See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: Br-r-r! Where did global warming go?
Source:
Boston Globe
URL Source: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e ... r_where_did_global_warming_go/
Published: Jan 6, 2008
Author: Jeff Jacoby
Post Date: 2008-01-06 20:34:22 by farmfriend
Ping List: *Agriculture-Environment* Subscribe to *Agriculture-Environment*
Keywords: None
Views: 639
Comments: 86
By Jeff Jacoby THE STARK headline appeared just over a year ago. "2007 to be 'warmest on record,' " BBC News reported on Jan. 4, 2007. Citing experts in the British government's Meteorological Office, the story announced that "the world is likely to experience the warmest year on record in 2007," surpassing the all-time high reached in 1998. But a funny thing happened on the way to the planetary hot flash: Much of the planet grew bitterly cold. In South America, for example, the start of winter last year was one of the coldest ever observed. According to Eugenio Hackbart, chief meteorologist of the MetSul Weather Center in Brazil, "a brutal cold wave brought record low temperatures, widespread frost, snow, and major energy disruption." In Buenos Aires, it snowed for the first time in 89 years, while in Peru the cold was so intense that hundreds of people died and the government declared a state of emergency in 14 of the country's 24 provinces. In August, Chile's agriculture minister lamented "the toughest winter we have seen in the past 50 years," which caused losses of at least $200 million in destroyed crops and livestock. Latin Americans weren't the only ones shivering. University of Oklahoma geophysicist David Deming, a specialist in temperature and heat flow, notes in the Washington Times that "unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007." Johannesburg experienced its first significant snowfall in a quarter-century. Australia had its coldest ever June. New Zealand's vineyards lost much of their 2007 harvest when spring temperatures dropped to record lows. Closer to home, 44.5 inches of snow fell in New Hampshire last month, breaking the previous record of 43 inches, set in 1876. And the Canadian government is forecasting the coldest winter in 15 years. Now all of these may be short-lived weather anomalies, mere blips in the path of the global climatic warming that Al Gore and a host of alarmists proclaim the deadliest threat we face. But what if the frigid conditions that have caused so much distress in recent months signal an impending era of global cooling? "Stock up on fur coats and felt boots!" advises Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and senior scientist at Moscow's Shirshov Institute of Oceanography. "The latest data . . . say that earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012." Sorokhtin dismisses the conventional global warming theory that greenhouse gases, especially human-emitted carbon dioxide, is causing the earth to grow hotter. Like a number of other scientists, he points to solar activity - sunspots and solar flares, which wax and wane over time - as having the greatest effect on climate. "Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change," Sorokhtin writes in an essay for Novosti. "Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind." In a recent paper for the Danish National Space Center, physicists Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen concur: "The sun . . . appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change," they write. Given the number of worldwide cold events, it is no surprise that 2007 didn't turn out to be the warmest ever. In fact, 2007's global temperature was essentially the same as that in 2006 - and 2005, and 2004, and every year back to 2001. The record set in 1998 has not been surpassed. For nearly a decade now, there has been no global warming. Even though atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to accumulate - it's up about 4 percent since 1998 - the global mean temperature has remained flat. That raises some obvious questions about the theory that CO2 is the cause of climate change. Yet so relentlessly has the alarmist scenario been hyped, and so disdainfully have dissenting views been dismissed, that millions of people assume Gore must be right when he insists: "The debate in the scientific community is over." But it isn't. Just last month, more than 100 scientists signed a strongly worded open letter pointing out that climate change is a well-known natural phenomenon, and that adapting to it is far more sensible than attempting to prevent it. Because slashing carbon dioxide emissions means retarding economic development, they warned, "the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it." Climate science isn't a religion, and those who dispute its leading theory are not heretics. Much remains to be learned about how and why climate changes, and there is neither virtue nor wisdom in an emotional rush to counter global warming - especially if what's coming is a global Big Chill.
Br-r-r! Where did global warming go?
Globe Columnist / January 6, 2008
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: farmfriend (#0)
Jeff Jacoby is still drooling? Half of Chicago was walking around in shorts and tshirts today. It was in the mid-50s near the lake. In January, when it is normally in the 20s, at best. You can cherry-pick data but the clear direction of global climate is up, up, up.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
The Russians already had communism and a taste of science under communism. There's no fooling them.
Mr. O'Leary, an elderly Irish gentleman, was in an accident and sustained extensive damage to his foot. After examination in the emergency room, the doctor informed Mr. O'Leary that the only chance to save his foot was to try a new, experimental procedure that involved encasing his foot in brass. Whereupon Mr. O'Leary cried out in a loud voice, "no, no---don't braze me toe!".
Actually it's not. We are likely headed into another Dalton Minimum called the Lanscheidt minimum. The delay in the start of Sun Cycle 24 and the lack of sun spots would indicate this.
Two days ago, it was 15 below zero here at 11 PM. That's the 2nd coldest temperature I have ever seen here.
Tag Line For Rent
On Dec. 3, 2006, it was 73 degrees at 3 am in Chicago. It beat the previous record by 40 degrees. If you seriously think we are not in global climate change, good luck. The whole concept is that the disruption of the climate by any number of things, mainly man-made, will cause things to pogo up and down, but the eventual result is an irreversible trend to warming. The Great Lakes have lost a foot of water, the glaciers are melting, California first got wildfires from drought and now is getting mudslides from a foot of rain a day...this whole thing means extreme weather. Cold, hot, wet, dry. Turn off Rush. This sounds like those MORONS who put out a thing about getting 8 feet of snow and not having to call in the Fed Gov to help them, unlike New Orleans. I asked them, how much of that snow made it indoors up to the second floor. Gee, no fucking reply from those nazi squatholes.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Okay, I get your point. Global warming is happening. We all recognize Global Warming is happening ( except for the retard under Darth Cheney's thumb) But are we in the midst of a predictable natural cycle that happens every 200 years? Or is this something new, man made or man enhanced?
I was riding my motorcycle here on Jan 7th 2007. It was 70 degrees. So what? Two weeks later it was 10 below.
Tag Line For Rent (M, 48, NY)
In Chicago? OK, you seriously believe global warming does not exist. Along with a whopping 1 percent of scientists. Deal with it.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
No, in NY, near Albany. Of course global warming exists, If it didn't, this place would still be covered by a glacier. It's just a natural cycle.
Tag Line For Rent (M, 48, NY)
I guess that depends on if you believe CO2 makes a difference. If you do, the evidence is overwhelming. If you don't, I have no idea what you believe. The previous global warming events have been caused by natural releases of carbon, but we have not had things like Krakatoa in over a hundred years.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
It's kinda funny how political views somehow affect one's views on science. Everyone, everyone sane at least, wants science to rule. It's just when scientists start fucking with the oil industry or the tobacco industry, that suddenly the right wing gets all agitated. Can anyone remind me of a scientific finding that got the left wing as riled as the wingers screeching about Algore and FatMike and shit? No, you cannot. Us lefties believe in science and we are perfectly happy to be proven wrong.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Of course global warming exists, If it didn't, this place would still be covered by a glacier. My brothers live nearby, in Danby, Vt. That is not the point. We have gone through many cycles of warming and cooling, when the earth was younger. But we have never, in human history, had anything like this. Chicago, for over a hundred years, was ice cold in winter. I came here for trade shows throughout the 80s, and it was FREEZING. Now it's pretty much mild. We get a few cold days, but on the whole, the weather is like where I grew up, in Maine, but like Portland, Maine is NOW, not then. We used to have to climb out my window to shovel snow off our roof back in the 60s. Now, most ski slopes have to manufacture snow...they're delighted to have this much snow recently because it is the first time in 20 years they have had a great snow cover. Yeah, Lake Saranac is being clobbered. Right now, it's so warm in Chicago that I have to keep my doors open. That is not even a possible argument against global warming. But whatever gets you hot.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
You lefties are all artsie fartsies. What do you lefties know about science unless you think that pretending you know something will get you a government grant to pursue further investigation? Let's get real.
You are not paying attention to the science. The small amount of warming we had recently was do to the huge amount of solar activity we have had. Not to mention the fact that the warming we had was not close to the midieval warm period which is called climate optimum for a reason. And you know that period they call the little ice age? That was caused by a lack of sun spots. The glaciers are not melting. The recent loss of ice in the Arctic, which has recovered btw, was caused by a change in ocean circulation, a natural cycle according to NASA. The melting that has taken place in Greenland was do to volcanic activity warming the ice from below. The Antarctic has record levels of ice, South America had its coldest winter in 100 years. Temperatures have flat lined or dropped just about everywhere.
No. The science has shown that CO2 levels follow temperature. Cause doesn't not follow effect. Man only contributes 2-3% CO2 to the atmosphere. The largest source of CO2 is the ocean. It is also the largest absorber creating a net sink. The oceans outgas less CO2 when they are cooler, and they are cooling down. I would expect to see a net drop in CO2 levels.
what. ever.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
As opposed to 0.1 percent a hundred years ago. Significant? I, as a SANE person, think so.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Implying that anyone who does not believe in AGW is not sane. If you can't win on the science, resort to personal attacks. Works every time.
When 99 percent of the scientists are on my side, and a few fruitcakes are on yours, give up. No one sane claims that global warming is not happening. Even that nut Bush gave up, although Cheney is still hanging in there. So you're on Cheney's side, I am on the sane side. Have a nice life.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
LOL! The old consensus argument. And you believe that UN line?
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Scientists are stoopit and anyone who studies something, apart from Michael Chrichton and a few moonies, are idiots. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Go ahead, be stupid. (You do know who owns the Washington Time, right? Sadly, you probably have no clue.)
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Record snowfall in New England last month. ICE cold in the southeast last week. Record cold in Florida. This week? Warming up. It's called weather. Scientists have no idea what the weather is going to be like this coming Saturday. Global warming? So what...it's not like we can go anywhere, and I know how to swim.
Fuck you, you Cook County commie cocksucker. Go sell your ass on a southside street corner for your pimp, Todd Stroger.
Mark If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers - normally good Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free - Americans who have been lulled into a false security (April 1968).---Ezra Taft Benson, US Secretary of Agriculture 1953-1961 under Eisenhower
The money that backs the Sierra Club and other green groups that don't want drilling in places like ANWR is the same money that is behind AGW. They are trusts and NGOs that make money on energy invenstment by controlling resources through regulations. This is why they want to regulate CO2. Drives prices up and eliminates smaller less expensive competition. It's an old game and one they have learned to play well.
I love how nazis argue rationally. Please see my comments about Todd Punkboy Stroger. You are too stupid to be believed. I think you must be a performance artist, pretending to be a nazi cuntboy.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
73 degrees in Chicago today. In January. Gimme a break. Broke the record by 40 degrees.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Warmed up to 70 about a thousand miles a little south of east of you today...some snow by Saturday.
The good part is, my homies in NH can go out and vote for Obama tomorrow. After growing up there, having to wade through 20 feet of snow seems to depress voter turnout.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Snicker. You really have hammer damage. Notice that the Northwest Passage is now open, after centuries of hope? Anyway, I hope you live in some place like Arizona, where you can't steal our water anymore. You really should start reading more.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
You might avail yourself of that sage advice. I recall in the past that you were unaware that this country once had a Jewish president. Not too good for a self styled genius that still believes there are two political parties in this country.
And that Jew is? Jesus, you are nuts. Roosevelt was a Dutch burgermeister. You know you're nuts, I hope.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
You demonstrate you level of intelligence here quite often and now you reveal your memory is faulty and you learned nothing.
Name the "Jew", idiot.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Perhaps you went to Harvard law school, thats good, but it seems they failed to pass on to you proper manners and civility. Shame, all that money.
I'm not a lawyer, I never went to Harvard, and what the HELL do you mean about MY civility? Just give up, you are wrong, you attacked Obama unfairly, and refused to admit you were wrong.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
I care not to wade thru the entire thread, hell...few read mine so what the fuck however: Here in mid-michigan we broke the all time recorded high temp record for this date of 70 degrees. Further, we are currently under a tornado watch (in michigan, in january?). Lived around these parts for some 50 years and never recall such an event. Of course, I like the Oleg Sorokhtin scenario that "A cold spell soon to replace global warming". I think I might have posted that article here...or not. Look for it if interested.
Never swear "allegiance" to anything other than the 'right to change your mind'!
Forget it Brian. She listens to Pigboy and OReally and she knows better than anyone else, particularly scientists. See, to here way of thinking, if 99 percent of scientists back a theory, they must be wrong, because they're limp-wristed liberal fags.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
The melting that took place this last year is normal and has happened several times in recorded history.
Your articles are terrific, Brian - I always read them and usually there's a good response to them. Now the RP articles seem to be getting most of the long thread attention but it doesn't mean your other articles are not read.
I'm always interested.
And a Russian one at that... /chuckle
Never swear "allegiance" to anything other than the 'right to change your mind'!
Care to name them? You can't, of course. Every ship that tried to go through the Northwest Passage either turned back or got ice-locked.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Maybe your readers do so because they know what you post is worthy and compelling. That's what I think. Cartoons are nice and I enjoy a few..............
"Satan / Cheney in "08" What a rude ignorant poster you are. What do you know of farmfriend's reading habits or her academic qualifications. She has added more factual commentary to this thread than you. And fyi, there are a number of scientific groups who are hestitant to say that this cycle of Global Warming we are experiencing is anything more than a natural cycle that has happened since earth had life. So put your irritating baseless authoritative sounding nothingness and blow it out your ear.
No, I listen to climatologist and other science experts. Want me to point out which ones? So Scholfield is wrong to claim that there is a “consensus” that the modern warming is man-made and will be catastrophic. Like so many others who are confused by the current debate, he relies heavily on the claims of a United Nation’s agency, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which says its reports represent the views of some 2,000 scientists. But the great majority of those scientists only comment on or contribute to a few pages of the much larger report. They expressly do not endorse the overall reports or the claims that appear in the “Summary for Policymakers,” which they do not help write or approve. Many of the scientists who participate in the IPCC process are, in fact, outspoken skeptics of man-made global warming. There is only one empirical study ever done that appeared to support the claim of a consensus that global warming is man-made. It is a widely cited (but seldom examined) study by Naomi Oreskes, a professor of gender studies at the University of California - San Diego. Oreskes examined abstracts of 928 articles published from 1993 to 2002 and found “none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position” that the recent warming of the Earth was due to human activities. Note that she didn’t claim a consensus in support of the idea that warming would be severe or harmful, or even that all of the papers agreed with the consensus position. No survey of the literature or of scientists has ever shown consensus on those claims. When other researchers tried and failed to replicate Oreskes’ findings, she was forced to admit she had mis-identified the search terms used in her study. One scientist, Benny Peiser, reported that his own analysis of the scientific abstracts supposedly studied by Oreskes found only 13 (1 percent) explicitly endorse what she called the “consensus view” while 470 (42 percent) of the abstracts include the keywords “global climate change” but do not find or endorse any link to human activities. On the day I’m writing this, DailyTech.com is reporting that new research by Klaus-Martin Schulte, accepted for publication by the journal Energy and Environment, finds no consensus on global warming in academic journal articles appearing between 2004 and early 2007. Nearly as many articles explicitly refute the theory of man-made global warming as endorse it, while most articles are simply silent on the issue. In light of all this, is it any wonder that many people are skeptical of predictions of climate catastrophe? Most people can sense when something is being hyped and oversold. But I do wonder why journalists, who really ought to know better, ignore the evidence in front of them and simply read from scripts provided by environmental advocacy groups and ambitious politicians. You don’t suppose it’s because they have an ideological agenda, do you? Thank you!
Perhaps more interest will be shown in other news articles after the elections but now I only post about a third of the news articles I used to post here. Doesn't mean I've stopped initiating news threads, just spreading them out to other forums/blogs. Its "all good"...indeed!
Never swear "allegiance" to anything other than the 'right to change your mind'!
Not according to wikipedia which is a source biased in favor of AGW.
You being here, is to me, a real factor of me being here, Brian. I wish to you the best for a trouble free New Year.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" Sought by explorers for centuries as a possible trade route, it was first navigated by Roald Amundsen in 1903-6. The Arctic pack ice prevents regular marine shipping throughout the year, but due to climate change, the pack ice is being reduced and this Arctic shrinkage may eventually make the waterways more navigable. This and the contested sovereignty claims over the waters may complicate future shipping through the region. The Canadian government considers the Northwestern Passages part of Canadian Internal Waters,[4] but various countries maintain they are an international strait or transit passage, allowing free and unencumbered passag
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Yeah actually I did. You didn't though.
Yeah, the ones who don't work for the petrochemical industry, the Moonies or Fox News. And believe me, they all work for one of them.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
These are the scientist I listen to and talk to. Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against 'Futile' Climate Control Efforts U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man- Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
You wish.
Care to show me where I am wrong and you are right? It's not there. We have a northwest passage now, but there is war over who owns it. It was never an issue until global warming. Care to show me where the boats went through bringing spices and foods from the east to us? You better learn to READ. But, like most wingnuts, reading is painful. Like facts.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Godspeed to you and yours my friend. 2008 has a good feeling about it, personally.
Never swear "allegiance" to anything other than the 'right to change your mind'!
Here's some links to the scientific debate about Global Warming - google global warming natural cycle scientists debate and you get 67,000 hits - Mekons as usual takes a complicated subject and pretends that he knows that there is only one single answer - his, of course. www.globalwarmingheartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21977 "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares: List with Study Citations" science.nasa.gov/h eadlines/y2000/ast20oct_1.htm "Earth's Fidgeting Climate" Is human activity warming the Earth or do recent signs of climate change signal natural variations? In this feature article, scientists discuss the vexing ambiguities of our planet's complex and unwieldy climate. Knock yourselves out trying to find a consensus position of the various scientific groups. Tip - you'd be wasting your time because there is no consensus.
My pleasure. And it was the right thing to do. Farmfriend, you are in good company actually - it's a badge of honor to be insulted and called vile names by Mekons - it means you are not a socialist who believes in re-distributing wealth so all people can lead equally mediocre lives.
The Hudson Institute, a member of a closely knit group of neoconservative policy institutes that frequently champion aggressive and Israel-centric U.S. foreign policies, was founded in 1961 by several hardline Cold Warriors including Herman Kahn, a nuclear strategist famous for his efforts to develop "winnable" nuclear war strategies. "Dedicated to innovative research and analysis that promotes global security, prosperity, and freedom," Hudson couples its foreign policy work with research on social and economic agendas, claiming to "challenge conventional thinking and help manage strategic transitions to the future through interdisciplinary and collaborative studies in defense, international relations, economics, culture, science, technology, and law." Although the institute calls itself a "non-partisan policy research organization," scholars at Hudson consistently reveal an ideological agenda in their work. For example, during the 2006 battle over the renomination of John Bolton as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Hudson president Herbert London coauthored, with American Enterprise Institute (AEI) head Christopher DeMuth, an op-ed in the right-wing Washington Times. The two argued that Bolton's critics wrongly "contended [Bolton] could not work constructively with others, that he was too abrasive, and held the UN in too low regard to be effective there. In fact, on issue after issue, John Bolton has represented the United States with great effectiveness. He has engaged respectfully and productively with his counterparts from other countries and the UN bureaucracy wherever possible." Responding to the numerous press reports citing diplomats who painted a very different picture of Bolton's tenure at the UN, DeMuth and London complained that "it should come as no surprise that Mr. Bolton's critics have been reduced to citing unnamed foreign diplomats who say they do not get along with our UN ambassador" (Washington Times, September 7, 2006). Similarly, during George W. Bush's second term, some Hudson scholars have been vociferous advocates of an aggressive U.S. posture vis-à-vis several Mideast countries, particularly Syria and Iran. Hudson adjunct fellow Norman Podhoretz, an early neoconservative trailblazer and former editor of Commentary magazine, was one of the loudest U.S. voices calling for attacking Iran. In a June 2007 article for Commentary titled "The Case for Bombing Iran," Podhoretz, who advises Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign team, wrote: "The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences. The United States joins other nations in sending a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon." He concluded his diatribe pointing to European weakness, a familiar Podhoretz theme: "In fact, it could almost be said of the Europeans that they have been more upset by Ahmadinejad's denial that a Holocaust took place 60 years ago than by his determination to set off one of his own as soon as he acquires the means to do so. In a number of European countries, Holocaust denial is a crime, and the European Union only recently endorsed that position. Yet for all their retrospective remorse over the wholesale slaughter of Jews back then, the Europeans seem no readier to lift a finger to prevent a second Holocaust than they were the first time around. Not so George W. Bush, a man who knows evil when he sees it and who has demonstrated an unfailingly courageous willingness to endure vilification and contumely in setting his face against it. It now remains to be seen whether this president, battered more mercilessly and with less justification than any other in living memory, and weakened politically by the enemies of his policy in the Middle East in general and Iraq in particular, will find it possible to take the only action that can stop Iran from following through on its evil intentions both toward us and toward Israel." In September 2007, Hudson's Meyrav Wurmser, cofounder of the controversial Middle East Media Research Institute, authored a "strategic briefing" for the UK-based Henry Jackson Society titled "Iran-Hamas Relations: The Growing Threat from a Radical Religious Coalition," which argued that an Iranian threat was looming across the Middle East (a nearly identical article was posted on the Hudson website in October 2007 under the title "The Hamas-Iran Alliance"). Wurmser wrote: "Hamas' coup against the Palestinian Authority in Gaza in May 2007 was a monumental event, not just for the Palestinians, but also the Middle East. ... One central aspect of Iran's ambitions is its growing alliance with Hamas, a relationship dating back to the first official meeting between both in December 1990. These ties grow closer and more intimate, particularly after August 2005, when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to power." Scholars and Leadership. Hudson's list of current and former scholars and associates reveals a clear partisan tendency. Several Hudson associates have supported the work of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the advocacy outfit that played a singular role in pushing for the invasion of Iraq in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The overlap between Hudson and the now-defunct PNAC includes many who signed PNAC's 1997 "Statement of Principles," including Elliott Abrams, the pardoned Iran-Contra convict who serves as a Mideast adviser to the Bush administration and is a former Hudson scholar; Francis Fukuyama, the erstwhile neoconservative fellow traveler and author of the "end of history" thesis who in recent years has rejected many of the faction's policy ideas; Donald Kagan, a conservative classicist; and former Vice President Dan Quayle, an honorary Hudson trustee. Other Hudson scholars and fellows include Carol Adelman (who is married to Ken Adelman), Anne Bayefsky, Robert Bork, Hillel Fradkin, Laurent Murawiec, Nina Shea, Irwin Stelzer, Ben Wattenberg, and William Schneider Jr. The Hudson institute also has multiple connections to the Center for Security Policy, a hardline advocacy outfit founded by former Reagan administration Defense official Frank Gaffney, through members like Charles Horner, George Keyworth, Richard Perle, and Schneider. London, Hudson's president since 1997, has been affiliated with the institute for more than three decades, either as a trustee or senior fellow, founding Hudson's Center for Employment Policy during his tenure. London is also a former Olin Professor of Humanities at New York University. London sits on the boards of numerous private sector businesses and organizations, including Merrill Lynch Assets Management. He previously served as board member to the Center for Naval Analyses. Kenneth R. Weinstein is Hudson's chief executive officer and a member of the board's executive committee. He joined the institute in 1999 and is a former research fellow. He previously worked at the Heritage Foundation, the New Citizenship Project, the Shalem Center, Claremont McKenna College, and Georgetown University. Walter P. Stern, who has also served a vice president of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, is the chairman emeritus of Hudson's Board of Trustees, which has strong ties to the corporate world, including defense industries. Former trustees include Conrad Black, Donald Kagan, Emmanuel Kampouris, and Dan Quayle. Current trustees include Perle, Nina Rosenwald, and Lawrence Kadish. Hudson cofounder Max Singer, who remains a senior fellow, is associated with the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, which is part of Bar-Ilan University in Israel. He writes frequently for the Jerusalem Post and other major newspapers, routinely advocating hardline views about Saudi Arabia and supporting Israel's actions toward the Palestinians. He was also a fervent supporter of Ahmed Chalabi. Hillel Fradkin, who joined Hudson as a senior fellow in summer 2004, has been a longtime member of the network of rightist and neoconservative institutions, serving as head of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a fellow at AEI, and an officer at the Bradley and Olin foundations. In 2004 article for the Irving Kristol-founded Public Interest, Fradkin argued, "It is hard to overstate the collective psychological effect of the decline of Islamic power, coincidental with the rise of Christian power and its modern political organization" (Public Interest, Spring 2004). Another outspoken Hudson scholar is Irwin Stelzer, who directs its Center for Economic Policy Studies. In a September 26, 2006 article for Hudson about Federal Reserve Board policy, Stelzer argued that the esoteric detail about monetary policy was lost on most Americans. He wrote: "They see Ford and General Motors laying off tens of thousands of workers, read that nutters in Venezuela and Iran are plotting to cut off supplies of oil, get depressed about the situation in Iraq as the nightly television news casts a pall over dinner tables, and see American foreign policy impotent in the face of a drive by America's old adversary, France's Jacques Chirac, to thwart President George Bush's efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons" (London Sunday Times, September 26, 2006). Stelzer is the editor of the 2004 volume The Neocon Reader (Grove Press, New York), a compendium of writings from different political figures and authors that describes aspects of neoconservatism. Commenting in the book's introduction on Joshua Muravchik 's contribution to the book, in which the AEI fellow endeavors to dispel the myth that neoconservatism is a Jewish "cabal," Stelzer argues that this can hardly be the case "since neither Colin Powell nor Condoleezza Rice, the president's principal foreign policy advisers, are Jewish; nor are Vice President Dick Cheney ... Donald Rumsfeld ... or George Tenet." Implying inaccurately that neoconservatism encompasses a large array of individuals, as Stelzer does, is a common thread in much of neoconservative rhetoric. History. After the institute was founded in 1961 by Herman Kahn, Max Singer, and Oscar Ruebhausen in New York's Westchester County, it moved to Indianapolis in 1984, and then finally settled in Washington, DC in 2004. During its more than 40 years of operation, the institute claims to have helped shift "the world away from the no-growth policies of the Club of Rome," enabling the former Soviet republics to become "booming market economies." It also claims to have pioneered "Wisconsin welfare reform" that was later applied nationally. More recently, however, the institute has focused much of its work on security issues, declaring that its move to Washington was made "in an effort to focus its research on foreign policy and national security issues." While it appears to adhere to an equal-opportunity approach in addressing America's many alleged enemies, a significant portion of its white papers and publications have been heavily focused on Islam and the Muslim world. One of Hudson's founders, Kahn, was one of the more infamous products of the RAND Corporation, where, beginning in 1947, he developed nuclear strategies that downplayed the impact of a thermonuclear war and was supposedly the inspiration for the character of Dr. Strangelove. In a discussion of Kahn's ideas in the New Yorker, Louis Menand quoted Kahn's 1960 book, On Thermonuclear War: "Despite a widespread belief to the contrary, objective studies indicate that even though the amount of human tragedy would be greatly increased in the postwar [i.e. nuclear] world, the increase would not preclude normal and happy lives for the majority of survivors and their descendants." Menand commented: "The reason [Kahn's] scenarios are fantastic to the point, almost, of risibility is that they deliberately ignore all the elements—beliefs, customs, ideas, politics—that actual wars are fought about, and that operate as a drag on decision making at every point" (New Yorker, June 27, 2005). Funding. The Hudson Institute received close to $25 million between 1987 and 2003 in foundation, corporate, and government grants, according to Media Transparency and the Capital Research Center. In 2005, the Sarah Scaife Foundation gave Hudson $150,000 for projects, and the Shelby Cullom Davis Foundation gave $75,000 "toward general support for the U.S., China, Russia, and Iran Diplomacy and Security project, and the work of Russian scholar and writer Dr. Andrei Piontkowski," according to Media Transparency. In 2004, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation gave Hudson hundreds of thousands for various projects. Other top Hudson funders have included Olin, Smith Richardson, Pew, the Donner Foundation, and the Department of Justice. Contact Information Hudson Institute 1015 15th Street NW, 6th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 974-2400 Fax: (202) 974-2410 Email: info@hudson.org Web: http://www.hudson.org
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Before you start high-fiving, read the right-wing, nazi, AIPAC sources she quoted. Enjoy.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
It was never an issue until the end of the little ice age which ended in 1850. It has been navigated several times since. It was probably navigable during the midieval warm period too but that is a guess since it was warmer then than now. And they called that climate optimum.
Thanks. I'm actually shocked at how many people on this forum agree with Mekon's stance. I wasn't paying attention before but I am now.
You really don't understand who is pushing AGW and why do you?
Glad to hear it Brian. For us I am not sure it will be an improvement, but as we have no debt or needless desires I think we will survive. If I can keep my sixteen yo son in some kind of check anyway. Can I bring you a shrunken head from Fiji? (Yes I am shamelessly bringing Fiji into every conversation I have) So something's sure to happen and instead of going to Fiji I'll wind up painting the house. I've read this book and know the ending.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" Whatever... As I told you and others earlier, there are 67,000 hits on Google if you want to follow my handy dandy key word tips for searching and when you that you can be hyper-selective and pick out only the Mother Jones Politically Correct ones to read. Be my guest. But however you choose to peruse those 67,000 hits, you will undoubtedly learn the scientific community is split on whether we are experiencing a natural cycle of global warming that has happened since the earth had life or whether this is a unique manmade global warming event. You have inferred that it's only "wingnuts" who believe that global warming is a natural cycle. You are wrong. Reputable scientists hold that view. I'm bagging out of this thread - nothing new for me to learn here than what I already knew before.
Keep quoting Cheney-centric nazis and keep making my point. Jesus, you really can't differentiate between conservative and nazi, can you? GOOGLE HUDSON INSTITUTE AND HAVE FUN.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
I never quoted Cheney. And just who do you think is pushing AGW? Rockefellers, Pew charitable trusts. So just who is in bed with the enemy? It's not me.
Yeah, you did. Who do you think runs the Hudson Institute? Neocons, who are basically run by Cheney. I will take Rockefeller and Pew over Cheney every single fucking time. So you stick with the neocons and keep repeating their lies, and I will stick with the sane people. Deal?
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Just for fun, it was 73 degrees in Chicago today. Go back and find that temp in history, anytime. You will not find it. The previous high was about 51, and that was in a freak year.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
And where exactly did I quote them? So glad you are on the side of European corporate royalty. The key to cracking the Constitutional system was international law, a loophole in Article VI Clause 2 of the Constitution, governing the adoption of treaties and the scope of their powers (IMO the rat Patrick Henry and others smelled only too clearly; if you want a good chuckle read Hamilton's defense of the manner of treaty ratification in Federalist #75). To implement the plan European investors needed a foothold in the US before they could get into the market. Until the Civil War, corporations were haltered in the US because they were not allowed to own land and were not protected under the Constitution in a manner co-equal to citizens. After the Civil War the US was deeply in debt to that very European investor class. The 14th Amendment changed that balance of power between the individual and corporate. Once the appropriate Supreme Court cases were in place interpreting persons "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as including corporate persons, corporations then derived equal protection under the laws and could own property, the investment floodgates opened, and that not only created an American industrial colossus, it produced an American investor class owning enormously influential private tax-exempt foundations. So it isn't exactly by coincidence that it is those same colossal foundations that are making all those "charitable" donations to those icky Greens. The Environmental Grantmakers Association? That's Rockefeller. The Pew Charitable Trusts? That's Sunoco. W. Alton Jones? That's Citgo. The World Wildlife Fund? BP and Shell. You do see a pattern, don't you? These are more than investors in energy, their assets include timber, mining, banking, food production… They aren't fools. They use the same simple and ancient recipe as did their European forbears by which to manufacture a predictable return: Kill the competition with regulations, create a shortage, and cash in. It's become so common there is even an excellent book out on the topic that I suggest you read, . It's a simple process that has accelerated over the last five decades. It's been done in industry after industry: timber, energy, mining, beef, fish, agriculture, real estate development, soon water… ALL taking advantage of economies of scale in environmental compliance and sometimes selective enforcement. Tax-exempt foundations buy the research "data" they need, fund a few ideological groups trained by the same professorate that lives off their grant money, and not a word need be breathed to the companies in which they are invested. Their pet executives wail about the regulations and scream how stupid and counterproductive they are, just like you do. It makes great theater. There is virtually no way of getting caught. ~snip~ These people are energy investors who use federal money and their own tax- exempt "charitable" donations to fund lawsuits that manipulate access to resources, control processing of energy feedstocks, and set attainment targets in a manner preferential to their own investments. ALL of the resulting capital gains in their trusts are tax-exempt. You may be surprised to find the Hewlett and Packard fortunes listed as energy investors, but they just gave over 130 million to Stanford to research extraction of methane hydrates and are directly tied in with Exxon/Mobil in that effort. Keeping it in the family they've put Lynn Orr, who is married to Susan Packard, in charge of the global energy project. The idea is that they can use the energy revenues and the carbon credits for removing a principal source of atmospheric methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. They need Kyoto or this will be a big loser of an investment. Curiously, if they disturb those nodules foolishly, they may end up releasing a great deal of methane to the surface which would release the gases into the atmosphere. A hot day in Chicago does not AGW make.
And that link is where? Remember, the earth didn't even exist 6000 years ago. So God must have put an icepack there and it is just pure heresy to let it open up now. Run, hide!
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Where do you get this shit?
These are more than investors in energy, their assets include timber, mining, banking, food production… They aren't fools. They use the same simple and ancient recipe as did their European forbears by which to manufacture a predictable return: Kill the competition with regulations, create a shortage, and cash in. It's become so common there is even an excellent book out on the topic that I suggest you read, . Yeah, yeah, yeah. And the Hudson Institute is suddenly godlike? Just gimme a break. The Hudson Institute is violently opposed to any move toward reining in the petrochemical industry, and they are further in favor of dominating the Middle East to control, if not own, its oil. They are George Bush and Richard Cheney. Period.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
From your allies here.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
You still have failed to show me where I have quoted them. And as for that last post you quoted, that is well documented research. As I said before, you are the one siding with the enemy, not me.
I swore I wouldn't waste my time on this thread anymore but I can't stand to see this "gotcha" nonsense being posted. Duh - temperatures have only been tracked for the past 100-150 years so it would be rather tough to compare Chicago's temps today to those during the Ice Age melt. Sheesh! Read what's said at this nasa science link - it gives a nice easy intro to the debate that exists in scientific communities.
Whatever. If you seriously think we are not in a very strange period brought on by CO2 release, just like the historical ones (way before the earth was born, btw, according to the Christians here) were brought on by huge explosions from the earth that eventually wiped out the dinosaurs and most other species, you are wrong. This is not cyclical. The earth doesn't just warm and cool at random. There is a cause. Volcanos and meteor strikes probably created previous warming trends, but we don't have them anymore. It's clear what is happening and if you choose to believe the petrochemical industry and their shills, the GOP and Rush and a few bought-off scientists, be my guest. But don't try to pretend you know what you are talking about.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
You really don't read the science do you?
You really don't read at all, do you? No, Michael Crichton is not a scientist. Sorry to break it to you.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
I haven't said anything about Crichton or anything about the Hudson people despite your claims otherwise. I actually pointed to the scientist I do listen to and talk with.
My apologies. It was your buddy Scrapper who quoted Hudson Institute. When I get tag-teamed it is sometimes hard to keep up where the incoming is coming from. www.globalwarmingheartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21977
Honi soit qui mal y pense
You weren't being tag teamed but I do believe you weren't paying attention to what I was posting plus you resorted to personal attacks which always loses an argument.
www.globalwarmingheartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21977 Oh yes most definitely - you are such an important knowledgeable poster, Mekons4, that farmfriend and I needed to work together to be able to have a chance to put a dent in your glorious arguments. Dream along with me. Listen twirp - I posted 2 articles that came up on the first page when I googled key words "global warming natural cycle scientists debate" and I said 67,000 hits came up. Nice try, no cigar for yet another failed attempt - failure is your middle name - to find evidence of my being "a Nazi AIPAC wingnut bitch" - I think you referred to me with some of those choice descriptors. You really don't get it. I'll give you a helpful clue - more than what you deserve btw - you are not doing your Dem Party any great service by behaving the way you do on political forums.
I married a non believing Jew, does that count?
First off, it was 65 here in Chicago, not 73, but lets not let facts get in the way of anything. He is nothing more than commie Marxist troll. It deserves no honest exchange on a forum. It has no credibility.
Mark If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers - normally good Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free - Americans who have been lulled into a false security (April 1968).---Ezra Taft Benson, US Secretary of Agriculture 1953-1961 under Eisenhower
#2. To: farmfriend (#0)
"Stock up on fur coats and felt boots!" advises Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and senior scientist at Moscow's Shirshov Institute of Oceanography.
#3. To: Mekons4 (#1)
You can cherry-pick data but the clear direction of global climate is up, up, up.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#4. To: Mekons4 (#1)
#5. To: Critter (#4)
#6. To: Mekons4 (#5)
#7. To: Mekons4 (#5)
#8. To: Critter (#7)
#9. To: Mekons4 (#8)
#10. To: scrapper2 (#6)
ut are we in the midst of a predictable natural cycle that happens every 200 years? Or is this something new, man made or man enhanced?
#11. To: All (#10)
#12. To: Critter (#9)
No, in NY, near Albany.
#13. To: Mekons4 (#11)
No, you cannot. Us lefties believe in science and we are perfectly happy to be proven wrong.
#14. To: Mekons4, critter (#8)
Along with a whopping 1 percent of scientists.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#15. To: Mekons4, scrapper2, critter (#10)
The previous global warming events have been caused by natural releases of carbon, but we have not had things like Krakatoa in over a hundred years.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#16. To: farmfriend (#14)
The glaciers are not melting
#17. To: farmfriend (#15)
No. The science has shown that CO2 levels follow temperature. Cause doesn't not follow effect. Man only contributes 2-3% CO2 to the atmosphere.
#18. To: Mekons4 (#17)
I, as a SANE person, think so.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#19. To: farmfriend (#18)
#20. To: Mekons4 (#19)
When 99 percent of the scientists are on my side, and a few fruitcakes are on yours, give up.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#21. To: farmfriend (#20)
#22. To: Critter (#9)
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#23. To: Mekons4 (#19)
#24. To: Mekons4, Critter, who knows what evil, Kamala (#21)
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#25. To: Kamala (#23)
Fuck you, you Cook County commie cocksucker. Go sell your ass on a southside street corner for your pimp, Todd Stroger.
#26. To: who knows what evil (#22)
#27. To: Mekons4 (#26)
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#28. To: who knows what evil (#27)
#29. To: scrapper2 (#13)
You lefties are all artsie fartsies. What do you lefties know about science unless you think that pretending you know something will get you a government grant to pursue further investigation? Let's get real.
#30. To: Mekons4 (#29)
You really should start reading more.
#31. To: Cynicom (#30)
#32. To: Mekons4 (#31)
#33. To: Cynicom (#32)
#34. To: Mekons4 (#33)
(Edited)
#35. To: Cynicom (#34)
#36. To: farmfriend (#0)
#37. To: Brian S (#36)
#38. To: Mekons4 (#29)
Notice that the Northwest Passage is now open, after centuries of hope?
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#39. To: Brian S (#36)
I care not to wade thru the entire thread, hell...few read mine so what the fuck however:
#40. To: Brian S (#36)
Look for it if interested.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#41. To: Mekons4 (#37)
See, to here way of thinking, if 99 percent of scientists back a theory, they must be wrong, because they're limp-wristed liberal fags.
#42. To: farmfriend (#38)
The melting that took place this last year is normal and has happened several times in recorded history.
#43. To: Brian S (#36)
..few read mine so what the fuck however:
#44. To: Mekons4, farmfriend, Brian S (#37)
Forget it Brian. She listens to Pigboy and OReally and she knows better than anyone else, particularly scientists. See, to here way of thinking, if 99 percent of scientists back a theory, they must be wrong, because they're limp-wristed liberal fags.
#45. To: Mekons4, Brian S (#37)
Forget it Brian. She listens to Pigboy and OReally and she knows better than anyone else, particularly scientists.
See, to here way of thinking, if 99 percent of scientists back a theory, they must be wrong, because they're limp-wristed liberal fags.
Global Warming Consensus Does Not Exist Among Scientists
~snip~
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#46. To: scrapper2 (#44)
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#47. To: scrapper2 (#39)
#48. To: Mekons4 (#42)
Care to name them? You can't, of course. Every ship that tried to go through the Northwest Passage either turned back or got ice-locked.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#49. To: Brian S (#47)
#50. To: farmfriend (#48)
Didn't even bother to read it, did you?
#51. To: Mekons4 (#50)
Didn't even bother to read it, did you?
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#52. To: farmfriend (#45)
No, I listen to climatologist and other science experts. Want me to point out which ones?
#53. To: Mekons4, Brian S, scrapper2, tom007 (#45)
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#54. To: Mekons4 (#52)
Yeah, the ones who don't work for the petrochemical industry, the Moonies or Fox News. And believe me, they all work for one of them.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#55. To: farmfriend (#51)
Yeah actually I did. You didn't though.
#56. To: tom007 (#49)
I wish to you the best for a trouble free New Year.
#57. To: farmfriend, Brian S, Mekons4 (#48)
#58. To: farmfriend, Mekons4 (#46)
Thank you!
#59. To: scrapper2 (#57)
Gee, how did I know you would quote PNAC and the other Neocons. I just KNEW IT!!!
#60. To: scrapper2 (#58)
#61. To: Mekons4 (#55)
We have a northwest passage now, but there is war over who owns it. It was never an issue until global warming.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#62. To: scrapper2 (#58)
it's a badge of honor to be insulted and called vile names by Mekons - it means you are not a socialist who believes in re-distributing wealth so all people can lead equally mediocre lives.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#63. To: Mekons4, scrapper2 (#60)
Before you start high-fiving, read the right-wing, nazi, AIPAC sources she quoted. Enjoy.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#64. To: Brian S (#56)
Godspeed to you and yours my friend. 2008 has a good feeling about it, personally.
#65. To: Mekons4 (#60)
(Edited)
Before you start high-fiving, read the right-wing, nazi, AIPAC sources she quoted. Enjoy.
#66. To: farmfriend (#63)
ou really don't understand who is pushing AGW and why do you?
#67. To: Mekons4, scrapper2, critter, BrainS (#66)
Keep quoting Cheney-centric nazis and keep making my point. Jesus, you really can't differentiate between conservative and nazi, can you? GOOGLE HUDSON INSTITUTE AND HAVE FUN.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#68. To: farmfriend (#67)
I never quoted Cheney. And just who do you think is pushing AGW? Rockefellers, Pew charitable trusts. So just who is in bed with the enemy? It's not me.
#69. To: farmfriend (#67)
#70. To: Mekons4 (#68)
(Edited)
Who do you think runs the Hudson Institute?
I will take Rockefeller and Pew over Cheney every single fucking time.
The supply regulation game is at least as old as the Dutch East India Company's manipulation of coffee prices by controlling access to the plants. Understanding that sorry history of economic tyranny by European corporate royalty, the founders of this nation tried to design a limited government, one that didn't have the power to control private property or have control of resources. Control of access to resources is too much temptation for the wealthy to purchase corrupt influence that depresses everybody else. They Founders failed.
It's a vertically integrated racketeering system that extends over the entire planet. American investors in multinational operations are perfectly happy taking a hit on US operations destroying domestic production because their investments abroad get the business. They either convert domestic resource land to real estate or mothball it under tax exempt conservancies, Federal monuments, and such.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#71. To: Mekons4 (#69)
Just for fun, it was 73 degrees in Chicago today.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#72. To: farmfriend (#61)
t was probably navigable during the midieval warm period too but that is a guess since it was warmer then than now. And they called that climate optimum.
#73. To: Mekons4 (#72)
And that link is where? Remember, the earth didn't even exist 6000 years ago. So God must have put an icepack there and it is just pure heresy to let it open up now. Run, hide!
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#74. To: farmfriend (#70)
So it isn't exactly by coincidence that it is those same colossal foundations that are making all those "charitable" donations to those icky Greens. The Environmental Grantmakers Association? That's Rockefeller. The Pew Charitable Trusts? That's Sunoco. W. Alton Jones? That's Citgo. The World Wildlife Fund? BP and Shell. You do see a pattern, don't you?
#75. To: farmfriend (#73)
Where do you get this shit?
#76. To: Mekons4 (#74)
Yeah, yeah, yeah. And the Hudson Institute is suddenly godlike?
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#77. To: Mekons4, farmfriend (#69)
Just for fun, it was 73 degrees in Chicago today. Go back and find that temp in history, anytime. You will not find it. The previous high was about 51, and that was in a freak year.
#78. To: scrapper2 (#77)
#79. To: Mekons4 (#78)
Volcanos and meteor strikes probably created previous warming trends, but we don't have them anymore.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#80. To: farmfriend (#79)
#81. To: Mekons4 (#80)
You really don't read at all, do you? No, Michael Crichton is not a scientist. Sorry to break it to you.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#82. To: farmfriend (#81)
#83. To: Mekons4 (#82)
When I get tag-teamed it is sometimes hard to keep up where the incoming is coming from.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#84. To: Mekons4, farmfriend (#82)
My apologies. It was your buddy Scrapper who quoted Hudson Institute. When I get tag-teamed it is sometimes hard to keep up where the incoming is coming from.
#85. To: scrapper2 (#84)
find evidence of my being "a Nazi AIPAC wingnut bitch"
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#86. To: farmfriend (#85)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest