I live in the Great Frozen Wastes, people -- it was four-fucking-below-zero this morning, and our high today will be around ten above (Fahrenheit). It almost took a hammer and chisel to get the ice off my windshield.

Global warming my chapped and freezing ass.

Eh, according to the moonbats, global warming is supposed to cause an ice age, so falling temperatures as the globe warms (I know - it's contradictory) makes sense (to them).

What really puzzles me is the human-hating greens whine and cry like little fucking crybabies over the coming ice age as the earth warms (please don't ask me to explain their idiocy) when such an event means the end of mankind.

So man dies.

The earth recovers.

All the animals sing KUMBAYA.

..... so what the hell is their problem?

Monty,
You wear chaps?

warm humid air meets cold front.... supposed to have ice and sleet here.. which is rare.

but next week we'll be back in shirtsleeves.

but next week we'll be back in shirtsleeves.

GREAT. I'm SO HAPPY for you.

...mutter...bastid...mutter

If

We've had several ice ages in the past; which means severe, Earth-changing climate changes have occured.

Then why

What makes the environmentalists so surprised at the slightest atmospheric fluctuations?

I don't get it.

harrison:

You wear chaps?

Not outside. How gauche.

I love that quote by Steven Builbeault.

Reading tripe like that makes me wish Karl Popper was still alive.

4 degrees below zero.

Why. Would. Anyone. Live. There?

Bart (in Contemplation),

Quit contemplating. Quit perusing, quit being pensive. Quit ruminating. Quit any form of reflection or thinking whatsoever.

Then you'll be able to buy the whole global warming "thing.".

RWS:

Oh, hell, Sparkle, four below isn't cold. Here in Minnesota, we refer to that as "a little brisk". It doesn't get really cold until you hit twenty below or so (which we got to around 2AM). Add a stiff fifteen-mile-an-hour breeze and powdery snow, and you feel the same joys that Scott must have felt as he slowly froze to death during his exploration of the Antarctic.

There are days in late January when four below seems balmy here in Maine. Nothing like stepping outside and feeling the insides of your nostrils freeze while you scrape at a layer of ice an inch thick with a plastic implement ill-suited for the task.

Good times.

Personally, I love this whole "Global Warming" dealio. It's such a handy, all-purpose, catch-all scapegoat for my every problem. Observe:

Performance anxiety? Global warming is too blame!

Bad hair day? Damn that Global Warming!

Get fired? Arrrgh! Global Warming AGAIN!

Painful rash and it burns when I pee? You guessed it! Global Warming.

See? If only we could get arabs to blame Global Warming for all their problems instead of jews, we could solve the middle east.

4 degrees below zero.

Why. Would. Anyone. Live. There?

I ask that very question every time I go to the Twin Cities on business. Then again, I always have the luck of visiting in the winter, never in the summer (In the summer, I seem to be scheduled to go to Texas or Florida)

It's nearly thirty degrees below body temperature here.

If it gets much colder, I might have to close a window or something.

4 degrees below zero.

We've got 6 below here in Denver (high of 8) - that's pretty cold for these parts.

,i>Why. Would. Anyone. Live. There?

As far as MN goes, I lived there for a year (2002 - 2003) and enjoyed a pretty mild winter. It was the summers that really sucked. Humid, with sun-darkening clouds of mosquitos pursuing you whenever you stepped outside. No offense, Monty, but the weather (and bug count) in Colorado is far superior to that in Minnesota.

The manufactured hysteria about global warming is just another excuse to bash America - the Kyoto treaty excluded India and China, but the US takes the heat (so to speak) when Kyoto isn't ratified.

And in the meantime real environmental problems - (i) overfishing of the oceans and (ii) destruction of the rain forest (an area of rain forest the size of Belguim is being cleared in Borneo for palm oil plantations without any objection from the so-called environmentalists) - go completely ignored because you can't blame the US for them.

Where have all the Marxists gone
Gone to environmentalism every one
When will they ever learn
When will they ever learn?

PS For a great book on the last ice age in North America see:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226668126/qid=1133980044/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-8457599-4288106?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

As I understand it, global warming does not mean consistently warmer temperatures at all times, and in fact is theorized to cause weather patterns that change drastically between extremes, with a general warming trend.

No credible scientist argues that the earth is not going through a trend of warming right now, but credible scientists do disagree with the cause, how fast and what the implications are.

So conservatives - including Steyn - look like fucking idiots when they make the "but hey, it's really cold this weekend! so much for global warming!" bullshit. Look at the southern boundary of the polar icecaps for a trend.

Necessary disclaimer: this comment is not an endorsement of liberal environmental orthodoxy about global warming.

No offense, Monty, but the weather (and bug count) in Colorado is far superior to that in Minnesota.

So is the eco-nut and moonbat count (Boulder and Fort Collins both being very nearby). I lived in Denver for four years back in the mid-90's (right on Capitol Hill, not far from Broadway Ave). There was some weird peace-nik "Insitute for Global Justice" center house out of a storefront a few streets away -- they were the most hilarious hippie caricatures I've ever seen, right down to the VW micro-bus.

But hey, the Twin Cities hosts a pretty good herd of dimwits too. If I want to freeze my ass off among fellow conservatives, I can always move to North Dakota....

4 degrees below zero.
Why. Would. Anyone. Live. There?

I say the same thing to myself when I see news reports showing Phoenix during August.

Here in Iowa, we've got the frozen cold right now, but we'll also get the heat in the summer (humid, sticky heat, ick). I guess it's supposed to be good for the corn, or something.

One of my old college engineering professors had a great line about "global warming".

"Wouldn't it be ironic if the increased carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere by human activities was the only thing keeping another ice age at bay?"

Bill in DC, the point that Steyn is trying to make is that the environmentalists are the ones who look foolish by pointing to every single change in weather, cooler or warmer, and cite it as evidence for man-made climate change.

I have no doubt that planet-wide warming is occurring.

As always, for me it comes down to a couple of things:
-- is this out of the ordinary?
-- how big an effect does human activity really have on the changes that are occurring?
-- are "solutions" to the "problem" going to make things worse? Are they even designed to address the problem at all - or are they really quasi-Communist attempts at wealth redistribution and putting hackles on American growth?

I would assume that truly nailing down human effects on planetary temperatures is exceedingly difficult, though maybe not so much if you've already come to that conclusion.

The answer to the third bullet point is obvious to me, though I admit that my suspicious nature leads me to that conclusion.

Anyway, if the predictions on the catastrophic side of the "debate" are in the works, we're doomed anyway, so why bother at this point? Except for grant money, of course.

If it's going to have a milder effect, why bother? Sure some coastline will be replaced, and weather patterns might change, but how is that new? Might warmer weather actually be good for people in some ways? And doesn't the planet have a reasonable system of self-correction?

To me, the whole human-centric theory of looming environmental doom is extraordinarily hubristic. Mankind is not nearly so important as to be able to outweigh natural effects like solar flares and volcanic eruptions.

Pardon me while I do something bad to the punch bowl, but I think Steyn overreaches here a lot.

Is the eco-lobby filled with a bunch of idiots? Sure as the sun comes up each day.

Do I think "global warming" is something that's happening? Perhaps.

Do I think "global warming" is something that human's contribute to? Sure, why not?

Do I think that climate change is likely, and has strong evidence to support it throughout recorded history, and as far back as science can take us? Of course.

The "global warming can cause and ice age" theory is not new, and it is not scientifically inconsistent. Yeah, it sounds stupid at first, but one wouldn't think a volcano spewing lava and dust would make the weather *cooler*, either. Actions in complex systems often have complex effects, duh.

No, the real debate has always been this:
-- Is global warming happening? If yes, by how much? It looks like the Earth *is* getting warmer, but by how much is open to reasoned scientific debate.
-- What is causing this warming? Is it humans? Is it sunspots? Is it geothermal? Something else entirely?
-- Is this warming cyclical? If so, how long is the cycle? Can anything humans do affect this cycle?
-- *Should* humans affect this cycle? What's the cost/benefit analysis? Can there even be benefits to warming?
-- What, precisely, are the long term effects of warming? What if it only lasts a hundred years? Or a thousand? Are more extinctions caused by warming? Are weather patterns really affected for the worse? Ocean currents changed?

See, all this science out there is still up in the air. It's been up in the air for a long damn time, because we can barely predict the weather next week, let alone next year. The trendline data suggests something is up with the climate, but nobody knows whether humanity has something to do with it, or to what extent.

Hell, for all I know, greenhouse gases may have counteracted global *cooling* in this last century, and by passing something like Kyoto, we could send out planet into an ice age.

The bottom line is the science has so far made many more observations than it has informed conclusions, no matter what Leo DiCaprio may have read in the Weekly Reader.

I take the view of Calvin Coolidge, and say we wait this all out. I've got more important things to worry about right now, like terrorists, and sandwiches.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

"As I understand it, global warming does not mean consistently warmer temperatures at all times, and in fact is theorized to cause weather patterns that change drastically between extremes, with a general warming trend."

Wait, you mean the weather is acting like........the weather? This might be a revelation to people living in sunny Southern California, but out here in flyover country, we tell people "If you don't like the weather here, wait five minutes and it'll change."

Damn you, Steve in Houston, for typing faster than me.

DAMN YOU!!!

"Wouldn't it be ironic if the increased carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere by human activities was the only thing keeping another ice age at bay?"

It might be ironic, but it may also be true - we are actually overdue for another ice age.

See After the Ice Age : The Return of Life to Glaciated North America by E. C. Pielou that I linked to above.

Bill in DC, the point that Steyn is trying to make is that the environmentalists are the ones who look foolish by pointing to every single change in weather, cooler or warmer, and cite it as evidence for man-made climate change.

Do they do that? Usually I just hear "the planet is getting warmer, we're all gonna die!"

Not - "well, it's 93 degrees on such-and-such day in March, so .." I mean, you do hear/have heard that occasionally, but it's a strawman just like saying, "but it's awful cold on this day, global warming ain't happening."

The real leftist canard that's thoroughly debatable is, "is man causing this or is this a natural cyclical shift in the earth's temp," as well as "what will the impact of global warming really be?"

For the record, I'd just like to announce that my awful spelling in the above posting confirms that I am indeed typing all of my comments today wearing mittens on my hands.

Thank you,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Global warming ceased being a science among its adherents and became an article of religious faith long ago. Kind of like scientology only without the credibility.

The issue about Global Warming is not whether the global weather is changing. OF COURSE every credible scientist admits to this - objecting is like objecting to ending poverty (who wouldn't want that?).

The central issue is who / what is causing it. If you think that, say, patterns in solar surface heating and cooling are changing climate patterns here on earth, then you are NOT an environmentalist. Environmentalism, as was astutely pointed out, is now the reserved domain of ex-Marxists who needed a new venue to blame Americans / white mails / Western Europeans in the historical dialectic.

If you want to define credibility, the only question to ask when you start reading about Global Warming is whether or not mankind is being blamed for the effect. If mankind is explicitly or implicitly the cause of global warming, you can be that the argument is from the left edge of sanity. Forget reality.

Look, anyone who creates a catch-all cause for any effect is out there on that edge. It's equivalent to the dark ages' admonition of "God's Will." In this case, it is serving the paean of a neo-Marxist, liberal agenda.

For what it's worth, Steyn doesn't look like a fool in this article. He's well aware of the above dichotomy (between reality and historical discourse). He's just making a joke at the expense of a person who would make a point that on its face falls flat.

As if you need another reason to laugh.

If you want the real catch all cause for every effect, you need look no further than ...

DICK CHENEY.

I thought that I had learned this lesson. Thanks for the reminder, sir.

-8 in Iowa this morning, high of 10, been like that all week

if you're a native Texan like me, it might as well be the Arctic

The really useful thing about having severe cold weather induced by global warming is that is so much more visceral. Imagine trying to do a SFX extravaganza like 'The Day After Tomorrow' if it was just getting hotter everywhere. All we'd have is scenes of sweaty folks noticing high tide has gotten a few inches higher this year. The most spectacular bit is when everyone spontaneously combusts just before the ocean rises to put them out. Not a lot of excitement after two hours of the other stuff.

The folks in Hollywood understand storytelling if nothing else, so a new ice age really suits their needs when it comes to promoting hysteria.

I think it got down to 37 last night here in Southern California. I had to put a quilt on the bed and wear a jacket to work today.

I can't live in these horrific conditions... :)

"OF COURSE every credible scientist admits to this - objecting is like objecting to ending poverty (who wouldn't want that?)."

Well, me, for one. And Dick Cheney, of course.

Sobek,

Look no offense, but are you sure you're really ... up ... to being in the same opinion group as DC?

Pardon me if I sound naive; but , why is global warming bad?

Pardon me if I sound naive; but , why is global warming bad?

As little as a three-degree global change can melt a significant portion of the ice caps. This will raise the level of the oceans quite a bit (inundating places like, oh, Bangladesh and Indonesia and killing millions). The added heat in the tropical zones makes for more frequent and more violent hurricanes.

But it's only "bad" in the sense that we humans tend to cluster along coastal areas. There's a lot of evidence accumulating that we've been living through an abnormally temperate period in the earth's history -- we might just be reverting to "normal", weather-wise.

The windchill was -30 while I shoveled the driveway last night here in North Dakota.

This global warming shit is killing me. If the globe gets any damn warmer I'm going to have to turn in my SUV for a dog sled team.

an even better credibility test than who they blame for global warming, is telling them that they're right, and we should replace all our coal/oil/natural gas electricity production with nuclear power plants to save the earth

so far i haven't seen anyone's head explode scanners-style, but it's come close

Monty,
So how fast will the oceans rise?
In minutes? Months? Years?

harrison,

(You'll have to imagine me saying this in a Carl Sagan-style voice...)

No one knows.

Seriously -- the oceans already have risen quite a bit in the last couple of thousand years. That's why the Bering Straits are now a body of water and not a land bridge between Siberia and Alaska.

Just so ya know, I'm not trying to be a shit.
If the sea rises, say, an inch a year, which is a bunch of water; that gives people plenty of time to pick-up and move.
And wasn't most of the land-bridge glacial?
Point is I've been hearing all this doom&gloom for 30 years with nothing concrete to it. So folks gotta move, what's bad?
And hurricanes? 2005 I think ( haven't tracked down the numbers yet) had 2 more storms than one year in the 1880's.

Just so ya know, I'm not trying to be a shit.

Too late! The forms of Kanly must be obeyed! I have made my peace gesture! I declare Vendetta! May shai hulud feast upon your bones!

"Too late! The forms of Kanly must be obeyed! I have made my peace gesture! I declare Vendetta! May shai hulud feast upon your bones!"

Yeah,yeah. Up yours.

I just don't understand the hub-bub, bub.

The absolute best is the rainforests that are being cut down to plant acres of bio-fuel plants (somebody ref'd this earlier).

What's an environmentalist wacko to do?

And, yeah, I like the nucular fuel thing, too. It's another sign that rationality goes out the window.

Eskimoes Inuits in the Arctic are suing the US for destroying their habitat.

"Inuit are an ancient people. Bla bla bla," said Sheila Watt-Cloutier.

Link to today's story.

And how does Global warming cause the oceans to rise? Seriously.
While the Antartic ice is on a continent (so if it returns to the oceans, rather than making lakes and rivers on Antartica, the sea level will rise), the Artic pack ice is free floating. When it melts the water level should drop.

Monty, "May your blade chip & shatter."

Oh. My. God. I guess I'm out of the "geek closet" now.

Howard Devore, ever heard of Archimedes and isostacy? When floating ice melts, the water level stays THE SAME. No one cares about melting of the Arctic except for polar bears. Everyone bitches about continental ice sheets, like the one on Greenland. If that one goes, we need to redraw our maps a little.

"The forms of Kanly must be obeyed!"

I saw that scene where the Gene-Hackman looking dude (or was that actually him?!?) playing the Baron turns on his hover suit, swoops down on the androgynous servant and rips out her/his/its heart-plug at FAR too young and impressionable an age.

Scarred me for life, I tell ya. Damn you, David Lynch!

Its snowing on the global warming freaks parade and their freezing up like ice statues too bad