Politics from the Palouse to Puget Sound

Monday, June 18, 2007

The Most Absurd Al-Colyte of the Year

How many of the world's problems can you blame on mobile warming?

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has made his entry into the most ridiculous invocation of global warming.

He's blaming the Darfur genocide on global warming.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that the slaughter in Darfur was triggered by global climate change and that more such conflicts may be on the horizon, in an article published Saturday.
"The Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change," Ban said in a Washington Post opinion column.

UN statistics showed that rainfall declined some 40 percent over the past two decades, he said, as a rise in Indian Ocean temperatures disrupted monsoons.

"This suggests that the drying of sub-Saharan Africa derives, to some degree, from man-made global warming," the South Korean diplomat wrote.

"It is no accident that the violence in Darfur erupted during the drought," Ban said in the Washington daily.

His entry just might surpass the cat surplus story.

Several shelters operated by a national adoption organization called Pets Across America reported a 30 percent increase in intakes of cats and kittens from 2005 to 2006, and other shelters across the nation have reported similar spikes of stray, owned and feral cats.

The cause of this feline flood is an extended cat breeding season thanks to the world’s warming temperatures, according to the group, which is one of the country’s oldest and largest animal welfare organizations.

“Cats are typically warm-weather, spring-time breeders,” said the group’s president, Kathy Warnick. “However, states that typically experience primarily longer and colder winters are now seeing shorter, warmer winters, leading to year-round breeding.”

“Basically, there is no longer a reproduction lull with cat breeding cycles, and unfortunately, it seems more people are bringing boxes of kittens into our agencies during winter now,” she added.


Truth said...

Yes, how absurd that people would fight and kill over water, its not like they need it to survive or anything.

Of course thats not the only reason, but it definetly is one cause and as global warming continues (as 90%+ of scientists believe) then it is very likely that such reasons will become more and more prevelant, which is the point that Ban Ki-moon was making.

Tell me something though, why don't you want to accept that Global Warming is real? Would it really be that bad to strongly push for alternative energy, a reduction of greeenhouse gasses and other polutants, and possibly to try to conserve a little bit of energy? I didn't realize the environment was something people could be against.

Satanic Mechanic said...

Of course you are a vessel of junk science. Since you are so fond of quoting sources, where did you get your 90% scientist believe in the pseudo-science of global warming? You should look back at the discussions we have had in the past about this topic.
What science classes have you taken at WSU? Did you learn about scientific method? Global warming is a hypothesis and not theory. It is not proven, so far there are only observations to back up the hypothesis.
There are many variables in the weather models that are not considered when it comes to man-made emissions impacts on the environment.
Did you consider that this warming could be natural? Did you know that the last Ice Age was roughly 10,000 years ago? I am talking about a geologic event and not the movie. We have roughly taken temperature measurements for a hundred years. According to my co-worker, who is an amateur geologist and a contributer to a regional geology book, there is evidence of three Ice Ages in this region. Now remember the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. Who knows how many Ice Ages and warmings have elapsed. 10,000 years is nothing in geologic terms.
What I am getting at is, if there is warming, is it natural. I grew up in the time when global warming was introduced to the public but I see observations from many sides saying the temperature is warming quickly, temperature has only gone up by one degree over one hundred years, the temepature is average and the temperature has gone down one degree.
There are many variables to consider. Where was the temperature taken? Were they taken in cities? Was urban heat accountable in those observations in cities? Do you know what urban heat is without looking it up?

A scientist is open-minded but if all that is available is observations and a hypothesis then it is garbage. Scientific Method must be followed to prove the hypothesis to become a theory.

Truth said...

Satanic, I'm not entirelly sure what you mean when you say that Global Warming is only a hypothesis because there are "only oberservations" to back it up. If however you are choosing to attack the idea of Global Warming on those premise then I assume I can count very quickly on you attacking the idea of gravity, because we have nothing save for observations to back up that idea. Or how about the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, all we have to back those up are observations and yet I don't see you attacking them.

Since you are looking for facts which show the existence of Global Warming how about this study led by Oxford and including universities across the globe


Or how about one done by the National Climate Data Center


Oh, and its interesting, the NCDC states that "So far, paleoclimatologists have been unable to find any natural climatic explanations for our present-day warming".

Or if you are looking for how many people believe Global Warming is not only a fact but is also man-made you can look at this:


So when all relevant US scientific bodies agree that Global Warming both exists and is primarily if not exclusivly man-made, can we begin to take it as fact, or should I expect a post on how gravity and the atomic theory are also nothing more than scientific farces?

Oh, and about the "only 1 degree increase", first off that 1 degree Celcius, not Farenhite. Secondly, it doesn't take that much to alter the face of the world, even if it doesnt affect humans directly much.

Satanic Mechanic said...

Typical liberal, you of course compare something that is proven theory like gravity, against something that is unrelated and not proven, like global warming.

Satanic Mechanic said...

You are must be a greenie. By the way you defend global warming like a religious nut who would blow themselves up. You are good at quoting other sources but you have no independent thought.
I can tell you have little scientific education. There is no "fact" in science, "fact" is a law term.

Sarcastic Housewife #1 said...

Truth, were you alive in the 1970's? If not, you may not remember a long period of time there that scientists were warning us about the impending Ice Age. Yet, today there is very little evidence to suggest it arrived.

Paul E. Zimmerman, M.A. said...

I've got a book from my Anthro days that I'd like to send Ban Ki-Moon (I don't recall exactly which course it was anymore though). In it, amongst other things, are a selection of climate changes in the past that were found in fossil records. One of the more interesting ones is the transformation of the Sahara from a rainforest into its present desert state, which may have even happened several times, and in all cases long before this global warming claptrap started up... which would be since the 1970's when everyone was screaming about a coming ice age (or since the last time Marxists needed a new set of clothes for their beast).

Then there's the current melting of the polar ice caps on Mars... lots of SUVs up there, apparently.

As for the cats, why is a pet adoption organization prattling on about global warming when the real problem is irresponsible pet owners who don't get their cats spayed or neutered? My cat, Figaro, got snipped at 4 months of age. It doesn't matter what temperature the globe is, no kittens! Solved!

Truth said...

Satanic, I find it interesting that rather than attempt to discuss moreover actually try to refute the evidence I have presented you fall back on a technicality in my writing (no facts in science) and then equate me to a suicide bomber. If you will please note what I provided are other things which are proven theories (gravity) and yet which probably have less data supporting them than global warming. Indeed if you ask scientists if gravity is proven or just a very logical and widely acceptede theory they will tell you that its the latter. Yet rather than refute what I have said or attempt to clarify your statement you fall back into a "i'm right and you're wrong" state without any proof; a good sign of someone who is unable to back up their arguments. Since you brought it up however I will clarify my statement, instead of providing facts, the Oxford study I presented mearly presents very logical and widely accepted evidence, no different than the type of information which supports the atomic theory.

To Sarcastic Housewife and Paul in response to your global cooling argument let me ask you a question; just because scientists make a mistake is that reason to disbelive anything else they may say? There was a time when scientists believed the world was flat, does that mean people should have disbelieved them when they corrected themselves and said the world was round? As Satanic said there are no facts in science, and as such it is continually evolving and continually becoming more accurate. Furthermore, if you will note none of the sources I presented attempted to refute the idea that the Earth heats and cools naturally. What they all are saying however is that such a rapid increase in the Earth's temperature is A) happening far faster than we ever believed it has in the past and B) correlates very closely with the rise of the industrial age.

I would ask all three of you who responded to please actually respond to the points I am raising and not minor technicalities in my writing in the future, thank you.

Paul E. Zimmerman, M.A. said...

Hey, "Truth"iness - put your ego in check. This is Michael's post and I was responding to that. Just because you're flapping your pie hole again doesn't mean everyone who subsequently responds to each post is addressing you, nor does anyone owe you a response (you're not even a contributor to this blog, hello!). In fact, I'm quite busy these days with a new career, so I mostly skip over your asinine posts to get to the good stuff and save what little free time I've got. If I want to know what you've got to say, I'll just go straight to the New York Times.

Michael said...

Arab Muslims are slaughtering black Christians. This is consistent the entire histroy of Islam and predates predates the first SUV by more than 14 centuries.

Satanic Mechanic said...

Actually Truthy, you do not know what you are posting. Judging by your posts and lack of education in science you must either be a poly-sci/pre-law major or a comm major. Once again you are trying to compare a theory to a hypothesis. I do not have to refute your link because I am willing to bet you did not read it and I am willing to bet that there experimentation was done with models which does not take into account all variables. Even if I did refute their observations, you are unable to defend against my findings because you lack the education to do so.
Like what Sarcastic Housewife and Mr.Zimmerman stated, people believed in an oncoming iceage but this hypothesis was thrown out because of it was tested through scientific method. The media hears these hypothesises and goes into "Chicken Little" mode. The scientist who comes up with the junk science then easily gets his grant money to pursue this study. The same B.S. with a nuclear winter after a nuclear war in the 80's which was found to be false and the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica which was believed to be a result of CFC's but it was actually natural.
Truthy your arguement is weak. You should read the past posts on this subject, Nic was a better poster than you and more educated when defending the side of global warming.

Barenjager said...

There's an article in today's Seattle Times that in part blames warming and drought for a blackbear killing a boy who was camping out in the mountains of Utah.

Paul E. Zimmerman, M.A. said...

Baren -

The black bear should have been fed some of that bumper crop of kittens. Two problems solved! :)

Truth said...

Satanic, I'm not sure what education or vast reasearch you have done on the topic but if you have anything relevant to the issue I would be interested to hear it.

Furthermore I understand the difference between a theory to a hypothesis, and as you may have noted the point I was making is that there is the same type of evidence supporting gravity as is supporting Global Warming. If you want however you can attempt to clarify how gravity gets to be classified as a theory while global warming is only a hypothesis, is it because you don't want to believe global warming?

And yes, the idea of global coolign was thrown out, and for the past 20 years all scientific reaserch by all relevant scientific groups has shown the existence of global warming, and have shown that a good portion of that is caused by humans. What information do you have to refute that point?

Satanic Mechanic said...

If you want to hear my views/research on the pseudo science of global warming, go back to past topics and you will see my posts.
Once again you try to compare a hypothesis of global warming against the theory of gravity. Why should I do the research on the theory of gravity? You want to find out how a hypothesis becomes a theory read a book on Scientific Method. Once again your ignorance of science comes through.
You seem to have a lot of time on your hand looking up links on the search engine or whatever you use. You should take some summer science classes to learn.
I am tired of arguing with you because of your lack of knowledge. You remind me of the dozen nuts a year I use to get when I had my research job who believed in perpetual motion and infinite energy. Most of these people had a scinece education of a junior high student and never heard of conservation of energy or the laws of thermodynamics. I would show some of them an example of why their system would not work: half would say "oh" and walk away with a better understanding and the other half would say that I am a government stooge or GM collaborator in keeping down free energy technology.
Guess which half you fall into? Paul is right, you do have a big Ego because you will not let this issue go.