Global Warming Headline Haven

on Friday, March 21, 2008

Due to popular demand, here are the latest "global warming is still bunk" headlines:

1) We just finished the coolest winter since 2001:

In addition to that chilling fact, the article also notes that the cooler temperatures have brought more winter moisture, which will provide welcome runoff to many drought-stricken regions. Hmm, I guess cooler temperatures aren't so bad after all...

2) Al Gore's IPCC = Retards:

IPCC reports have predicted average world temperatures will increase dramatically, leading to the spread of tropical diseases, severe drought, the rapid melting of the world's glaciers and ice caps, and rising sea levels. However, several assessments of the IPCC's work have shown the techniques and methods used to derive its climate predictions are fundamentally flawed.
The article concludes:

...the idea that the planet is experiencing unprecedented global warming "cannot be supported."
There's plenty o' meat to go around in the rest of the article, including this shocker: King Gore and his politically agenda-driven cronies in the IPCC "violated 60 of the 127 principles relevant in assessing the IPCC predictions". Now why would Al do that? Keep reading...

3) Gore's new, 'convenient' IPO smells a little fishy:

What's an Emmy worth? If you're former Vice-President Al Gore, it's worth just north of $1 million a year and roughly another $48 million in stock.
Something about this deal just doesn't sit right with me. Gore isn't just taking piles of cash. According to the filing Gore, who is listed as executive chairman, and his CEO partner, lawyer-turned-entrepreneur Joel Hyatt, each loaned the company $1 million to get it started. They'll get that back in the IPO. But the two guys also collect hefty salaries for a company that hasn't shown a profit in three years—taking down $491,677 apiece last year in cash, plus bonuses of $550,000 each for, in Gore's case, helping get the company new affiliate agreements, broadening exiting agreements, and putting together a management team. The two currently receive $600,000 a year in salary and are eligible for additional bonuses, according to the IPO filing.

By comparison, at the time of the Google IPO in 2004, its two founders were each taking home a total of $356,556 in salary and bonuses, while sitting on top of a company that had earned nearly $106 million the year before.
Just curious, how in the world is Al making millions from a company that "hasn't shown a profit in three years"?? Anybody out there think he could pull off this underhand deal if he wasn't hailed as the 'savior-of-the-globe'?

4) And speaking of Al, the founder of the weather channel wants to sue Al Gore for fraud:

He's been headed this direction for some time now, and was probably pushed over the edge by his own mentally-challenged employees - One of which who called for the de-certification and ultimate firing of any fellow meteorologist that doesn't believe in human-caused global warming. See for yourself.

So let me get this straight... you can't be fired because of your race, gender, or religion... but you CAN be fired because you don't believe in global warming. Brilliant.

5) This one's a little OT, but fits well within the realm of our goal to humiliate environmentalist zealots:

The widely stated accusation that [plastic] bags kill 100,000 animals and a million seabirds every year are false, experts have [said]. They pose only a minimal threat to most marine species, including seals, whales, dolphins and seabirds.

Gordon Brown announced last month that he would force supermarkets to charge for the bags, saying that they were “one of the most visible symbols of environmental waste”. Retailers and some pressure groups, including the Campaign to Protect Rural England, threw their support behind him.

But scientists, politicians and marine experts attacked the Government for joining a “bandwagon” based on poor science.

Lord Taverne, the chairman of Sense about Science, said: “The Government is irresponsible to jump on a bandwagon that has no base in scientific evidence. This is one of many examples where you get bad science leading to bad decisions which are counter-productive. Attacking plastic bags makes people feel good but it doesn’t achieve anything.”
Why do I have a feeling I'll be reading an article ten years from now with similar language: The Government is irresponsible to jump on a bandwagon that has no base in scientific evidence. This is one of many examples where you get bad science leading to bad decisions which are counter-productive. Attacking [global warming] makes people feel good but it doesn’t achieve anything.

Bets anyone?

6) Remember those nifty CFL bulbs that are supposed to be better for the environment?

Compact fluorescent light bulbs, long touted by environmentalists as a more efficient and longer-lasting alternative to the incandescent bulbs that have lighted homes for more than a century, are running into resistance from waste industry officials and some environmental scientists, who warn that the bulbs’ poisonous innards pose a bigger threat to health and the environment than previously thought.
All CFLs contain mercury, a neurotoxin that can cause kidney and brain damage.

[Each bulb contains] enough to contaminate up to 6,000 gallons of water beyond safe drinking levels... Even the latest lamps promoted as “low-mercury” can contaminate more than 1,000 gallons of water beyond safe levels.
Once again, those haunting words: This is one of many examples where you get bad science leading to bad decisions...

7) The ocean's temperature isn't rising after all...

Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years.
Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming. In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters.
Beware if you read the article. It's from our friends over at moonbat-central NPR. There's hard, scientific data within, but they try to add their silly, unfounded liberal spin to it anyway. "All 3,000 robots must be wrong. We can't exactly say why or how, but they must be... all 3,000 of 'em... somehow..."

8) Heck, while we're on the subject of oceans, plan on them falling in the future, not rising:

Sea levels are set to fall over millions of years, making the current rise blamed on climate change a brief interruption of an ancient geological trend
"If we humans still exist in 10, 20 or 50 million years, irrespective of how ice caps are waxing and waning, the long term ... is that sea level will drop, not rise"

Put all that in your pipe and smoke it, Al.

I guess Michael Goldfarb was right after all...
Global Warming: The more you know, the less you care


A Red Mind in a Blue State said...

Um, hey guys, nobody told me I was trading in my admittedly energy-wasting bulb for something that has more disposal instructions than a nuclear reactor.

I should have known something was up when Walmart started pushing them-- they're probably made with the toxins left over after the Chinese finish making our kids' toys.