Folks, I take very little overjoyed exuberant glee in digging up the long-buried coffin of AGW just to drive another nail into it, but the warmistas just keep handing me nails!

Yes folks, atlasgate is the latest in a never-ending series of scandals that prove conclusively that AGW is wrong. Those warmosexuals are now printing their own lie-filled atlases.

You may wonder why myself and Dr. Watts are calling a mistake on a map "atlasgate". It is because this and all the other climate-related gates are far-reaching scandals that involve unethical behavior and a huge cover-up.

Think about it, folks. You've got scientists telling us that the earth is going to magically warm up because of some magical invisible trace gas, and you've got atlas makers showing us images of an earth warming up, and you've got temperature records telling us that the earth is warming up. That folks, is what you call a conspiracy.

To me that means that if anyone (those warmerasts are all in it together) makes a mistake on something, it's not due to error but rather due to some sort of huge evil plan to destroy our oil-based economy.

Think about it folks. What are the chances that an atlas maker just happens to make a mistake accidentally? Probably about one in zero. It is far more likely that it's a vast and evil conspiracy of communist democrats and evil atlas makers. And pro-windmill greenoterrorists. And anti-American bicycle riders. And Al Gore.

Oh, our poor beloved but beleaguered science advisor (and/or despised traitor -- not sure which yet) Anthony Watts, is being harassed by left-wing warmunazis on his very own site! Leave Anthony alone!

Dr. Watts has provided a justification for why he added poll options for 4M to 5M sq km of sea ice for a September minimum, and took out the 7M to 8M options, now that the sea ice extent has gone below 5M sq km (I still think a quick freeze is possible -- anyone who owns an ice cube tray should understand how fast these things can happen -- and that 7M is not out of the realm of the possible).

Well the possibility does exist that the final number will be somewhere between 4.0 and 4.5, where it didn’t seem likely a month ago, so adapting to the conditions isn’t a bad thing I guess. It’s like recalibrating your instrument in the field to measure lower values because those are the one coming in. Like I said I’ll be damned if I do, damned if I don’t so I may as well be damned for providing more options.

I have uncovered some very unfortunate evidence that the greatest "real science" website in the history of mankind (according to its visitors) has been infiltrated and overrun by leftist environmental greenish scum. I have tried all the usual things to try to make this discovery go away (including ignoring it, plugging my ears and saying "blahblahblahblahblah" for a very long time, pouring boiling water onto my crouch region to try to wake up from what I'd hoped was just a nightmare, and closing my eyes really tightly for as long as I could), but every time I looked, the evidence was still there.

The proof is in the environmental pudding all over the comments for a story on Watt's Up. The educational/research website's ruler and greatest scientist in the history of the internet (as determined by my own blog poll), Dr. Anthony Watts, appears complicit in the scandal, evidenced by the very fact that he has not censored these subversive comments and excommunicated the commenters or worse, which would certainly be justified.

Read the comments yourself if you have a strong stomach. It is full of environmentalist commies who are lamenting the environmental cost of letting an icebreaker sail to the north pole, breaking up the last of whatever ice is still there. I find these objections repulsive, as it is every captain's god-given right to drive his boat wherever the hell he wants to, whether on land or sea or ice.

It is true that the far north is a pure untouched and clean indicator of mankind's complete lack of effect on the environment, and traipsing about it destroying it all makes that a little harder to see. It's certainly easier to realize that mankind has no effect on the north when we're not even nearby and it's out of sight, but when we're there and actually breaking it all up and you can see it (unlike invisible trace gases), it makes it easier for stupid leftists to mistakenly think we're having an impact. When you see a picture of the open-water wake of an icebreaker stretching across the entirety of the millions of square miles of the arctic, it can confuse even the right.

But folks, it's easy to see that the environmental viewpoint is wrong and an imbecile. First, God would not provide for us all the resources that are eagerly waiting to be exploited there, along with a means of getting around, if He was just going to make it so fragile that it could be destroyed by the simple act of exploiting it. Second, the very fact that arctic sea ice is actually on the rise proves that God has a way to stitch up the ice after we've gone. I'm not saying I know how He does it, just that after we're gone, I can tell you that that ice is going to get stitched up. Perhaps this is what the residents of the north pole do during the summer.

---

However, the commenters do have one point: The scientists have now completely destroyed the only important and unbiased environmental indicator that was proof that global warming wasn't happening. So now, folks, if all the ice melts, remember that it's due to icebreakers not global warming, and it's certainly not anthropogenic.

And I have to say I agree that while mankind's activities have no effect on the environment and that we should be doing whatever we want with our land (and also international waters and also other countries' land), we must be careful and delicate in dealing with any sensitive environments that are providing evidence in agreement with our side.

Let this be a lesson folks. You just can't trust a science website, not even Dr. Watts'. Even if it's been posting the correct scientific views for quite some time, it's still science, and will stab you in the back first chance it gets.

New Zealand is completely buried in a once-in-an-eon snowfall, which proves that the global temperature is below freezing there, despite all AGW predictions that NZ should instead be experiencing fiery rains of boiling water and sulfur.

I'd like to hear Al Gore try to explain how global warming can lead to increased chance of weather events like this one. You can't explain that. If he did though, I'd plug my ears, because I refuse to listen to that man. He has just lost all credit, in my opinion, due to the unending barrage of skeptics refusing to listen to what he has to say. I just can't bring myself to listen to someone who has been so thoroughly discredited in that way. In all the time that I've been ignoring him, I'm not aware of one single thing he's said that could make me change my mind.

I was standing at the bus stop the other day (I like to take the bus because it's one of the biggest vehicles on the road and thus the safest. I'm taking the bus while saving up for a semi truck, which will be more convenient than waiting for the bus, for short trips to the corner store etc).

I was wearing my winter jacket and sweating profusely, while minding my own business trying to beat the heat, when I was accosted by a militant liberal (who was taking the bus for completely different reasons than I was, I can assure you) for running my portable A/C unit at full tilt. Being the open-minded person that I am, I tried to argue some sense into this obvious idiot (you can tell by the way he looked), instead of simply pepper-spraying him like an average person ought to do.

This liberal tried to distort the facts by suggesting that it might help for me to not be wearing a winter jacket in the summer. I was dumbfounded. "Haven't you read my blog?", I asked. "I've already proven that wearing a winter jacket does not add any heat to a terrestrial body."

"No," he replied. "Who are you?"

I was again dumbfounded, before even fully recovering from the first one. I literally staggered, partly from the effect of the layered dumbfoundery, and partly I suppose from the dizzying heat of the sun heating the Earth all by itself with no help from trace gasses.

I felt it was my duty to enlighten this misguided fool. I outlined the same arguments that I've described in this blog and which I've repeated ad nauseum in forums and various internets. I explained the chemistry of winter jacket material (it is fairly inert). I unzipped my coat to show that there were no heating elements in it. I wasn't concealing a campfire or a toaster. I took quite a bit of time to explain this all clearly and simply. I don't know how I could have made it any dumber for this guy to understand. Yet, wouldn'tcha know it folks, this waxy-eared leftist simply refused to listen to reason. I pointed out several times to this guy that he was a jerk for not getting it.

"Quit following me!" he cried. Typical of the left, isn't it? When they're beaten in an argument they immediately change the subject and start with the personal attacks.

Exhausted, and sad that there are people out there who won't let their opinions be corrected (even when I beat them over the head with the correct ones), and also having ended up in a strange part of town, I began walking in a daze toward home. Thankfully I must have passed out, as I woke up some time later and found myself in a refreshingly cool puddle of water on the side of the road. Luckily, I refuse to buy gore-tex (for obvious reasons) and the cool water had soaked right through my heavy coat.

Folks, it would simply be foolish of me to stop wearing the coat and buy a whole new wardrobe, when there is no evidence of the preposterous claim that summer heat is caused entirely by winter jackets. I had been wearing my coat all winter long; it's not like I can just change the way I dress to fit the changing seasons. That would take too much effort. We can't just change our lifestyles to fit our environments. We must be steadfast and live true to our way of life no matter how uncomfortable or hard it becomes. This is a sign of strength and it is the American way. No one can take away my way of life, no matter what are the horrific costs of keeping it. To change course now indicates weakness of the mind, of the soul, and of the wrist. It is essentially surrendering to the terrorists and the poor.

Regardless, it hasn't even been shown with 100% consensus that losing the coat would magically cool anything down. This is clearly a scheme of the left-wing summer clothes retailers to make a quick buck selling cooler clothes while purposefully ignoring the winter jacket blogscience and misleading the public about it.

Besides, summer's half over. It might be too late to do anything about it now.

Not much going on these days with the climates. Remember folks, flooding and tornadoes and wildfire hurricanes and swarms of frogs and your tires melting are all just good old plain completely normal weather. Any record hot temperatures every day are because it's summer -- it's supposed to be hot! Don't forget that just a few months ago, it was pretty cold, and if you remember correctly you'll recall that it was pretty significant news on the climate sites all winter. The scientists have no explanation for the kinda cold winter other than the tired old "predicted effect of climate change" nonsense. Be strong, skeptics. Remember the snow! Even if the weather's hot, the climate's still cold under all that! It's due to the coming ice age.

I'll be sure to update the arctic sea ice page sometime in the next 8-10 months. My prediction is that come February, it will be even thicker then than it is now. I also predict snow for next winter (a sure sign of global cooling -- each snowflake is a delicate, beautiful, and unique nail in the AGW coffin).

Senator Claire McCaskill wants to end oil subsidies. I'm dumbfounded and disappointed. Why is it always that the Dems seem to have everything backwards and are always high on glue?

Madam senator, have you not been reading my blog with your eyes open? If you had been paying attention, you would see that it's government money going to the windmills that is the problem, not oil. Oil subsidies are an integral part of keeping the oil industry happy. Are you anti-industry, madam senator? In this country, we appreciate capitalism, and we frown upon communism, murder, and rape. There is nothing more capitalism than the big oil companies. How could you possibly be against that? You're not pro-murder too, are you??? It is simply unbelievable to me that any Dem senator who is pro-murder could remain in power. How do brainless pro-murder Dems expect a truly capitalist company to survive in this day and age without government handouts?

Madam senator, are you trying to make all Americans equally poor? Oil companies are successful because government subsidies keep them afloat and highly profitable. Are you against success, madam senator? Success is as much a part of America as winning wars, defeating the French, and baseballs. It would seem that you want to see an America where all of us are poor, because you can't seem to stand seeing anyone get ahead on their own through the blessing of the government. You feel that success deserves to be punished, by making those who achieve it to suffer with the same government treatment as the unsuccessful, the worthless, the poor. How can someone who is wealthy because of subsidies stay wealthy if you stop giving them money? This is nothing but anti-wealthy politics, and it's un-American. You probably just want to greedily keep that money for yourself, so that you can give it away to the greedy money-lusting wind industry and the less fortunate, while keeping it away from the entrepreneurial, go-getting oilmen.

What will happen if you cut off this vital source of income to the oil industry? The oil companies, well accustomed to a lavish life of high profits, aren't going to simply adapt to a new life of poverty. They will require an additional source of income to make up for it. Where will they get it? From the American car-owning tax-payer, through even higher gas prices. Why should tax-payers be forced to pay for what the government refuses to shell out for? Subsidies are a small ransom that we would gladly have you pay on the behalf of all Americans, when compared to the looming threat the oil companies could easily make if you don't pay up.

Yes madam senator, a few billion dollars in subsidies is a small price to pay to keep the American dream propped up and to fight against the terror of expensive gas.

A lot of the chicken-littles are worried about "peak oil."

What is peak oil? Peak oil is the hypotheoretical day that the oil suddenly completely runs out (from the French "pique" which means "To cause to feel resentment or indignation", which is what the greenies expect to feel when we somehow magically use up all the oil). What a ridiculous proposition. Think about it, folks. One day there's all the oil we could ever want to use in a million lifetimes, and the next day it's suddenly all gone?! Where do they think it will go? Into thin air?! Idiots.

It's just not possible for us to use up all the oil. There are practically infinity barrels of the stuff. I've said it before and I'll say it again: It's simply impossible that humans can have any influence at all on the environment. Humans are just too small (on average only about 4 feet tall), and the world is just too big. Carbon dioxins, disappearing rainforests, polluted rivers and lakes and oceans, ever-increasing ratio of paved land -- these are all the result of natural processes. We couldn't harm the environment even if we tried a lot harder than we're trying now. Something small cannot have an effect on something big; that's just common sense logic, folks. It's like saying you could poison yourself with just one poison pill. It just doesn't happen. You have to eat the whole bottle.

Think about it, folks. Oil has been created under ground over billions of years. How can something that's been made for so long be used up in any imaginable amount of time? Imagine filling up your gas tank, but instead of spending 10 minutes pouring gas in, imagine spending a billion years pouring it in to the tank. That's literally a million times the amount of gas you usually get. That tank would be pretty damn full. You're not going to run out of gas any time soon! Nature has been pouring gas into the Earth's tank for billions of years, so it will probably take a few trillion years before we get through it all.

But wait a minute. The Earth made all that oil for us out of dead animals. If animals keep dying, nature keeps on making oil. That's why it's called a renewable resource. This is why the greenies want to save all the animals. If there are no more animals dying, there's no more oil being made, and then they get rich when dirty wind energy prices skyrocket and they make a killing on cash from congress. But animals dying is a natural process. So I say we keep killing all the animals we can. Then we never run out of oil, and the greenies' little investment scam doesn't pay off.

I don't know why the idiot scientist greenies just don't get it. It's scientifically impossible to run out of a renewable resource. By definition, all the used-up reserves of that resource get renewed. The more we use up oil, the more it's just going to be there again. It doesn't make sense to me why we haven't put an oil rig on each and every square foot of the planet... but I know why we haven't. It's because those money-grubbing greens have been reading a bit too much Richard Marx and can't stand the idea of patriotic American oil companies earning even a meager profit for their hard work. Go back to Russia, you commies! Stop trying to make an advantageous gain or return on your windmills, and let someone else earn an honest profit for a change.

Here's some proof that crude oil is "clean oil." In Naftalan, they soak in it! Yes, those lucky citizens in whatever country that is where congress clearly has their head in the right end, they get to bathe in the stuff.

bath
n. 1. a. The act of soaking or cleansing the body, as in water or steam.

And here's proof that CO² is clean:


I've looked at CO², which I obtained by breathing it out. Even using a magnifying glass, I could not see hardly any dirt in it.


But what about wind power?

Have you ever left a window open, and then later looked at the window sill? What's there? That's dirt! And where'd it come from? The wind! That's proof, folks! We nailed that coffin hard!


Case closed!!!

Over at Watt The Heck Is Going On, they've posted the answer to watt is causing all this global warming... It's dirty wind power! Oh how delicious, you fools, that the devices you've built to fix all the problems in the world is watt caused the problems in the first place!

Seems to me the wind mills gotta go. We must all mount our trusty steeds and go forth to attack the ferocious giants. We must be merciless against our enemies. I think the only way to be sure we're safe from these evil creatures is to cover them in barrels and barrels of oil and light a match. Good riddance! Ah, more delicious delicious imagery. I often fantasize about anything I disagree with being burnt to a crisp in rich, thick, beautiful clean oil.


The story brings up a disturbing point, though. Is Watts admitting that global warming is happening? That the innocent actions of innocent humans* can have an effect on the environment? Stay on message, Watts! This just makes me more suspicious. Could it truly be that Watts is a warmist toady in disguise? I would be so disappointed if our leader in spirit turned out to be a traitor. Mr Watts, global warming is not happening. You know watt we skeptics do with those we disagree with.

We discredit them! Man... it would be a hard job of discrediting Watts, after all of the good opinions and charts he's provided for our side over the years. I do not want to see that happen.

Global warming is not happening, not happening, not happening, and it's dirty wind power that's causing it.

---
* Note: Clearly, it is only evil humans with their evil (such as wind power) that is changing climate, but is this a message that we want to accept as our reality? Do we say that humans can't change the environment, or do we say that only good humans who only use good clean oil aren't changing the environment? Curse you, Watts, for making me think about this. Yesterday, I knew which side of the debate I accepted as scientifically palatable. Now watt talking point should I use to describe reality?

I've been getting some mean-spirited complaints from "scientists" who don't seem to get common sense, that this website supposedly employs poor "logic" (there's that word again. Man, them scientists sure care a lot about logic! What a good strategy... just turn off your brains, stop actually thinking about it, and instead just use logic. Talk about sticking your head in the sand!).

There's no use in debating about this. We won the debate. The scientists like to say that there's no debate about global warming but there is, because many folks don't accept the science. Is the science right? That's debatable. Therefore there is a debate. And the debate was won by the rational skeptics (those of us who are equally skeptical about everything the scientists say about global warming happening, instead of just cherry-picking what to be skeptical about). There's no way we're going to change our mind, no matter what so-called "evidence" you present. Therefore the issue is settled. There is a debate, and it's over.

Unless you scientists invent some new scientific "law" that says that common sense is false (and good luck getting that one through congress), then you have lost. Common sense has proved that C2O doesn't generate any heating in the atmosphere, and even less in the deep sea.

That's all there is to it, folks. That's called "checkmate." The issue is settled, the debate is over, the skeptics have destroyed the other team in a bloody massacre that has left nothing but severed heads and many many mangled carcasses (like a bunch of stupid baby seals).

Scientists, stop whining and complaining about it. You just don't get it. The issue here is that we were right. Just accept it and move on. Stop showing us "new data" that fits your "models". It doesn't matter any more. I wouldn't believe in global warming until things heated up so much that the very last living thing on Earth boiled to death. Even then I wouldn't believe it. Because the issue is not about how hot it is (that's called weather, folks, and it's a natural phenomenon. Want proof? There was weather before humans even got here. Read a history book if you don't believe me!). The issue is about who was right. We have proven, using science, that all of science is wrong, and that C2O doesn't generate heat. It's not as simple as the AGWer liars would trick you into believing. There are many factors involved: volcanoes, the sun, clouds rubbing together. It's not just about "a little bit of hot gas." Therefore global warming is uncertain. What more does any sane individual need to accept that that means that the theory of global warming is completely and absolutely certainly false?!

So stop whining about how hot it's getting. No matter how hot the planet gets and we all die, it doesn't matter, because global warming is still wrong, and we are right.

All the idiots who are worried about high C2O levels apparently never opened up a history book. Try opening one up, and you'll see that hysterical levels of C2O were once a lot higher than they are today. And I'm talking about the full hysterical record here. I'm talking about page one of those history books. Right back in the beginning when God was still making the continents out of lava, before any trees were around to make oxygen. Back then, C2O levels were at least twice as high as they are today, maybe even three times. And mankind had no problem surviving through that one... so why worry now?

What I don't get about all the leftist tree-hugging nutcase environmentalists is: Why do you have such a problem with humans terraforming the earth and smoothing it out and basically making use of the environment to transform it into something a little nicer and more modern? And yet, you all love the trees so much, even though it was the trees that came along and terraformed the earth way back when.

As we've already established here, dangerously high levels of C2O are perfectly harmless. Yet it was the trees who changed that rich, thick atmosphere into one that is dangerously deprived of C2O, which all green-colored plants and animals need to survive. Can you imagine a species that would change the earth so much that it would endanger its own survival? Such a species is surely contemptible and worthless. The idiot tree-huggers love a certain species of animals -- the trees -- which have ruined the atmosphere so much that there's hardly any C2O left in it at all. There's so little C2O left in the atmosphere (just trace amounts now), that it's inconceivable that any plants could even survive any more. In fact, that is probably what's killing all of the diminishing amazon forest that gets cut down every year. Who will be laughing when all the trees have killed themselves and all plants on the planet have died, and yet mankind keeps on surviving? Me, for one. Not the trees, that's for certain. Idiots.

Man on the other hand, is not doing anything to significantly change the environment, unlike the stupid trees. Think about it. It would take a person a hundred days to walk around the circumference of the Earth (from one edge to the other edge). That's a huge amount of space for a single person! A person is so small compared to the world. It is impossible that that single person could have any effect at all on something so big. Let alone heat the whole thing up. You'd have to run your furnace non-stop for days, with all the windows open, and it probably wouldn't even heat up the world even one measly degree. Think about it.

Yes folks, we are small, insignificant things in this world. It is simply impossible that any species could have any measurable effect on the planet at all. It's doubly impossible that we could harm the entire planet, after all of the changes we've made to make it better. Not until we conquer the whole thing, will we be able to affect it in the slightest. And yet, for some reason the leftists seem to have a problem with conquering the entire environment. Crazy!

It's like those idiot environmentalists just don't understand math at all, or the law of small numbers. The law of small numbers says it's impossible that mankind can have any effect on the environment. The law of small numbers says that if you add up or multiply a bunch of small numbers, you're still going to end up with some pretty small numbers. And "one" person is a small number. Multiply that one by itself a few thousand times for all the people on earth, and you probably won't get more than about seven (I don't have my calculator with me so I've had to approximate).

And that's a pretty small number. Seven isn't going to do anything against the thousands and thousands, maybe even millions, of atoms the make up the earth. Think about it.

It's like the leftists don't even consider these things.

It scares me that people like that can have a say in what we should do with some valuable clear-cut land, or in what I put in my gas tank (oil, or wind, etc).

The debate is over folks. The AGW crowd lost. There is just one convenient truth that destroys the entire theory of global warming completely, and nails its coffin to the wall.

C2O just plain doesn't generate heat. (Maybe a little heat might be generated by the C atoms rubbing against the O atoms, but since it's a trace gas anyway it would only be trace heat.)

This is just plain old science, folks. (Plain science is the only good kind of science. Pretty much anything from before 1905 was pretty good.)

Think of it this way: C20 is like putting a coat on the Earth. Does your coat have a heater in it? No! (Well, I know one guy who has a coat with a heater in it, but none of mine do.) Your winter coat does not heat you. Your body heat does. Now here's the important part: Your body heat is there whether you're wearing a coat or not! The coat adds ZERO heat!

It's the same with C2O. It does not heat the Earth.

Now, it's true that coats keep you warm. That extra warmth means that there is extra energy to be radiated out of you. Any extra energy you have will increase your rate of cooling. The increased thermal energy and the increased radiative cooling reach what's called "equilibrium", which means that there is no net difference in body temperature. This is 6th grade science, folks!

Folks, this is really simple stuff. Any idiot can understand this. Folks like you and me get this. What's truly baffling is why the so-called "educated" people don't get it. These are nails in coffins, folks!

To prove once and for all -- yet again! -- that global warming is a big phony lie, I will wear my winter coat all summer and show that I, just like the Earth, will not get any warmer than the temperature that my natural body heat warms me to!

---

Addendum: I've had to end the experiment early. I've found that going out in the sun with the coat on was just unbearable.

The experiment was a success in that it identified the real culprit. This is additional proof that the AGWers are stupid liars. Just like with the Earth, it is the sun that caused the warming, not whether or not I'm wearing a coat.


I guess this really makes fools out of anyone who ever backed solar power. After all the hoopla and fizzle-fazzle, it turns out that it's not quite as harmless as oil after all!

The skeptics have shown once again that everyone else is stupid about yet another thing. Just look at these stunningly lopsided graphs over at The World According to Watts. They show the heat capacity of the air versus the much more significant ocean... and make you wonder what's all the fuss over air about, anyway?!

Why on Earth do any of those idiot scientists even care about surface air temperatures when it makes so little difference compared to sea temperatures?! In fact, including Earth's crust and core temperatures, air becomes entirely negligible. Temperatures on the surface and in the air are just a phony meaningless measure that purposefully hides all the other temperature data from beneath the surface, not to mention high high above it, too! I've yet to see a credible scientific study of climate that doesn't fail to include temperatures on the moon. Do you know why? Because it's extremely cold on the moon! The scientists just happen to "forget" to include any data that don't fit their agenda.

Deep sea temperatures are where it's at. They don't show any significant heating.

Besides, in the future, when "they" claim all this global warming's supposed to be taking place in the air (which is completely made up of insignificant trace gases that have no impact on life or on humans)... like 50 or 20 years from now, most of us will have evolved to live under the sea anyway. Down there, where there's no weather to bother all the chicken-little scientists, what will they spend all their time worrying about? Jellyfish? Loch Ness monsters? While the rest of us are relaxing, enjoying exploring reefs and growing our sea-businesses, I'm sure they'll find something new to tremble about.

---

Addendum: I was doing some real blog science using numbers and a spreadsheet, and came to a startling realization about what I wrote above. It is this:

Air surface temperatures could go up a thousand degrees and every human being could by cooked until they're extra tasty crispy, and yet the average Earth temperature including the sea (and the core of course) would change by less than a degree. That is hardly enough for anyone to even notice.

Just imagine the entire Earth in flames, and yet as a whole I'd barely feel the change in it at all. To me, that image really drives home (like a last nail in an AGW coffin) the insignificance of air in all of this debate.

Polar bears, rain forests, air... all such precious "important" things to the greenies, but try to get them to worry about the stock market like the rest of us, and suddenly their care bear stare turns into a sour, Grinchy frown.

Could this be the final solution and the last of a never-ending sequence of "final nails in the AGW coffin"? Presented here is the way to win the climate war.

We all know the Warmmunists love to lie, but they also love to talk. They just won't shut up about it. Everything you read these days, someone from the AGW crowd will bring up climate change. If it's a story about the future, they'll mention climate change. If it's a story about ocean currents, they'll mention climate change. If it's a story about sustainable food supply, low and behold!, someone's going to mention climate change. It's like they think that everything to do with life on Earth has something to do with the environment! It's sickening.

But here's the thing. The evil lying corrupt AGW scumbag jerks are just like politicians in a lot of ways. And politicians will keep repeating their message until people believe it. So as long as we Exuberant Upholders of The Glorious Truth refuse to believe the lies, they will keep regurgitating it out of their frothing mouths, like an overflowing and overused plugged toilet. It's almost like they won't stop trying to warn us about climate change until we listen.

Perhaps all we have to do is let them think that they won, and maybe they'll shut up for awhile. When someone says "The Earth is going to raise a billion degrees in the next hundred years," instead of fighting back with Common Sense, perhaps we could just say "Oh really? Okay, if you say so." When someone says "Many people will struggle to deal with harsh conditions in the coming decades," instead of laughing heartily and poking fun, we could stifle our laughter and just say "Aw that's sad."

So we just keep mum and let the AGWers run out of steam. Even when the latest climate "data" is falsely claimed to show warming, we will just smile a knowing smile and say "Okay." Even when naturally occurring droughts and fire-storm seasons ravage the planet and the AGWers say that "it's due to climate change!", we will simply say "If you say so" and let them calm their chicken-little hysteria. Even if the sea levels rise and crops fail and many species go extinct and the AGWers prattle on about it, we just stay silent and share a knowing wink that says "This isn't really happening."

Make them believe that we get it, and perhaps they'll stop trying so hard to make us understand.

Then, a hundred years from now, when we're happily burning a thousand times the oil that we're burning today just to stay warm enough through the coming ice age, their voices will have become so weakened that we won't even hear them over the sound of the 3000 hp American engines in our flying cars.

The internet is the modern day roman forum, where people of every class and level of stupidity or intelligence can mix freely and equally. It's made up of real people, trustworthy people, who are providing good old-fashioned honest factual opinions. They're not people with hidden agendas, implored to lie for their insatiable lust for congress gold. And that's why you can always trust what you read on the internet. It's a safe haven from all the confusing lies and riddles of the scientists.

Of course, everyone knows about the site Watt's Up With Facts, which is the de facto site for finding fair and balanced news from both sides of the climate debate. However, I personally think that the site is run by a Warmmuninst sympathizer. Why do I think that?
1. The site is too fair. This is war after all, and all is fair in war, including unfairness. The scientists don't play fair, why should we?! The scientists use facts and evidence wherever they can, and nearly all of that supports their side. If they were fair at all, they would make sure to balance the evidence on both sides of the argument. Watt's Up With Junk should at the very least throw in even more deceitful posts and feigned ignorance to balance things out a bit.
2. Some of the posts on the site are just plain ridiculous and unbelievable. It makes me think that the author is actually trying to do harm to the plight of the Enlightened Skeptics of Truth, by writing sarcastically silly posts that might make people think, notice the ridiculousness, and perhaps side with the evil science Factocracy.

That brings us around to The Climate Scum. Here is a site with just the right balance of hard-hitting opinion, and bile-spitting honest-to-goodness spite against the Warmmunists.

The whole reason for Howeird Is That's existence is to provide a fair alternative for all people who don't want to be told how things are in the climate debate, but would rather view the facts for themselves, decide (with our help of course) which ones to interpret and which ones to ignore, and figure out for themselves what they believe about actual reality vs. the lies of climate change. The Climate Scum is all that you need for that. So all readers of Howeird should bookmark that site and read it regularly. Keep fighting the Good Fight against the Bad Guys, oh climate heroes!

---

Speaking of which... I haven't done a post on Arctic Sea Ice in a very long time. However, I just noticed that there was a day last week when the sea ice increased from the day before, which I think is news worthy. So don't think that the lack of reports on it means that the sea ice isn't increasing just as much as the days in that one winter when I was reporting on it every damn day.

Professor Tim Flannery: "if we cut emissions today global temperatures are not likely to drop for about 1000 years".

So you're telling me that if we completely stopped causing the problem, today, it would take 1000 years for the problem to fix itself?

I laughed so hard that my triple-thick peanut butter and bacon latte smoothy shot out of my nose. Why on Earth should I care about stopping destroying the planet if the destruction that I've already done (which I probably haven't and anyone who says I have is a liar) will last another 1000 years? It only makes sense to me that I should keep on doing what I'm doing (which is not causing a problem), because if I've already caused a problem (which I haven't), it's too late, and I might as well continue making it even worse for as long as I can.

It's like this: If we blew up the planet, it would take billions of years for it to form and return to a viable state. Who cares what happens after a billion years?! Al Gore?! Since it takes so long to fix the problem, I don't see how it could matter whether or not we try to stop the problem. Whether or not we blow up the world now, it won't even matter in a billion years. The only people who care are the scientists, who care more about their precious environment than they do about the economy, but only because they can keep scamming congress for grant money by saying that blowing up the world is so terribly bad, even though it doesn't even make a difference.

Often I'll get into a debate with some Global Warmmunists on topics like these, and as predictably as the lottery, they'll always try to bring up logic as a part of their argument. As if logic proves anything about one side or the other! You just know that someone's lost an argument if they're so desperate and run out of opinions that they have to turn to logic as a last-ditch effort at salvation.

The way I see it, if you need to think about your side of the argument, it's probably wrong. My side just makes sense. I don't have to waste a second thinking about anything. How could anyone trying to use logic and other trickery have a chance standing up against something that you already know sounds right?

Ahhh... what stupid idiots everyone is.

The scientists would like you to believe that averages work using math. Accordingly, having an especially brutal and cold winter here means that some other place must be experiencing especially warm weather. Or worse... a cold winter now means that the summer is going to be brutally hot. (Better the former, I guess... we all know that global warming is fake but if some other people over there get a little hot I'm okay with that.)

Otherwise, the global average temperature would change a lot more than it has been. Average yearly global temperatures change only very gradually over a long time (and they appear to be going down, despite the occasionally new record high set every few years recently and the general yearly increase in average temperature).

However, I don't think the scientists' logic adds up. Think about it. If cold temperatures now mean it's going to be hot elsewhere (or elsewhen), then hot temperatures mean it's gotta be cold somewhere else. And if as the Warmunists keep whining about the global temperature is going to get so hot that you can't even walk outside without exploding in a huge fusion reaction where even your quarks and muons melt from the intense heat, everywhere, then what that means is that it's going to get really pretty damn cold everywhere else!

I don't know about you, but "everywhere else" kinda sounds like where I live. It kinda sounds like the global area where I live. And as far as I can tell, we're in for some pretty bad global cooling.

If the winters are this cold, how cold might the summers get? Should we be worrying about the air freezing and turning to a big solid atmospheric cement come July?

Probably.

Well what do you expect from the liberal media besides lies and bias?

A quick, off-the-cuff statistical analysis of some of the news stories I remember reading about in the last little while, shows this: The media reports a lot more stories about people dying due to climate change, than stories about people not dying due to a perfectly unchanging climate that is actually getting cooler.

Kinda makes it seem like nobody's not dying any more theses days, doesn't it?

But wait a minute. Despite what the news is not reporting, I happen to know that there are a lot of people who aren't dying due to climate change. Where is all the news reports about that? No, of course not... the liberal media is only interested in sensationalist stories full of lies that will help them overthrow the ruling governments and corporations of our time.

Probably at least half of the population of Earth (half, according to GDP) is not dying due to global warming. But how can we know the true numbers, if news organizations are suppressing this information? If the media were fair, there'd be at least as many stories about people not dying due to a cooling Earth, as there are about people dying due to a warming Earth.


Another example of media bias: They will report that the average global temperature is hitting record highs, yet I can find a single example of a place that's hitting record cold temperatures: Minnesota. And yet, that's not getting nearly the attention that record highs across the globe get. Why? What is the media hiding? Could they be hiding the fact that it's impossible for the global average temperature to be warming, while within the same few years, some place in Minnesota experiences really cold temperatures for a little while?

Surely they'd report something like that, wouldn't they?

Unless of course they were liars. But surely they're not all liars though, are they?

Well, you tell me. I'll say this much, though: Yes, they are.

2010 was a record warm year causing record melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, which proves that the Earth is experiencing record cooling.

"The Earth is experiencing the Really Big Ice Cube Effect," says Howard Mountebank, climate researcher and truth journalist. "Think of the Earth as a giant glass of gin, with some ice cubes in it. What happens when the ice cubes melt? The gin gets colder."

This is what is currently happening, and may explain the connection between the record global high temperatures, and the fact that the Earth is really actually getting colder.

As well, all signs point to yes that the cooling will continue to accelerate. "As the Earth keeps getting hotter, more ice will melt, and the Earth will just keep getting colder and colder."

Several or at least one prominent climate bloggers raised the question of whether or not all this melting ice could cool the Earth so much that the oceans could freeze. Howard responded, "If the AGW crowd gets its way and sabotages industry for the sake of getting their grant money, that very well could happen."

While poring over climate data, I have discovered something that all the scientists seem to have missed. In recent months, while there was a warming trend in Australia and other parts of the world, there was a cooling trend in North America. 6 months before that, the opposite effect was observed. It appears that while some very small parts of the Earth are warming after all, other more important parts are cooling. More importantly, while one part may be warming now, it may be cooling 6 or 8 or 12 months later. I call these seasonal recurrent periods of specific climate and meteorological conditions, "recurrent periods characterized by specific climate and meteorological conditions."

This clearly shows that the Earth is neither warming nor cooling, only that various parts of it are doing one or the other, or possibly both at the same time.

The evidence is overwhelmingly stacked against the AGW myth that the entire world is constantly warming. In fact, it's so completely overwhelmingly against warming, that it proves that the Earth is actually cooling.

There you have it, folks! AccuWeather meteorologist Joe Bastardi is betting that the Earth will cool 0.1 to 0.2 degrees C in the next 10 years.

This is coming from someone who knows their weather. A weather man. And not just any weather man! An AccuWeather man. That "accu" stands for "accurate", by the way, so you know that his prediction is going to be spot-on!

What additional proof do you need?


Will any of the cowardly AGW liars take on Weatherman Joe and accept his bet? I'm definitely siding with Joe on this one. I say to myself, ".1 to .2 degrees cooling... yeah, that sounds about right!"

I too am willing to make such a bet. In fact, I'll wager a year's worth of income from this blog, matching the claims of Weatherman Joe.

I can just see it now, though. If the Earth actually does warm up once the solar cycle kicks into high gear (which totally doesn't count as global warming by the way, because that's a "natural" factor influencing the climate, which is what we Truth Skeptics have been saying all along), the AGWers will call it a victory and try to collect on the bet. Yep, those scientists are a slippery bunch, well-practiced at the "science" of scamming. To make this a fair bet, we would have to first agree to discount any warming due to increased solar activity. In fact, since the AGWers are basically claiming that "all heat energy on Earth is due to CO2" (morans!), we should really subtract the heating effect caused by the sun. Then, once properly adjusted, let's see any of those liars try to claim it's getting hotter due to CO2.

Oh wait... I forgot... they only allow upward adjustments on the temperature scale.


Anyone with even a single brain knows, it's the sun that's making things warmer. (And also that it's not getting warmer.)

File this bit of news under "Holy bats, batman, that's loony as a duck and also the evil scientists are liars and getting me pissed and also it's a conspiracy."

Apparently, according to the liberal news, the cause of the flooding in Australia is global warming. But wait. How can something that affects global climate in one place, have an effect all the way over on the bottom side of the world? The answer: It can't.

Scientists have provided explanations (made up, I'm sure, like the rest of science) for how global warming causes increased weather phenomena. But my rebut to that is, "Huh?"

The last time I was in a flood, the water was pretty cold. How can something that's hot cause something that's cold? It can't, and that's according to Einstien's third law of thermal dyanetics. Flooding in Australia? Water? Hello? Water's cold. This just proves that the Earth is actually cooling on a global scale.

The scientists need to switch their calculators off of "backwards" mode.



And another thing: If you put wet socks in a toaster, guess what? They get dry. Therefore, more heat should just make things drier. Global warming doesn't cause floods. Rain does.

Since the Earth is getting warmer, that means that the flooding isn't caused by weather. And since the flooding involves water (which anybody who's ever felt water before knows that it's cold), that means that the Earth is actually getting cooler. This proves that there actually isn't any flooding in Australia, but rather the data is being fudged so they can get more money from Congress.

Welcome to something new in bloggery: A blog where someone is willing to tell it like it is. To tell it like how I sees it. To write about what is what, in my opinion. Here, we'll cut through all the nonsense of the scientists and the people who make it their job to do stuff for the sake of making money, and get to the facts about climate change, science, global warming, and climate change.

What I want to know is, who says that it's the scientists who get to say what science is? Why is there an educatocracy controlling what gets to be part of our reality and what doesn't? Why can't ordinary people like you and me have a say in our own reality?

I say that we can. Science don't make no sense to me, so from now on common sense will be the new science around here. Common sense speaks for ordinary people like you and me, who look around us and say "I think everyone else is wrong and I'm right", and we know it's true, because we can feel the belief that it's right.

Common sense says so.



Also: Irrational is the new rational. Why do the scientist get to say what is rational and what isn't? If something is irrational but it makes sense, then it is obviously rational. What's wrong with scientists that they can't understand something simple like that? Or maybe they do understand, but tell us otherwise. It's all part of the big scam to make money!