Insularity of Left and Global Warming Narrative
As my friends on the East Coast and in the Upper Midwest have been suffering under record cold temperatures, we here in Los Angeles have been experiencing a heatwave.
That made me wonder if the hot weather in cities where many in the media and would-be opinion-makers reside effects their narrative on global warming. Whenever noting how general weather trends contradict the supposed “evidence” of global warming, GatewayPundit posts (e.g., here) a map showing that while temperatures are below normal in much of the country, they are increasing in some areas, notably the Washington-Boston corridor in the East and Los Angeles and much of central California in the West.
So does the global warming narrative of the MSM and leading liberals reflecting their insularity? That evidence, like opinions, from “flyover” regions, is irrelevant.
I mean, if it’s warming where the “élites” live, then it must be warming all over.
Perhaps the recent cold spell on the eastern seaboard may cause them to change their mind.
25 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I-i-i-t’s c-c-c-old up here in Maine! Last night after leaving work, I checked a nearby bank thermometer: -15 degrees F. Global warming my ass!
Comment by Jimbo — January 16, 2009 @ 2:24 pm - January 16, 2009
I think its more about promoting an agenda — state control of industry and lifestyle — than it is about what any member of the MSM may personally be experiencing.
Comment by V the K — January 16, 2009 @ 2:27 pm - January 16, 2009
You betcha. Global warming means it’s gotta get warmer everywhere. Simple. Snowed today, global warming must be bunk.
Comment by Kelly L — January 16, 2009 @ 2:30 pm - January 16, 2009
ROFL. V’s guess is better
Kelly L – No, AGW theory doesn’t mean that. But… AGW theory does mean that the atmosphere will show certain greenhouse-effect ‘fingerprints’… certain temperature differentials appearing in one layer of the atmosphere and not another. And you know what? Our scienticians can’t find it. They’ve been looking for the telltale fingerprints for years, and still haven’t found them. What they have found is fingerprints consistent with warming being caused by… take a guess… that giant, burning fusion reactor in the sky.
So yes, AGW theory (or “global warming” as you called it) is bunk.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 16, 2009 @ 3:08 pm - January 16, 2009
Vaclav Klaus is right; global warming is the new communism. Fascism needs a rallying cry. That rallying cry in its different incarnations has been internationalism, nationalism — now its environmentalism. It has very little to do with the environment and every bit to do with statism. Which is why, as temperatures over the last several years have proven there is no global warming, they have seamlessly transitioned to calling it “climate change”. Now, no matter what the climate does, they can claim it as proof that we need to cede more power to them.
Comment by American Elephant — January 16, 2009 @ 3:13 pm - January 16, 2009
And the ignorant liberal hordes lap it all up, oblivious to all evidence to the contrary, because it is a message, like previous messages, intended to appeal to the emotions rather than the intellect. Which is why the number one search leading to my blog is for a picture of an adorable little polar bear cub. Heck, I even read somewhere recently how the environmental “leaders” deliberately sought out a “global warming mascot” that would best play to people’s emotions.
Perhaps we should stop calling them liberals, after all, most of them dont even know what liberalism means, most think it simply means “anti-mean” and “pro-nice”. I think a much more apt term would be “suckers.”
Comment by American Elephant — January 16, 2009 @ 3:27 pm - January 16, 2009
Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics:
When two systems are put in contact with each other, there will be a net exchange of energy between them unless or until they are in thermal equilibrium, that is, they are at the same temperature. (The Zeroth Law asserts that thermal equilibrium, viewed as a binary relation, is an equivalence relation.)
Or, in algorithmic form (specifically the First Law [conservation], from the Zeroth):
dE = TdS – pdV
What does this have to do with Global Warmism? Nothing — and that’s the problem.
Comment by Ignatius — January 16, 2009 @ 4:08 pm - January 16, 2009
#2 take off your tinfoal hat and go for a walk
Comment by gillie — January 16, 2009 @ 4:36 pm - January 16, 2009
…said the GP blog’s number-one tinfoil-hat wearer. (Hmm… To himself?)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 16, 2009 @ 4:41 pm - January 16, 2009
I believe it was directed at voice #64.
Comment by V the K — January 16, 2009 @ 4:46 pm - January 16, 2009
What’s really funny is, even gillie’s Messiah would have to consider gillie a bit of a crackpot on his terrorist interrogation claims.
gillie, to absorb the point, you’re going to have to read the article fully and critically – which I know you don’t usually do. Because all praise and glory must be given the Dear Leader, the article begins with the headline, “Obama ready to end harsh interrogations”, and is filled with the type of anti-American propaganda you like. But let’s look deeper at the fine print, and think about what that fine print means:
Strike one: Even gillie’s Dear Leader disagreed with gillie in the 2008 campaign about whether America tortures. Also this:
Strike two: Even gillie’s Dear Leader agrees that the U.S. military handles these things with professionalism, and its rules of interrogation are a model to be followed. And this:
Strike three: At the end of the day, the Dear Leader and his advisors intend to keep CIA interrogation rules intact as well. They’re window-dressing for the gillies of the world, figuring most of them will lap it up uncritically.
Three strikes and you’re out, gillie. Go back to the drawing board and see if you can do muster up some real concern for real victims of real torture. Rather than, you know, perversely lying about the world’s good guys.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 16, 2009 @ 5:18 pm - January 16, 2009
gillie: tell me, just for kicks, why VtK (#2) is wrong.
I have a fairly strong science+engineering background and the man-made
global warmingclimate change literature I’ve read wouldn’t pass muster as a freshman engineering lab report (at least in the pre-PC days when I was in school). It matters not to me that this stuff appears in Nature… the science media these days is a prone to bias as any newspaper.I see regular (too many) references to global warming in engineering magazines. There must be some sort of editorial requirement to mention GW in every publication whether germane or not.
Comment by SoCalRobert — January 16, 2009 @ 7:26 pm - January 16, 2009
I was interested to find this blog. 20 years ago I had a book published on different economic concepts to point the way to a sustainable world economy. Someone who liked the book contacted me this year to suggest that I update and re-publish it as a blog. She set up the blog, and the book is now complete on the blog in a series of postings. There are now also additional pieces on global warming and other subjects. Here is the link:
http://www.economicsforaroundearth.com
With all good wishes,
Charles Pierce
Comment by Charles Pierce — January 16, 2009 @ 9:31 pm - January 16, 2009
Charles,
I suspect you are merely trolling for links and will never return, but I perused your blog and your thinking is as wrong-headed as it can be.
It is the “unsustainable” consumption that you abhor, and subsequent wealth that has enabled leftists throughout the western world to become so utterly spoiled that they have the time and wealth to worry about the environment to begin with. So-called “environmentalists” have been warning that we would run out of this or that for decades. Theyve been proven wrong every time. You do not make the world “greener” by making it poorer, you make it greener by making it richer. It is the rich, greedy nations that are cutting pollution, it is free-market corporations that are developing the technologies to provide more using less, and it is only wealthy societies that can afford declining birth rates.
What you call “greed” (even though theres nothing greedy about it) IS good. If you want to save the Earth, increase your carbon footprint.
Comment by American Elephant — January 16, 2009 @ 10:31 pm - January 16, 2009
I was thinking about this just the other day. Any unusual warm spells are always seen and treated as evidence of global warming. But any unusual or extreme cold spells are always dismissed as anecdotal evidence that is statistically insignificant. Isn’t it just great how it works when you’ve got a theory that can never–according to its adherents–be disproved?
Comment by Kurt — January 16, 2009 @ 11:24 pm - January 16, 2009
Thats because its not theory to them, its religion. You cannot disprove faith.
Comment by American Elephant — January 17, 2009 @ 1:15 am - January 17, 2009
Meanwhile, it’s 38º F here in central Florida.
I wonder if gillie can explain why the only answer to “fix” global warmism is to spend ass loads of the people’s money. Nobody knows what to do to fix it, but they know, beyond a doubt, that they need to take all of our money to do it.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 17, 2009 @ 4:37 am - January 17, 2009
Charles (trolling for business) is the kind of thing the spamfilter is supposed to keep out. Instead, it keeps us out
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 17, 2009 @ 10:38 am - January 17, 2009
LOL
So true.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 17, 2009 @ 10:39 am - January 17, 2009
Global warming is a myth. Al Gore and his liberal cohorts are not in denial. They, too, know it´s a myth. It is a smoke screen for gaining control over people and things. In the newsletter , Lunchtime Liberty Update, published by the Center For Individual Freedom on May 29, 2008 the lead article was 31,000 scientists lead by the OISM (Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine) signed a petition urging the United States to reject the Kyoto Treaty. They have determined that warming is myth and that the environment actually benefits from carbon emissions. The article also references an article published in the November 23, 1992 in which some scientists stated that a new ice age is guaranteed.
Comment by Roberto — January 17, 2009 @ 11:33 am - January 17, 2009
One of the reasons it is unseasonably warm here in CA is because it is so cold elsewhere. Mother earth has a way of balancing things.
When we have a very rainy season here – it tends to be dryer in the northwest.
This is what these oh so bright lefties just don’t get. There is no such thing as ‘perfect’. What they are describing as climate change, is what we used to simply call – normal weather patterns.
btw, come summer when it is hot again, we’ll all be hearing about global warming – they will once again have their proof. As if it should be in the 60′s in the summer in NY.
Comment by Leah — January 17, 2009 @ 11:48 am - January 17, 2009
So if this cooling is supposed to be due to la nina (the illegitimate sister of El Nino) from the Pacific, according to AGW trolls, how is it that the most Pacific sided state, California, is not cooling but warming up, but the rest of the country is cooling down? Is God reserving a special hell for the east and west coasts?
Comment by eaglewingz08 — January 17, 2009 @ 1:30 pm - January 17, 2009
#22, we can only hope. (Sorry Dan!)
Comment by The_Livewire — January 17, 2009 @ 7:42 pm - January 17, 2009
There is no such thing as consensus in science. It must be a proven scientific fact, a theory or a hypothesis to be tested. We don’t vote; we do reproducible experiments and research. The proponents of global warming base everything on their models, which when given 1960 data cannot predict today’s temperatures. They have created a phony money machine.
Claiming that cooling temperatures are representative of Global Warming or Climate Change is like eating a steak to prove you are a vegetarian.
Comment by bobiscold — January 17, 2009 @ 9:42 pm - January 17, 2009
“That made me wonder if the hot weather in cities where many in the media and would-be opinion-makers reside effects their narrative on global warming.”
I *would* say that that warmth is due to the “heat island” effect of cities, which has been proven to tilt recent global temperature readings toward the warmer side, but I can’t quite figure out why ice is supposedly melting at record rates around the world.
I find it difficult to believe that ALL that melting ice USED to be just ONE DEGREE above the point at which it would disintegrate. It makes no sense (from my layman’s point of view).
Comment by DoorHold — January 19, 2009 @ 4:57 pm - January 19, 2009