Greeted with Flowers
President Bush has declared that global warming and greenhouse gases will "greet Americans with flowers" in the upcoming century. Much to the chagrin of the "conservative" establishment, Fox News accidentally published a news article foolishly acknowledging the possible certainty of a global warming trend. As the news establishment of record Fox News executives will shortly fall all over themselves explaining the disruption of their tango with Bush as "left foot steppage", with an accompanying chorus/chant of "UFO!" and "Terrorist!" from the gallery.
"We greet the flowering of our democracy with hope and renewed vigilance", noted El Presidente, adding that "America will grow strong, her great garden of freedom plants will grown stronger still, and we will ride these great beanstalks of global warming into the terrorist skies! Let no-one mistake our intent! This is our country, and these are our trucks!"
Tom Tancredo, desperate for attention, added that "big giant junipers on the borders would prickle mexicans into staying home and destroying their own economies for a change. Maybe we could fund that with wall money."
Mitt Romney pointed out that African Americans would be able to use the beanstalks to live above Utah, where they have been freely able to join the Mormon church since 1978! "Horticulture", Romney reportedly snickered to himself repeatedly.
Giuliani decried the global warming story, stating that any topic of conversation other 9/11 was unamerican, and even the giant beanstalk in Central Park didn't count. Then he got divorced again.
on
| § 5
§ 5 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
Welcome back, Ross! Only 78
Welcome back, Ross! Only 78 days between posts this time.
I see you've saved up some bile for our Republican leaders. Nothing ill to say of the Kucinich? Or is all well on that front?
I think that NASA should stick to what they do best, launching rockets instead of meddling with climate. Oh, shit, they can't launch rockets very well. One must presume that they have a similar level of competence here. Really, though, they're saying not just ten degrees warmer on average, but highs that are ten degrees higher in summer? Most of the models generally predict that extra heat happens in the winter, at night - which makes sense given that that's when heat is going away and a higher greenhouse effect would kick in.
Unless CO2 can now act like a giant magnifying lens during the day, and we in the starring role as ants, I don't see how this happens.
Yes! Just under that all
Yes! Just under that all-important 80-day wire. Huzzah to the non-believers.
Of course, NASA should be
Of course, NASA should be given the same benefit of doubt given to all practioners of weather prognostication. The problem is that they all deserve "benefit of the doubt" inverse-geometrically related to the length of time into the future they're stargazing, with a limit approaching "zero benefit of the doubt" at the 1-year time horizon.
It's got nothing to do with where they work, or what they're paid. Witness this">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117876221856198005-search.html?KEYWORDS… bit, quoting Lord Levene of the Lloyds Insurance Market in yesterday's WSJ:
Forecasting the distant future in a system whose variables they don't even pretend to fully understand would more properly be called either "voodoo" or "bullshit". And I will continue to treat it as such.
Good Lord, Patton. You're not
Good Lord, Patton. You're not saying that you believe that incident prediction is mathematically similar to systemic prediction, are you? I don't think you'd say that, because it doesn't make any sense. Nope, you're not saying that.
I think you're saying what you'd like to believe. I'd like to believe it too, but I feel pretty uncomfortable calling tens of thousands of scientists who've studied this topic for decades a bunch of liars.
Bring on project "crank identifier"!
Ah, we once again get to see
Ah, we once again get to see that amazing specimen, the assertion of scientific unanimity. I'd never call tens of thousands of scientists who've studied the topic for decades a bunch of liars, because doing so would be illogical - they don't all say the same thing.
You're not saying that you believe predicting tomorrow's weather is the same as predicting next year's weather, are you? Or that "how many hurricanes we're going to have next year" is derived incidentally, rather than systemically? I don't think you'd say that, because it doesn't make any sense.