogen companies excepted) recognizes that is a fool’s errand.
<
p>It also seems you may be upset with ethanol as the price of corn and its derivatives are affected. My sincerest apologies if your bottle of Coke costs more now but two things to keep in mind:
1. Ethanol is being used in part because MTBE has this nasty habit of getting into drinking water and making it unsafe for a few thousand years.
2. The automakers are making all these damned flex-fuel cars that can run on either gasoline or ethanol. How many ethanol filling stations are there in MA? What is two minus two? Yep. Zero. So am I supporting ethanol subsidies? No. Are most enviros? No. Will you blame enviros for that anyway?
That being said, ethanol is really a non-starter. Search through some back issues of Scientific American and you will discover that corn-based ethanol requires almost as much energy to make as the equivalent amount of gasoline. One article mentioned that, if they could figure out how to produce ethanol out of the cellulos portions of the corn (the stalk), which they can’t do now, they might inprove the yield somewhat, but probably not by much.
<
p>The problem with substantial use of corn for ethanol isn’t just the can of Coke with high fructose corn syrup (which is much worse than sugar). There are a number of other problems. It diverts corn from use as feed for farm animals, increasing the cost of beef, pork and chicken. It increases the uptake of water from the relevant acquifers–which can result in subsidance of the land (one reason why New Orleans is sinking). And it encourages use of excessive fertilization, whose run-off will kill the Gulf of Mexico.
<
p>Encouraging use of ethanol as a fuel is really nothing more than a subsidy for corn farmers.
Did someone really just ask that question? Oh my.
… the peak oil myth?
…are you questioning “peak oil” or “myth”?
<
p>Peak oil is the obvious observation that eventually the amount of extractable oil will peak and start declining. The issue is when–and that is the “myth” part.
<
p>We can re-use steel and other recycleables, but oil is not recycleable.
… not that there is or isn’t one, but what it is specifically. The phenomenon of a finite resource’s supply eventually hitting a peak can’t be a myth (I think it can be demonstrated axiomatically) so I was wondering what he was referring to specifically.
… that insists without GOD, morality is all ‘make-it-up-as-you-go-along’.
<
p>http://www.boston.com/news/glo…
What does that link have to do with climate change?
I know numerous people who bemoan that fact that christmas once implied something other than the data release date for retail sales figures and its subsequant impact on financial markets.
Ah those were the days …. so what is your point again? I must have missed it.
… I just find him ridiculous. I’d no sooner trust him as a source on climate change over the IPCC than I’d take Derek Jacobi as a source on neurobiology.
I live on the cape.
I have the letters from my insurers.
They specifically cite wind damage as the reason for the pullouts and deductible increases. Climate change is not mentioned anywhere.
Flood damage has always been subject to limited coverage around here.
Try reading the story linked above. Or this one which says, in part,
Or this one that speaks to the cancellation of many plans on the Cape stating
That wouldnt have anything to do with people devel.oping every linear foot of beachfront on the cape would it?
When I was a kid you could basicaly walk around the cape … today its hard to find a spot to park you car near any beach ….
So property losses are up since the 1970s you say ….
Hmmm …
Must be global warming then .. I see your point .. (not) 🙂
Noooooooo. If you would bother to read the articles or any of the gazillion (approximate) articles on global warming, its causes and its effects you might recognize that this has absolutely nothing to do with sprawl (other than the increased emissions caused thereof.)
<
p>Destruction will be due to increased intensity of storms, storm surges, and rising sea levels.
<
p>When you were a kid you supposedly took science classes when you weren’t walking on the beach, right? Or did you skip the classes to take those walks?
…to news sources outside the insurance industry.
<
p>Again, the actual correspondence I received from insurers cite wind damage, not rising sea levels, as the reason for their policy changes.
Here is what the insurers are saying:
<
p>Or this one which says
<
p>
<
p>and continues thus
Insurers are raising rates!
Now there is a surprise.
They claim that they are raising rates due to an increase in the number of claims filed .. Umm, okay.
So you reject my theory that the increase in claims filed might just correspond more to the drasticaly increased development along the shoreline. Hmm ..
And then you ACCEPT the insurers citing that they can continue to increase record profits by raising rates to account for …… CLIMATE CHANGE.
lol …
Next thing you will tell me is that auto insurance rates are not high because of high traffic volume resulting in accidents, but instead they are high as insurers claim because of …. FRAUD.
Or health insurers lament that PEOPLE GET SICK …
lol
It works wonders!
<
p>Insurers cite an increased risk to property due to an increase in storm intensity.
Property insurers will (or at least used to) insure against wind damage. They would not insure against flood damage–hence the federal (taxpayer subsidized flood insurance) flood insurance program. (That latter is not exactly the case, but close enough.) One problem is that the number of people who take advantage of the federally-subsidized flood insurance program is between slim and none.
<
p>The fact is that storms along the coastline result in damage is a combination of flooding and wind. Thus, the insurance companies say that they aren’t liable for the damage because it is due to flooding, and the insureds have to fight the insurance companies for any reimbursement for damage that might have come from wind. The problem got so bad in FL that, after property insurers threatened to pull out of the state, the state(!) set up its own taxpayer supported insurance program for both wind and flood.
<
p>That is, of course, intended to support property values, since it is virtually impossible to get a mortgage unless the mortagor can get insurence on the property. I’m actually surprised that, given the number of fires in southern CA, they don’t have a similar problem.
Your post is mostly correct but misses the point. If it were a question for insurance companies of time spent bickering over whether the damage was caused by wind or water they could handle that.
<
p>The problem instead is that insurance companies expect a marked increase in risk of damage (wind via storm intensity via global warming). That uptick in risk makes insuring in places like Cape Cod a bad bet, ergo, hasta luego.
Just another biased opinion piece from Jeff Jacoby.
…since he hasn’t seen evolution to occur. I’m sure that that would go over well.
THAT is what constitutes “global warming”. Sure we still get cold spells and I expect we will continue to throughout our lifetimes, but I don’t believe the trend of melting polar ice has reversed much lately. As for Al Gore, keep in mind he didn’t get a Nobel for being a scientist; he got it for publicizing facts widely accepted by the scientific community, including the United Nations panel with which he shares the prize.
Jacoby’s column has the purpose only of providing fodder for climate change deniers to email to each other. Ask a gardener, a cross country skier, a maple sugar tapper, or anyone who has cosistenly spent a great deal of time outdoors in winter or in early spring over the past 40 years if global warming is a fraud. The evidence of global warming on the ground and in the sea from Siberia, to Alaska, to New England, to the Alps and elsewhere is so clear and dramatic that it does raise questions about the motives of Mr. Jacoby and like-minded global warming deniers. Why claim that global warming is a fraud when thousands of scientists carrying out peer reviewed research and taking part in the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have outlined the dimensions of global warming in extraordinary detail? Some of the posts with their vitriolic hatred of Al Gore and warning against taxes may provide clues. Combating global warming will require making changes in how we live, and it will undoubtedly require government intervention. This appears to be the true cause of global warming denial. For some, it apparently is still better to gamble with our environment and planet than it is to reconsider political dogmas. Fortunately there are signs of change in that global warming denial is rapidly vanishing among political leaders of both parties. This is one of the issues that makes an eleciton of a Democrat urgent, but John McCain would also, I believe, reverse the ruinous policies of the Bush administration in this area.
…gives Jacoby the time of day. I figured out that he was an idiot a long time ago. His columns are cross-posted on a right-wing/pseudo-conservative website TownHall.com that publishes columns by other wackos, so his rhetorical gay-bashing and global climate change denial aren’t much of a surprise.
so it’s difficult to ignore the man completely. I think to myself, well, he must have some credibility if The Boston Globe keeps publishing the column. Isn’t it a violation of some rule fo journalistic ethics for the Globe to knowingly let him tell lies? Maybe the Globe itself isn’t as serious or rigorous in the pursuit of truth as it used to be, or at least has pretended to be. When the Globe refused to run a paid advertisement criticizing Fidelity’s investments in Darfur I wondered why, given their liberal reputation. I guess they’re just another cog in the Corporate machine, probably being eyed by Rupert Murdoch as we speak.
unfortunately his dumb remarks, I believe, would be protected by the first amendment, the Globe would argue
Even the KKK is entitled to print and distribute their own pamphlets, or have their own website, but as smart as I think I am the Globe has never felt obligated to give me any space in their prestigious publication. That’s their prerogative.
But you’re not on their payroll. Dopeyhead is. They can’t stop him from saying stupid stuff, unless it crosses some threshold, right? (a la blatant attacks, racist remarks, slanderous remarks, etc.) Should “facts” and “truth” be considered a threshold? I think so.
<
p>The Globe is still regarded as a Reputable, Serious Newspaper
<
p>It took me a couple of hours to get off the floor laughing at this. I’ve never considered the Glob as a reputable, serious newspaper, since I move here to the Boston area in 1979.
<
p>I’ll presume that you’re being facetious. We have an HTML tag for that: “/tic” (end tongue in cheek).
…why is the February thaw in the Boston area occurring in early January?
<
p>I actually have a serious observation. We don’t like being inundated by snow during the winter, but the sad fact is that snow deposits provide sources for water in the melt in the spring and early summer. Where is the water going to come from in the summer if we don’t have a sufficient snow deposit during the winter? I doubt that Timbuktu would be interested in sharing their water with us.
<
p>I’ve mentioned here elsewhere that access to water is one of the primary driving forces for the battles in the Mid East. It may come to that in the western hemisphere, also.
There are two problems for property insurers
<
p>The problem instead is that insurance companies expect a marked increase in risk of damage (wind via storm intensity via global warming). That uptick in risk makes insuring in places like Cape Cod a bad bet, ergo, hasta luego.
<
p>Number one is that the climate is changing so quickly that they cannot assess the risks sufficiently quickly as to allow them to adjust the premiums in accordance with the changing risks.
<
p>Number two is that there is a regulatory environment in the states that makes it difficult for them to adjust the premiums. The states want to keep the insurance rates low, to maintain the property values, but, since the property is virtually uninsurable, the values aren’t as high as the property owners believe they are. Taxpayers, mostly low-income, are subsidizing property owners.
<
p>Hint: do a search on the Internet for pictures of what damage massive storms can do. I lived through tornados spawned by Hurricane Camilla (1969) in Cincinnati. You would be amazed at what damage a massive storm can do even 1500 miles from the coast.