Wednesday, December 16, 2009

So, after reading an article recently (Going Cheney on Climate Debate) I had the misfortune to be given a paper to write in response to what I view as little more than a Liberal Rant. (Note the capital letters, this designates the article as a class 2 Political Phenomenon on the Einar scale, just slightly above Obama getting a dog rather than a cat, which is a 1.)
In the article the writer, a very opinionated journalist by the name of Thomas Friedman, claims that we should give the same degree of attention and recourses to Global Warming (A 3 on the Einar scale) as we would Pakistan Getting Nukes (A 10.)
This comparison is made using  a Declaration that Dick Cheney Made (2) “If there’s a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping Al Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response.”
Thomas claims that since Global Warming has far more dire consequences than Pakistan Getting Nukes, such as the Death of Polar Bears (0.5), it should be given just as much attention. Hidden within this argument are subtle suggestions that is should get more attention, since there is undeniably more than a 1% percent change that is will (is) happening. In fact, the few bits of data that were not proved false by the Climategate Scandal (7) were recently seen to correspond to the weather phenomenon El NiƱo.

The one bit I found truly interesting was a clever attempt to dismiss Climategate as nothing more than a few scientists a little data, nothing particularily important.

“Climategate was triggered on Nov. 17 when an unidentified person hacked into the e-mails and data files of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, one of the leading climate science centers in the world — and then posted them on the Internet. In a few instances, they revealed some leading climatologists seemingly massaging data to show more global warming and excluding contradictory research.
Frankly, I found it very disappointing to read a leading climate scientist writing that he used a “trick” to “hide” a putative decline in temperatures or was keeping contradictory research from getting a proper hearing. Yes, the climate-denier community, funded by big oil, has published all sorts of bogus science for years — and the world never made a fuss. That, though, is no excuse for serious climatologists not adhering to the highest scientific standards at all times.
That said, be serious: The evidence that our planet, since the Industrial Revolution, has been on a broad warming trend outside the normal variation patterns — with periodic micro-cooling phases — has been documented by a variety of independent research centers.”


The scientists did not “massage” data, they created it. These “priests” of the Global Warming Religion (3.5) ran out of misinterpret-able evidence with which to confuse people, so they created their own.
 In the rest of the article, Mr. Thomas went right back to the Global Warming Mantra (3) of “Evil Co2!” No logic, no consideration that perhaps there are more e-mails we didn’t find, and no acceptance that perhaps he has been fed a bunch of lies.
Einar “Political Weatherman” Alimson


  1. Wow. You have really missed out. When I was a kid they were teaching both global cooling and global warming. Funny thing was the same things caused both.

    Then there was DDT causes the shells of raptor eggs to be unusually thin. (Turns out, thick raptor eggs cannot hatch.)

    Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's) cause the hole in the Ozone Layer over the Antartic. By destroying ozone. CFC's stay in the air for forty plus years. (Turns out, CFC's are heavier than air in the Ozone Layer. They don't reach that high from earth. More likely comets and meteors deposit CFC's up there--probably where water comes from, too--and they descend out. The hole in the ozone fluctuates on approximately an eleven year cycle.)

  2. Aye, when I first heard about all the global warming stuff (at 11 years old) I figured it was probably just El Nino.....buncha alarmists...