It’s over

Summer came and passed away,
Hardly seemed to last a day,
But it’s over,
And what can I do….

It’s over, It’s over, all over,
It’s over all over now,
And the way you looked
Don’t even mean I’m down.

~It’s Over~ Electric Light Orchestra

I’ll never forget it. Two Christmases ago (or was it three), when my sister, Valedictorian of her high school class, National Honor Student, winner of a $120,000 scholarship to an Ivy League school, looked at me with concerned eyes. Seconds prior, I’d commented on how warm and how nice the sun was on that Christmas day. It was around 50 degree I think, in Maine that afternoon, and it felt great to feel  the sun’s rays giving their heat.

But to my sister, this warmth was not be enjoyed. It was to be feared.

“I just hope this isn’t global warming”, she said. It’d been unseasonably warm for almost two weeks, you see.

I was crushed. Here my brilliant sister, after a mere year under the tutelage of progressives from Maine’s “micro-Harvard” (Bowdoin College), had succumbed to leftist mythologica. She even asked me if I’d seen Al Gore’s movie. Yes, that movie.

Now I’ll admit, my sister is everything I should have been, and heck, she plays rugby on the women’s team at Bowdoin, so she’s got to be cool, or at least tough. And guess what the Mascot is for that college? Polar bear. Yup. That dying species of white and lovable fur, sentenced to death by man’s combustion engines and burned toast.

But now it’s over.  It’s been over for a while, however almost on a daily basis articles are popping up, and the consensus, which never equaled science, is gone. When we consider this whole fiasco, it’s frightening how in this day and age, a whole populace can be hypnotized, or more appropriately–forced to believe in an ideology for fear of being ostracized.

It’s an example of the only plague to hit America in my life time, it’s the calamity that Ralph Peters terms, The Plague of Ideas.


7 Responses to “It’s over”

  1. 1 kernunos
    December 29, 2008 at 5:12 pm

    The latest number that I have heard is during George Bush’s administration $43 billion dollars to the study of ‘global warming’. With money being given out in these bails the theory will stay true long past its scientific merit.

  2. December 29, 2008 at 5:20 pm

    Every age needs its mythology. I far prefer Jason and the Argonauts, though.

  3. 3 Brian D
    December 29, 2008 at 6:12 pm

    Ever bothered to note that Booker’s piece is critically flawed? The dead giveaway should be that he made precisely the same mistake your sister made (confusing weather and climate), just in the opposite direction. I’d type up more, but honestly, you aren’t worth the effort, so I’ll let Lambert take it from here.

    My question, raised on Greenfyre’s amongst others, is simple: When a conservative encounters liberals armed with science, what motivates him to attack the science rather than accept the science but come up with a conservative solution to the problem, especially since the conservative is likely just as poorly informed about the science as the liberals in this sentence? I’d LOVE to see just one conservative solution proposed.

  4. December 30, 2008 at 8:54 am


    It’s still over, Brian. I understand that weather and climate are not the same. That’s my point. (Or one of them)

    You beg the question: What is science? It’s not concensus. There is no “conservative solution” to this problem. The problem is with the ideologues, such as yourself, who find their very identity attached to dogma. And now you can’t back out of it, because it makes you and the people who believed this tripe look bad. Just admit you interpreted things incorrectly and move on.

    I’ve posted this list of quotes before on Greenfryes, but here it is again. You’re worth the effort, Brian.

    These are some of the best scientists in the world–and they don’t believe as you do as concerned with climate change.

    “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”
    — U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

    “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly. … As a scientist I remain skeptical.”
    — Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
    Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history. … When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”
    — UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

    “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.”
    — Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

    “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another. … Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so. … Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.”
    — Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

    “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?”
    — Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

    “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly [from promoting warming fears], without having their professional careers ruined.”
    — Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

    “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense. … The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.”
    — Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

    More than 650 internation scientists are dissenting. The UN has only 50-something on its side.

    I think liberals are the ones attacking the science.


  5. 5 Brian D
    December 30, 2008 at 6:35 pm

    Says the one quote-mining. The Joanne Simpson quote-mine is perhaps the most poignant example:

    Source: http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rainfall-measuring-mission-data-set-potential-in-climate-controversy-by-joanne-simpson-private-citizen/

    “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly. For more than a decade now “global warming” and its impacts has become the primary interface between our science and society. A large group of earth scientists, voiced in an IPCC[1] statement, have reached what they claim is a consensus of nearly all atmospheric scientists that man-released greenhouse gases are causing increasing harm to our planet. They predict that most icepacks including those in the Polar Regions, also sea ice, will continue melting with disastrous ecological consequences including coastal flooding. There is no doubt that atmospheric greenhouse gases are rising rapidly and little doubt that some warming and bad ecological events are occurring. However, the main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. We only need to watch the weather forecasts. However, a vocal minority of scientists so mistrusts the models and the complex fragmentary data, that some claim that global warming is a hoax. They have made public statements accusing other scientists of deliberate fraud in aid of their research funding. Both sides are now hurling personal epithets at each other, a very bad development in Earth sciences. The claim that hurricanes are being modified by the impacts of rising greenhouse gases is the most inflammatory frontline of this battle and the aspect that journalists enjoy the most. The situation is so bad that the front page of the Wall Street Journal printed an article in which one distinguished scientist said another distinguished scientist has a fossilized brain. He, in turn, refers to his critics as “the Gang of Five”.

    Few of these people seem to have any skeptical self-criticism left, although virtually all of the claims are derived from either flawed data sets or imperfect models or both. The term “global warming” itself is very vague. Where and what scales of response are measurable? One distinguished scientist has shown that many aspects of climate change are regional, some of the most harmful caused by changes in human land use. No one seems to have properly factored in population growth and land use, particularly in tropical and coastal areas.

    <b?What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical.

    Honest scientific skepticism, but critical of the mudslinging — and, importantly, a call to action on the IPCC conclusion due to risk assessment. This is not skeptical of climate change’s existence except in the truly scientific sense (thus it is not evidence of it being “over”), but you quote it like it is, uncritically and without checking the original source, because it was shovelled your way by ideologues like Inhofe and Morano. And you blame me of being blind?

    (This is also the case with Inhofe’s 650. There’s actually only 603 names on the list, and that’s counting everyone on the list as deniers, which is disproven as soon as you look at Simpson, above, or George Waldenberger. Yet you cite it uncritically, while listing the IPCC’s lead authors while ignoring those who actually did the research. Hmm.)

    Booker’s just as bad. Lambert did that one right — he’d deny a leak in the roof if he didn’t want to fix it.

    I would love nothing more than a disproof of all the lines of evidence. What I’m seeing is ideologues spouting long-debunked talking points, hoping that volume (in both senses) trumps evidence.

  6. December 31, 2008 at 12:35 pm

    “spouting long-debunked talking points, hoping that volume (in both senses) trumps evidence.”

    Exactly. And it’s Al Gore that got you into this mess.

    If anyone can admit that scientists have many different opinions on this subject, then surely it can be said that blogs like Greenfrye’s are really the one’s who are denying science, because science doesn’t know the answer to these questions: Is man contributing to climate change? If so, how much? If so, does it matter?

    Is every one of the scientists I listed out of touch? You don’t think any of them have a point? Why?

    What’s the weather going to be like, tomorrow? Tell me. Can anyone tell me? Barely. What will it be like in 50 years? It’s all ridiculous to me. As a basic student of philosophy, it’s clear that the empirical evidence is lacking in the Global warming issue.

    Why does dissent on the global warming issue make you so angry? It’s a common denominator amongst greenies: They’re just mad, mad, mad.

    By the way. An excellent way to write short essays, such as yours, is to begin by stating explicitly what your point or position is. I don’t see yours, because your writing isn’t clear. Something that I find to be the case all over many blogs. people don’t write clearly. Am I being clear?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog Stats

  • 151,737 hits

Flickr Photos


%d bloggers like this: