Another global warming tragedy

If by tragedy, you mean yet another example of how global warming is all a giant scam, and people who keep doing stuff like this, and end up making idiots out of themselves, only to prove their own theory wrong.

These are not the first people to try and prove that global warming is true by hiking through the Arctic, where the polar ice is supposedly melting.

The result, however, is the same (emphasis mine):

A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite. The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment.

"Ann said losing toes and going forward at all costs was never part of the journey," said Ann Atwood, who helped organize the expedition.

But the latest trek got off to a bad start. The day they set off from Ward Hunt Island, a plane landing near the women hit their gear, punching a hole in Bancroft's sled and damaging one of Arnesen's snowshoes.

They repaired the snowshoe with binding from a ski, but Atwood said the patch job created pressure on Arnesen's left foot, which led to blisters that then turned into frostbite.

Then there was the cold _ quite a bit colder, Atwood said, then Bancroft and Arnesen had expected. One night they measured the temperature inside their tent at 58 degrees below zero, and outside temperatures were exceeding 100 below zero at times, Atwood said.

"My first reaction when they called to say there were calling it off was that they just sounded really, really cold," Atwood said.

She said Bancroft and Arnesen were applying hot water bottles to Arnesen's foot every night, but had to wake up periodically because the bottles froze.

The explorers had planned to call in regular updates to school groups by satellite phone, and had planned online posts with photographic evidence of global warming. In contrast to Bancroft's 1986 trek across the Arctic with fellow Minnesota explorer Will Steger, this time she and Arnesen were prepared to don body suits and swim through areas where polar ice has melted.

Atwood said there was some irony that a trip to call attention to global warming was scuttled in part by extreme cold temperatures.

"They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."

See, one of the things that comes with global warming is unpredictability -- now I get it! Extreme cold = global warming. Lots of hurricanes = global warming. No hurricanes = global warming. Blizzards = global warming. Any kind of weather, anywhere, is caused by global warming!

What I can't help but wonder about is how these out-to-prove-global-warming-true-explorers (and these two are definitely not the first ones, and probably won't be the last) ever thought anything different would happen. I mean, when they sat around thinking about swimming through the arctic circle, did they really believe their own propaganda, and think they wouldn't freeze? And even if they did believe their own propaganda, why did they not realize the game was up when their gear froze?

Maybe then they just sat around and started praying to the Goracle. Instead of facing Mecca, they face Malibu. Global warming and environmentalism is the religion of choice for moonbats, after all.

A good quote from American Thinker:

I hope the two recover fully and come to realize that it can still be really, really cold in the arctic, no matter what Al Gore tells them.

...

I hope they are now letting those school groups know that it is foolish to plan to swim in the Arctic beacuse it gets really, really cold there.

Hat Tip: Moonbattery.

1998 is NOT the warmest year on record

NASA has rather quietly fixed the numbers behind a "ground-breaking" discovery: a chart that showed that 1998 was the warmest year in American history. Get that? Warmest. year. ever.

But now, we're finding out that those numbers were wrong, something GISS head and enviromoonbat extraordinaire James Hansen, who created the graphs along with NASA’s Reto Ruedy, had no official announcement or comment to make on.

It wasn't until Steve McKintyre, who operates the blog Climate Audit asked to see the algorythms Hansen used to generate the data, which was refused to him. So McKyntire reverse-engineered the numbers and found a Y2K bug. He notified Hansen and Ruedy of the problem, who said they would fix it.

NASA released the corrected figures, and boy, are they sure different:

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.

The really fun part is that NASA and GISS didn't report this.

You would think that they would, considering the current global warming "debate". But because according to the Goracle, Hansen, and other enviromoonbats like them there is a "consensus", there's no need to. Throw any scientific data at them you'd like to, and it won't matter, because according to these guys, the debate is over anyways.

Agree with the Goracle and you'll get more money.

Another interesting thought -- how accurate could temperature data be in the 19th century? The 18th? The 17th? I mean, we can't go back in time and test data from 1781 or something using the superior technology we have today to find out what temperatures were like then. So when it comes down to it, how do we really, truly know what the warmest years are? I'm no science whiz, so if there is some way to accurately find out temperatures from like, 1824 then by all means, let me know. I just find it hard to believe that, even with the corrected data, we can be certain that these years are the warmest years ever in American history.

Oh well.

Somehow, I don't see this going onto the cover of Newsweek.

Others commenting:
Moonbattery
Iowa Voice
Newsbusters
Blue Crab Boulevard
Tigerhawk
Wake Up America
Hot Air
American Thinker
Q & O
Macsmind
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
IMAO
And of course,
Climate Audit

Rolling Stone calls ethanol one of America's biggest political boondoggles

Shocking, huh? I thought Rolling Stone existed to echo the favorite bleatings of the left wing.

Apparently, they're straying -- the Goracle will be pissed that he wasn't consulted first (emphasis mine):

American refiners will produce nearly 6 billion gallons of corn ethanol this year, mostly for use as a gasoline additive to make engines burn cleaner. But in June, the Senate all but announced that America's future is going to be powered by biofuels, mandating the production of 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022. According to ethanol boosters, this is the beginning of a much larger revolution that could entirely replace our 21-million-barrel-a-day oil addiction. Midwest farmers will get rich, the air will be cleaner, the planet will be cooler, and, best of all, we can tell those greedy sheiks to fuck off. As the king of ethanol hype, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, put it recently, "Everything about ethanol is good, good, good."

This is not just hype -- it's dangerous, delusional bullshit. Ethanol doesn't burn cleaner than gasoline, nor is it cheaper. Our current ethanol production represents only 3.5 percent of our gasoline consumption -- yet it consumes twenty percent of the entire U.S. corn crop, causing the price of corn to double in the last two years and raising the threat of hunger in the Third World. And the increasing acreage devoted to corn for ethanol means less land for other staple crops, giving farmers in South America an incentive to carve fields out of tropical forests that help to cool the planet and stave off global warming.

So why bother? Because the whole point of corn ethanol is not to solve America's energy crisis, but to generate one of the great political boondoggles of our time. Corn is already the most subsidized crop in America, raking in a total of $51 billion in federal handouts between 1995 and 2005 -- twice as much as wheat subsidies and four times as much as soybeans. Ethanol itself is propped up by hefty subsidies, including a fifty-one-cent-per-gallon tax allowance for refiners. And a study by the International Institute for Sustainable Development found that ethanol subsidies amount to as much as $1.38 per gallon -- about half of ethanol's wholesale market price.

I wonder if they came up with that all by themselves.

Bravo to them for pointing out the obvious -- that ethanol is not the miracle solution enviro-moonbats keep saying it is. And an even bigger bravo to Rolling Stone for not swallowing it without any argument like a good little moonbat.

Baby steps, folks, baby steps. There's always hope.

Hat Tip: Iowa Voice

Penn and Teller get moonbat idiots to ban "dihydrogen monoxide"

I saw this video for the first time when it was posted on a bulletin by a friend on MySpace about a year ago, and thought it was completely hilarious. Penn and Teller send a friend of theirs to an environmental rally to get signatures for a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide, an evil chemical used in pesticides, styrofoam companies, nuclear companies, and it causes excessive perspiration and urination. Naturally, the enviro-moonbats signed right on up.



The idiots were banning water. Anything for a cause, right?

Hat Tip: Moonbattery

Denver targets global warming after the coldest June morning in over 50 years

I couldn't help but snicker when I read these two headlines on The Drudge Report:

'Warming' plan in Denver: Crackdown on residents

Denver sees coldest June morning in over 50 years

First, the global warming:

Denver is gearing up to fight global warming, and residents may soon be asked to make personal sacrifices to help save the planet.
The new plan is aimed at making Denver a national leader in reducing gas emissions that have been linked to global warming, giving a major push to alternative energy, stepping up recycling and changing building codes to encourage energy conservation.

But the proposal also contains some ideas that may be unpopular, such as penalizing heavy users of electricity and natural gas and basing auto insurance premiums on the number of miles traveled.

The ambitious goal is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 4.4 million metric tons by 2020, the equivalent of eliminating two small coal-fired power plants or taking 500,000 cars off the road.

Mayor John Hickenlooper has made the "climate action plan" a centerpiece of his second term in office. More than two dozen people from business and community groups met for several months with city staff to hammer out the plan. Many of them fear Colorado will be slammed hard by global warming, with more droughts and forest fires.

"There was a sense we have to be bold," said Beth Conover, director of Greenprint Denver, the city office that coordinated the plan. "What's the cost of inaction to our water supply and tourism industry?"

The city also would give incentives for car pooling and the use of hybrids and other low-polluting vehicles, possibly by giving them priority in parking.

To cut back on use of landfills - methane gas from landfills is a major contributor to global warming - the plan would encourage recycling and charge residents for the amount of trash they throw away.

Denver may ask voters to approve higher rates for "excessive" use of electricity and natural gas. The plan also floats the idea of using insurance premiums to penalize people who drive long distances.

"You can think of them as penalties or you can think of them as market signals," said Conover. "There's some choice involved."

The nannyism. Oh, dear God, the nannyism!!

Meanwhile, while Denver bureaucrats fret over global warming, its freezing there:

Did you have frost on your windows this morning? It felt more like March or early April along the Front Range.

The temperature at Denver International Airport fell to 31 degrees at 5:44 a.m. Friday, setting a new record low for the date.

This shattered the old record of 37 degrees, last set in 1974.

The new record low will also become the latest freeze on record for the city of Denver. The previous date of latest freeze ever recorded was June 2, 1951.

Temperatures have only dropped below freezing two other times during the month of June; in 1919 and 1951.

The coldest June temperature ever recorded was 30 degrees on June 2, 1951.

Seriously. It's just too easy.

NASA's Griffin caves under political pressure

Typical:

The head of NASA told scientists and engineers that he regrets airing his personal views about global warming during a recent radio interview, according to a video of the meeting obtained by The Associated Press.

NASA administrator Michael Griffin said in the closed-door meeting Monday at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena that “unfortunately, this is an issue which has become far more political than technical, and it would have been well for me to have stayed out of it.”

“All I can really do is apologize to all you guys.... I feel badly that I caused this amount of controversy over something like this,” he said.

I was really disappointed to see this. It's interesting how, whenever a scientist or climatologist or politician or college professor or whatever, speaks out against the global warming hysteria their career is threatened. I don't know what happened with Griffin, but reading between the lines leads me to believe that he probably was "gently" asked to make some sort of statement. He hit the nail on the head: the problem is more political than technical.

For Al Gore and the global warming fanatics, it's a dead lock. There is NO argument to be had. Al Gore invented the internet, so we must believe everything he says about global warming. He said so, and a bunch of celebretards believe it too, and therefore it is 100% accurate that humans invented global warming, and the planet is going to die, and the only way to prevent it is to cause massive destruction to the economy in the United States.

Unfortunately for the Goracle, Leo, Laurie David, Pioneer Pelosi, and the rest of the hysterics, the argument is far from over. There is even a petition, The Global Warming Petition Project (which over 17,000 scientists have signed) stating that global warming is not a problem and might actually be environmentally helpful:

Below is an eight page review of information on the subject of "global warming," and a petition in the form of a reply card. Please consider these materials carefully.

The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.

This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.

The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.

It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.

We urge you to sign and return the petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.

Frederick Seitz
Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.
President Emeritus, Rockefeller University

Unfortunately, most of the fanatics aren't interested in actually stopping global warming. As Griffin discovered, the argument is for political gain. Just thirty years ago, they were saying we'd be in a massive ice age right now. Shoot, my weatherman can't even predict whether it will rain in a few days, and we're supposed to believe Al Gore -- who isn't a scientist or a climatologist -- is who we should believe can predict what the weather will be like ten or twenty years from now?

Unfortunately, the political crowd will excommunicate you if you question their gospel. Too bad Griffin couldn't stick to his guns.

Previous: NASA scientist "unsure" of validity of global warming

I ain't giving up steak, no matter how big the tax break

Well, Ingrid Newkirk is back (she's ba-a-a-ck)!

The crazy animal lover who kills animals while ridiculing (and paying the defense funds of crazies who commit arson against or bomb) shelters that kill animals wants vegetarians to get federal tax breaks because -- wait for it -- it helps fight global warming.

Are you kidding me?!

That is the most ludicrous thing I think I have ever heard.

The notorious animal rights crusader, who famously uttered the words "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy", and asked Yasser Arafat not to use a donkey in his bombings (without, ya' know, worrying about the actual bombings themselves), says she got this information from a University of Chicago study switching to a vegetarian diet is more effective in countering global warming than switching from a standard American car to a Toyota Prius, the favorite car of enviro-moonbats -- you know, the car which causes more environmental damage to make it than it does to make a Hummer.

How vegetarianism helps against non-existent global warming, I have no idea. But hey, Ingrid Newkirk says we should do it, so that's all that counts.

Unfortunately, I got news for Ingrid Newkirk, her hypocritical PETA followers, and all of the other enviro-moonbats: I ain't giving up steak no matter how big the tax break! I won't give up chicken, or fish, or seafood, or beef, or pork, or any other kind of meat. I like my hamburgers. I like my steak. I like shrimp, I like chicken, and pork chops. I know that the "slaughterhouses" where chicken are killed for my dinner are just as bad as the Holocaust for Newkirk, but oh well. She can cry herself a river.

I'm still gonna enjoy myself a nice, juicy, medium rare steak.

Hat tip: Moonbattery.


A kid-friendly comic from PETA.

NASA scientist "unsure" of validity of global warming

From ABC News:

NASA administrator Michael Griffin is drawing the ire of his agency's preeminent climate scientists after apparently downplaying the need to combat global warming.

"I have no doubt that a trend of global warming exists," Griffin told Inskeep. "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with."

"To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change," Griffin said. "I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."

Griffin's comments — released in transcript form by NPR — immediately drew stunned reaction from James Hansen, NASA's top climate scientist at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

"It's an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement," Hansen told ABC News. "It indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change."

Interestingly enough, James Hansen was featured heavily in Al Gore's mockumentary, An Inconvenient Lie, I mean, An Inconvenient Truth. Mixed interests, much?

This is exactly the way enviro-moonbattery always seems to work. Global warming should just be accepted as an absolute truth, and any climatologist or scientist who dares dispute or question that truth is out of their mind.

Funny thing is, Griffin wasn't even really disputing that there is some global warming going on -- he just wasn't buying into the apocalyptic hype that Al Gore, Laurie David, Sheryl Crow, and the rest of the moonbats are spewing. Temperatures rising one degree will cause the world to end! Start building dome cities on the moon! We must abort Earth now! ABORT, ABORT, ABORT!!

He said it perfectly: which human beings are allowed to say what is causing global warming, and what makes them more authorized to do so? And how is it that Al Gore is the most knowledgeable person on the planet when it comes to global warming? He usurped that position at the forefront of "the fight against global warming!", just like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton appointed themselves leaders of the civil rights movement.

And funny, again, how questioning the validity of global warming "draws the ire" of climatologists at NASA. Aren't scientists supposed to be continually questioning and testing their theories? I didn't realize that science was so easy to predict, especially climatology.

If that's the case, then why can't the local meteorologist even predict whether or not it's going to rain this afternoon?? Maybe he needs to drink some of Al Gore's Kool-Aid.

A City That Really Cares!

Maggie's Farm gives us a glimpse into the future of New York City under RINO Mayor Mike Bloomberg:

The Mayor's approval rating of 76% has been largely due to his efforts to safeguard city residents from tobacco smoke, trans fats, cars, guns, and other ills with which the ignorant masses are too stupid to deal with on their own. He seeks to build on this foundation with his ambitious new program, entitled "A City That Really Cares."

This futuristic iniative would put into place a 1,000 police force charged with enforcing new requirements such as:

The banning of all sales or wearing of women's heels over 2"

Required serving of broccoli and carrots with all New York City meals

The banning of sunbathing

Requiring the wearing of hats during sunny days, and wool hats when the temperature drops below 40 degrees F.

And so on and so forth. Seem implausible?

New York City cab fleets are being forced to phase into "environmentally friendly" hybrids by 2012, with all new vehicles required to be hybrids as early as two years from now. Ford Crown Victorias obviously are out as well, because politicians should be allowed to mandate how our businesses are run.

New York City: the greatest city on Earth!