Saturday, December 11, 2010

It's cold. No Global Warming Again.

According to Andrew Watts, Cancun COP16 attendees fall for the old “dihydrogen monoxide” petition as well as signing up to cripple the U.S. Economy
Oh dear, some of these folks aren’t the brightest CFL’s in the room. Readers may remember this famous Penn and Teller video from 2006 where they get well meaning (but non thinking) people to sign up to ban “dihydrogen monoxide” (DHMO), which is an “evil” chemical found in our lakes, rivers, oceans, and even our food!
Ha, ha. Since some people at the conference fell for the old joke, global warming is therefore totally false. As is everything else they said, believed, wrote or thought. And since there's cold weather in Cancun, Global Warming is further debunked.

Jesus, people. Grow a brain.


  1. If they can fall for this tired trick, are they *really* smart enough to be telling us *anything*?

    Would you trust such people to tell you anything you didn't already believe in?

  2. They? Who, exactly is "they"?

    The scientists who are measuring the temperatures and noticed a trend?

    The people of Switzerland who have lost a significant fraction of the glacier on the Jungfrau and notice a trend?

    Those folks or some people (never really specified) at a conference in Mexico who were stopped to sign some petition they probably never read too carefully - who didn't sign away their house or anything but may have merely wanted the obnoxious twerp to go away?

    Or maybe they are policy wonks who have learned to negotiate but haven't got the math/sci background to spot one of the oldest jokes in the scientific survey handbook ... still the best and the oldest because it works.

    Or perhaps these are stupid people. You can, frankly, find morons in any party. As a Californian, you should be well aware of that.

  3. Not really. I'm the only Republican in California, and I'm pretty bright--so the only morons I see are Democrats :-)

    You really don't see any of this as cyclical, natural variations? No? Then on that we'll just disagree.

  4. Sure, I see Global Warming as cyclical in that the average temperature has risen and fallen over the past few billion years.

    What I don't agree with is a knee-jerk refusal to believe that it might be happening now simply because some of the attendees at a recent conference were taken in by a simple joke or because it's politically expedient to take sides on something, anything if it means that someone will keep pitching money at me.

    Is the average global temperature changing - seems to be. Is mankind responsible? Maybe, maybe not. Is there anything we can do to improve our air? Holy crap, yes!

    Will it change the global warming? I couldn't say, but then neither can an awful lot of people who seem to have an awful lot of opinions on the matter. I have studied it about as much as Rush Limbaugh, which is to say not at all.

    I don't like science and politics mixed. Scientists make lousy politicians and politicians don't know jack about science.

  5. By and Large, by the Way, I agree that you seem to be one of a few with sense over there towards the setting sun. That's why I read your site regularly.

  6. Clearly you are wise :-)

    Global warming isn't a farce because the Cancun fools got taken in by a well-known joke. But if the Cancun fools can be taken in by such a joke, they really aren't smart enough to tell anybody anything.

    As for global warming/climate change/global climate disruption, I'm of the belief that it's natural and cyclical. Just today, for example, I read that Atlanta had Christmas snow for the first time since 1862. My first reaction to that was, well, what caused it in 1862? My answer, for then *and* now? Probably Mother Nature.

    This is an entirely different argument from "we should try to pollute less". I can't imagine anyone disagrees with that. I'm just not convinced that current pollution is going to kill off your barbecuing polar bears (who should *not* be cooking a cute little penguin, btw).