Here in Durham this summer has been very moderate. In fact, it has been cooler and less humid this summer than it has been any other year I have lived here or in all my years in Omaha. Not sure if the summer temperatures have been more moderate in other places this year, but we have not had any of those big week long MSM stories about strong heat waves posing a problem for people. This leads me to believe that we are having a pretty moderate summer. We are not hearing the MSM talk about this moderate summer at all. And whats really lacking is coverage about how this summer is problematic for global warming advocates.

Now we all know this moderate weather could just be an outlier which doesn’t really warrant much news coverage. However, MSM coverage of extremely hot summers typically do warrant coverage, and much of it is centered around global warming. However, such extreme hot summers could just be outliers having very little to do with Al Gore’s pet project. Why then does global warming coverage vary as a function of temperature outliers? When abnormal summers are hot we get lots of global warming coverage but when the abnormality is moderate we get no commentary on global warming?

I just hope we are not seeing the beginning of a global cooling. There is a scientific consensus after all.

Mike McNally over at Pajamas Media delineates a position on global warming that I agree with. If you want to get a better understanding of my position I suggest you read it.

The past few months have not been good to the still-infant discipline of climate change alarmism — that strange amalgam of pseudo-science, crystal ball gazing, and mass hysteria that was formerly known as global warming alarmism until it became apparent a few years back that the globe had in fact stopped warming, and the alarmists decided that the term “climate change” was a more effective way of describing what the rest of us call “weather.”

For around a decade now — since around the time, coincidentally, that the warming stopped — the alarmists have had things pretty much their own way, dominating the debate with ever more dramatic predictions of impending doom as man-made CO2 emissions heat up the planet, and managing for the best part to keep a lid on dissent, thanks to an unlikely, and decidedly unholy, alliance of organizations and individuals with a vested interest in upping the fear factor.

Looks like we need to worry about global cooling.

Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously.

All four agencies that track Earth’s temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.

Average earth temperature must not of heard. There is a scientific consensus. Average earth temperature is increasing. If science agrees then it has to be true. Did average earth temperature get the memo? It’s so frustrating trying to get large complex systems to cooperate when you are trying to make a political statement. How are we supposed to punish capitalism if the average earth temperature doesn’t cooperate?

Come on average earth temperature. Get your shit together.

John Coleman, founder of Weather Channel states:

“Since we can’t get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue,” Coleman said. “I’m confident that the advocates of ‘no significant effect from carbon dioxide’ would win the case.”

I could probably support this idea provided the presiding court is not the 9th circuit court of appeals. If this is the court then I already know the rulling.

This is going to leave a mark.

Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war. We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent. The results suggest that insurgent groups respond rationally to expected probability of US withdrawal. As such counterinsurgency should consider deterrence and incapacitation rather than simply search and destroy missions.

Science shows that democrats are bad for the war in Iraq. Given that its science, and therefore true, it seems wise to implement federal regulation censoring voices critical of the war. Its like global warming. If science shows its true, then its okay to infringe on people’s rights.

Let the hell storm begin.

Absolutely nothing when you are talking about global warming.

Liberal democracy is sweet and addictive and indeed in the most extreme case, the USA, unbridled individual liberty overwhelms many of the collective needs of the citizens. The subject is almost sacrosanct and those who indulge in criticism are labeled as Marxists, socialists, fundamentalists and worse. These labels are used because alternatives to democracy cannot be perceived! Support for Western democracy is messianic as proselytised by a President leading a flawed democracy

There must be open minds to look critically at liberal democracy. Reform must involve the adoption of structures to act quickly regardless of some perceived liberties. It is not that liberal democracy cannot react once it sees a threat, for example, the speedy response to a recent international financial emergency. If governments can recognise a financial emergency and in an instant move heaven and earth (and billions of dollars, pounds sterling and euros) to contain it, why are they unable to do the same in response to a global environmental emergency? Quite simply our system is seen to live and breathe by the present economic system; the problem is that living and breathing within the confines of the world ecological systems is contrary to the activity of progress and development as defined within liberal democracy.

good god y’all!

These kind of people do great harm to the political viability to economic reforms to reduce greenhouse emissions. Quite simply, what they mean by ‘global warming’ simply does not exist. I would happily deny the existence of their global warming all day and night long.

Those that truly see global warming as problem would be wise to distance themselves as much as possible from these kinds of people. The problem is that these are the only people committed enough to global warming to push the issue. It so happens that the vast majority of these people are heavily critical of capitalism and see global warming as a tool to constrain if not completely eliminate capitalism. Its not so much that they are worried about the earth warming, so much as the solution allows them to constrain capitalism.

What will happen, which is what always happens with these kinds of issues, capitalism will drive innovation that will deal with this problem directly. The vast majority of people will not have to make any kind of substantial change to their lifestyle to deal with the so called problem.

Sounding like global warming.

House Bill 246, proposed as “an act introducing a new mathematical truth,” went through three reads before being passed unanimously by the House, presumably to avoid having to endure a fourth.

Although it comes down to us as the “pi bill,” pi itself is never mentioned in Record’s bill, which was, in fact, intended to confirm Goodwin’s formula for squaring the circle. The value 3.2 for pi was a prerequisite for making that formula plausible.

Global warming is really taking it’s toll.

The China Meteorological Administration said the weather was the coldest in 100 years in central Hubei and Hunan provinces, going by the total number of consecutive days of average temperature less than 1 degree Celsius (33.8 degrees Fahrenheit).

Driving me crazy. When will we learn?

Brace for the cold. Sorry it’s science.

The details:

A powerful winter storm that unleashed a thick blanket of mountain snow, heavy rain and at least one tornado pounded Southern California for a fifth straight day Friday.

Odd that the reporter did not seek an expert on this possibly being caused by global warming. Why do some news related items have reporters seeking experts and others not so much?