Snow Buries Washington, MSNBC Cries ‘Global Warming’

No, no. Don't you see?

It's all that extra moisture in the air or something caused by "anthropogenic global warming." Not "climate change" anymore, mind you. It's back to "global warming" to explain, er, record snowfall and record cold temperatures. Duh.

So, for those keeping track of the causal relationships we've been fed for the past few yewars by the brilliant climate scientists on MSNBC and at the NYT:

No warming for past decade = global warming
Record snowfall = global warming
Record clod snaps worldwide = global warming
Heat waves in summer = global warming
Record cool summers = global warming
Lack of hurricanes = global warming
Above average number of hurricanes = global warming
Below average rainfall = global warming
Above average rainfall = global warming
Two days over 90 degrees = global warming
Two days at subzero temperatures = global warming
Earthquakes = global warming
Meteor hits = global warming
'Climate science' emails from East Anglia University showing scientific and professional manipulation of data going on for years = global warming
IPCC claims exposed as incorrect, fraudulent and not related to any science whatsoever = global warming
Three sets of temperature data fudged, manipulated and sold to public as "indicative of man-made global warming" = global warming
Obama's bad mood today = global warming
Democrats failing at life = global warming

Anything else I missed, except for everything?

The leap to overwheming human cause for climate change always baffles me, it is like when a child (or polititian) does something you witness and proceed to tell you it did'nt happen. They take consensus on that pollution and waste should be avoided further as if we are in a liferaft with only two days of provisions and you can't void into the water, and then ask you not to look at the island 1 foot away where they are haveing a pig roast.

My cat has a bad attitude – aka a "catitude" – global warming?

In 20 or 30 years I could see the likes of Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Contessa Brewer as the reason MSM died journalism teachers useing them as example's as what not to do if you want to keep your viewers..

As to AGW, Show us the Data !!!—— O yeah you destroyed the data!!! Show us the PROOF—— O yeah you have no PROOF !!!
This damn global warming collasped my front awning, I can't wait for global cooling to fix it…

Okay, one, this article in no way refutes the fact that global warming theory has ALWAYS detailed a greater variability in weather, both hot and cold. If your going to refute something, at least make the effort to use a logical argument.

Two, look up something called the mckinsey energy curve. Fact of the matter is, because carbon emissions come from our most popular sources of energy use, most things that cut carbon emissions ALSO cut costs. This consulting firm has already figured out what those cost saving options are, but republican senators still try to block those projects because they are 'liberal' in nature. Even if you don't believe in global warming thats just fiscally irresponsible.

Most Americans agree, PMS-NBC is nut sack central in the MSM world!

Several inches of global warming is expected to fall at my house today, hmmm…

We must remember that you can’t use weather to argue against global warming, you can only use weather to argue for global warming.

The more these blathering fools, scream “global warming,” the dumber they look. So I say keep up the good work, soon you’ll be relegated to utter irrelevance!

"most things that cut carbon emissions ALSO cut costs"

Bollocks. While no engineer could oppose sensible efficiencies such as improved insulation, the "most things" you are talking about involve vastly increased costs, like wind and solar power, or greatly decreased standards of living.

Weather is not climate. We all know that. But this point was lost on the Gore Corps when they were claiming every heat wave and drought as "evidence;" and their claims that these record snowfalls are further "evidence" just shows further how bankrupt they really are.

What our beloved media are not doing (which the British press are) is to report on the successive waves of scandal engulfing the IPCC and those "leading climate scientists."

Pop quiz: what is "homogenization" of surface-station temperature data, and why is it relevant?

"…her usual fetching combination of intellectual confusion, dogged belligerence and invincible ignorance..'

HAHAHAHAHA!!!

That right there is beautiful, man.
I love this site.
I come for the truth, but I stay for the excellent commentary.
Keep up the good work.

once again, look at the mckinsey energy curve. It details which options cost more money and which cost less. Way to reply without actually looking in to the argument.

One has to wonder – what level of ineptitude equals success at MSNBC. They have obviously made a business decision to be a mega-phone mouthpiece for "progressivism/Obama Administration".

What is rock bottom for these people? Zero viewers? Nearly zero? Matthews is often BELOW 1 million TOTAL viewers.

How does this make any kind of business sense?

Do you support the idea of "carbon credits" and "carbon trading"?

You missed kidney stones. Now global warming causes kidney stones.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlkjSaxwyZw

BIG NEWS FLASH: Now this will really piss of the warmers…http://wattsupwiththat.com was just selected as one of the top thirty scientific blogs by the London Times…eat that yellow snow algore!

It doesn't. They are just staying on board with the libtard agenda in hopes of a lame stream media bailout.

Vladimir Lenin called people like these 'usefull idiots". They should be called Useless Idiots.

I love the way she attacked the poor weather guy for not indulging her! His face was saying, "Listen crazy, I'm just telling you how much snow is on the ground – I don't want to be included in your hate mail…."

CLASSIC!

I'm putting my house on stilts. And I'm going to put massive rain collectors on the roof (right next to the solar panels). My house wil be safe from the flood and I'll be able to get water (which will be rare) from the rain.

I shall be prepared. For the droughtflood. Or the flooddrought. Whichever… Or whatever you call it when there is a lot of man-caused moisture in the air and there is a drought at the same time.

I'm sure these morons also wear sunscreen at night. You know, with the hole in the ozone layer and all. Oh wait, that's not a problem anymore, right? Maybe the hole in the ozone was plugged.

The IPCC warned that because of global warming the world had “suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s.” They cited one study to support their claim, but when the research was published in 2008, after the IPCC report was released, the study noted: “We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses.”

Even if you believe that, the energy curve (also known as the GHG abatement curve), was published with current temperatures, not theorized increases. It has such common sense items as insulation or changing your light bulbs as GHG abatement items. The argument it makes is that, these things when they can reduce costs, should be done. So tell me, Do you still use all incandescent light bulbs? If you had shotty insulation in your house would you change it? The argument I'm making is that these things lower overall costs for an individual, and since they happen to reduce carbon emissions we should do them. Why build a solar farm when you can insulate 10,000 houses for the same money? What is so hard to understand and follow about this argument? And why does it upset so many people?

You will have to forgive me. I am a libtard socialist loving Al Gore boot licking dweeb. My boyfriend says global warming is real, he can tell when he sticks his dipstick in my rear! Anybody have any weed?

Ok, so in looking at your provided evidence there are some problems with your "most things that cut carbon emissions cut costs". I will grant you that there are things on the chart that could cut costs. However, claiming that "most things" lower costs is ignoring the chart itself as most of the carbon cutting on the chart are not on the cost savings side of it.

Out of the short list of things that supposedly save money you have several things that may save cost in one area while driving up the cost in another. "Lighting Systems" for example. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but your typical CFL costs quite a bit more than their incandescent counterparts. There are cost savings to be had in reduced energy use, but higher costs in reclamation since CFL's require mercury in their manufacture.

Another problem is with sugarcane biofuel, while it is an option that is not based on oil (which could lead to lower gas prices), it is like ethanol in that it requires an farm raised edible crop. This does two things, it raises the cost of the crop as a whole which raises the cost of any food that requires sugarcane, and it also requires more and more land for farming (which to environmentalists dismay poor countries are willing to burn down forests to use).

Probably the most serious problem is in the fuel efficiency of vehicles (Commercial or otherwise). Unfortunately, even modern combustion engines have not been able to improve efficiency a great deal in the last 50 years. Currently, the only way to get more efficiency out of vehicles is to make them lighter. In doing so the cost of production actually goes up because light and strong alloys are just more expensive to produce. This makes the cost of the vehicle go up while pushing the size and weight of the car down. The larger cost at play here is human life. It is much harder to survive a crash in lighter cars made of weaker alloys when it involves a larger vehicle with greater mass (like SUV's and Semi Trucks).

I'm all for using the market to make things better, it's a good idea. However, government mandates isn't "the market". Also, saying that, "If anyone blocks any project below the line, chances are they are intentionally causing you to pay more money for political gains", is an overly simplistic straw man. Legislation rarely if ever comes in the form of individual ideas. I can guarantee you if I baked a cake and put a tablespoon of dog poop in it you wouldn't eat any of the cake, even if the majority of the ingredients were just fine. However, the way this chart is weighted, it would be more like a cake made out of dog poop with a little sugar in it and frosting covering it up.

Let people and businesses work this out, not politicians.

Hey, old Ford salesman/manager (well, not that old) I bleed Ford Blue.

I still miss the old 7.3 Powerstroke. They actually appreiciated in value when the 6.0 stumbled a little bit at the start.

The fact of the matter is Water Vapor is the most common 'greenhouse' gas, and is basically beyond our control. Carbon emissions don't have to be controlled, because the carbon content in the atmosphere can be control.

Freeman Dyson, a pretty smart guy has some thought on that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k69HUuyI5Mk&fe...

One, Thank you for actually looking at a one page document! Thats actually encouraging.

Two, these are lifetime abatement costs, meaning that on items such as the lighting systems it included everything from acquisition to disposal.

Three, as far as the biofuel item goes, i agree with you there it should be taken out.

four, the cafe standards debate is long and hard, but there are many many cars out there that could stand to be more efficient already even before you go tooling with things such as the weight. But if we want to talk about that, Axon motors of the UK is claiming that their 2010 cars will be made from carbon fiber, using a process that makes it cheaper than steel. I'll have to wait to see if I decide weather or not its true.

Now as far as the other statements go, yes I realize that legislation rarely happens in the form of individual ideas, but still, if someone has a track record of blocking cost saving projects, thats significant of a specific motivation.

If you had bothered to look at the statement I was actually making youd see that solar energy etc is actually above the line – so i've been saying all along that you shouldn't do it.

But hey, EVEN if I wanted to ignore the actual argument as you have, I'd say that between glen beck, and the most highly regarded and successful business consulting firm IN THE WORLD, im going to go with the document that the consulting firm came out with.

You do realize in my reply I agreed on the sugarcane point right? I guess you don't, congradulations you're now not reading what you're replying to.

And CO2 is bad for you thats why your body expels it. The argument is whether or not man is significantly contributing to it. My point though is that there are several options that save you money and reduce costs for the individual, such as insulation and changing your light bulbs. So why get involved with expensive projects like wind when we can still do that and be just as effective AND save money.

Or would you prefer to live in a house that has no insulation because you don't "buy in" to that being a poor decision? All im saying here is to look at options on a case by case basis, and when it actually does lower your costs DO IT. why is that so hard to believe?

Peregry
Funny that.
Ibumo still held a 'jobs' (?) meeting in the WH.(jobs for poor blacks that is/white need not apply)
Piglously and Reedthin still worked the phones on backroom deals.
Evil never rests, they eat the flesh of the innocents and are renewed.

I read the abstract too. We, as a nation, need to stridently pursue nuclear enegy, the faster the better.

Unfortuately, in the polar opposite (pardon the pun) liberal/green activists OPPOSE this common sense alternatives. Perhaps they saw the fiction that was the "China Syndrom", or like Harry Reid have decided to waste a 32 BILLION $$$$ stroage facility at Yucca Mt., whatever – but if FRANCE, the friggin' French – can utilize nukes for 80% of their electricity we can improve on our 20%.

Democrats need to stand up to the enviro-wackos, it makes the party look wacky and out-of-touch.

Which they are.

If the same light can be provided to you for cheaper why SHOULD those companies exist? If carbon fiber bodies can ever be put on a car for LESS money than steel why SHOULD you get a steel bodied car? If its cheaper and fills the same service, you're essentially paying more money, when the only difference is that you put MORE carbon into the air. Whether you believe climate change is real or not, whether you believe the government has a role in it or not, thats just being foolish for the sake of being foolish.

Perhaps the folks over at MSNBC should read the article that follows this one about the BBC.

Actually I agree with you on that point. I never supported liberals or conservatives on this matter. People who throw TONS of money into solar projects and the like when there are several ways to save as much energy AND save costs are just as if not more guilty.

Greenland used to contain miles and miles of farms.

If you had read the document youd see that I kind of support Nuclear energy. Which I've already said.

Suck on that.

I live in West Texas, we have buku wind farms. If they can help add clean power to the grid and the owners of the technology can make a buck -cool. That's great, they're in the middle of nowhere and look kind of cool spinning in unison.

It's seems to me we are decades away from commercial viability for many of these emerging technologies and when they are economically effective _-I'm all in. In the mean time I don't want our economy to commit suicide or have to pay 8.00 a gallon for gas -like they do in Italy – where I was last summer. France is slightly better price wise – but dang – they're crazy too.

The owners of the tech usually make money because states have renewable energy portfolio standards, not because its a cheaper option.

I'm not for raising costs either, I just think that you can't toss out a "green" idea just because you don't believe in climate change. First take the time to sit down and figure the real cost out. However, sadly, you're the only one i've found in this thread who seems to agree.

Ha…..wonder when the libs will complain about climate permanence.

Libtards…..stop voting these morons into office.

I'm a rare Texan who loves L.A. I love Los Angeles, it's fast and vibrant and parties all night. I've been going there since I was a little kid.

My point?

The first time I went there to visit my aunt (twofacts of life – the sun rises in the east – and Mexican people or semi Mexican people like me ALL have relatives that live in L.A. – ALL of us) anyway – the air was so bad I literally got sick from BREATHING. Nobody thinks that is sound human existance. You could cut the air with a knife.

Common sense enviromental stewardship guided that state and the country to a way better quality of air in cities all over the nation and the world.

The problem is that in the 70's the "ecology" movement was co-opted by the dying factions of socialism – if you doubt that see what Gorby Gorbachev has been up to since the U.S.S.R. mericfully folded like a cheap tent.

This just in – all 50 STATES report SNOW on the ground somewhere – Hawaii''s is mountain top.

How about we get rid of the term "green idea" or "green" anything for that matter. The reason people resist "green ideas" in gereral is because we see very little thought put into the actual application of these ideas. It has become about making people feel good, superior to those knuckle dragging conservatives, meanwhile almost totally ignoring the fact that green technology and carbon emmisions legislation will cripple the world economy for no proven reason. Why don't we go back to just having ideas, instead of green ideas.

Errr, CO2 isn't BAD for you. CO2 is a natural byproduct of how the body processes and uses oxygen and carbon. Sure, breathing pure CO2 would kill you, but so would breathing pure Nitrogen (which is what the majority of the atmosphere is made up of), but it wouldn't be from poisoning, it would be from, in effect, asphyxiation since you can't get the critical thing we need from air: oxygen. There is a compound of oxygen and carbon that can kill you: Carbon Monoxide (CO), but that kills you because your body tries to process it like O2, which it can't, and so you run out of proper O2 and die from a form of asphyxiation.

Water vapor is the most abundant GHG. That’s not negotiable. Therefore carbon is not the prime GHG. So, why spend money, a lot or a little, on an unknown.

I'll go ahead and plug those equations into the positronic neural net that I am building in my garage. If my plans succeed, I'll have created the world's first artificial sentient being, at which point I will begin building my army of drones to do my bidding. Don't worry, I will make sure to deactivate the emotion chip as well as their conscience. Yes we can!

IF carbon-fiber bodies can produce cars that are actually cheaper and more fuel-efficient AND as safe as steel bodies then they will sell- without gover5nment intervention.

Of course, the process of *making* carbon fiber produces more CO2 than steel, but what the hey.

You continue to operate on the assumption that there's some imperative to reduce Co2 emissions., which is one big, fat assumed and unproven premise.

What's really ridiculous is that even if I donned the hairshirt, swapped out all my light bulbs for flourescents, turned my thermostat down to 60 and traded in my 4×4 for a Prius (thank God over the past week I had a 4×4!)… then over my entire lifetime it still wouldn't be a patch on the carbon spewed by the climate profiteers jetting to Hokumhagen, or Gor-Al's mansion and motorcades and Bond-villain grade houseboat, or Queen Nancy's fleet of private airliners.

Sacrifice is for the little people. As far as the Carbon Elites are concerned, "Let them eat dirt."

I in no way said to operate with that assumption, all i said is if it reduces cost, you would, if logical, do it anyways. In those situations where it makes sense on both accounts, does the motive really matter? I dont think it does.

What do you expect from this band of bonobos?

NBC panders to doom, gloom, and crisis junkies.
MSNBC! Prison shows! Pedophile spectacles! Greazy easy, Internet or post-meltdown real estate scam Infomercials! Yup! Their crack team is on top of everything!

MSNBC is the barrel-bottom, third string outlet that caters to the inbred, mentally-dwarfed mouth-breathers who think that the peak of intellectual endeavor is regurgitate the rantings of Maddow, Matthews, Olbermann, and the other cage-pacers at MSNBC.

Cold is warmth; down is up; white is satan, Americans are terrortsts. I think there are about 1500 people who watch that lineup

Let them talk — it's legal entertainment — but as soon as their bone-headed ideas become actions towards laws, there will be a green light to vaporize them.

You might want to talk to the Chinese about putting carbon in the air. If you haven't, why not? And if you have, how did the conversation go?

So because the chinese don't do it we shouldn't to? I hadn't realized the goal here was to be MORE like the chinese.

Relax Aaron – I'm just making fun of Vikings…and Aleuts…and bears, furry swimming polar bears.

(see – there were NO outboards in the 11th Century)