Warmer winters, wetter summers, and now – deader rodents.
I’m failing to see the downside in this.
Update – Commentor Raphael Alexander; “You can’t on the one hand say it isn’t happening, and on the other say ‘but if it is… x’.”
Yes we can – because we’re smart enough to understand that no matter whether it’s happening or whether it’s not, no matter whether we’re causing it or whether we’re not – that the only folly more profound than the notion that mankind can “change the weather”, is the folly that argues that we can change it back.
and what’s the forecast for Thursday?
I would have thought that with Schauzers around that rodents would not be problem.
Of course, they may be “show” schnauzers: “Eeeek. a rodent!”
I had a schauzer a long time ago. He would have been hell on squirrels, fast, good turning radius, murder in his eyes, but he’d get too excited to think ahead when he saw one. The squirrels would outwit him.
Kate, the downside is………is……..is…….let me get back to you on that
I loved the post awhile ago talking about the benefits of Global Warming for the Hudson Bay region. Canadians should be pumping out GHG emissions. Just imagine what life will be like if we have the largest breadbasket in the world, lots of warm beaches, longer summers, etc…
cats, you need more cats! they’ll rid you of all your rodent and schnauzer problems.
Does this mean that Greenland may once again become “green” as it was during the Mediaeval warm period (an occurence denied by IPCC warm period “deniers”)? Will Rye, which at present is many miles inland, once again become one of the Cinque Ports??
Pinky! Are you thinking what I’m thinking…….?
The odd thing about proponents of anthropogenic global warming is that they often cite a series of articles and information which support their theories. But often as an afterthought they use softened language to describe what could be potentially seen as the benefits. You can’t have it both ways. You either ascribe to one theory or the other. You can’t on the one hand say it isn’t happening, and on the other say “but if it is… x”.
Although I wasn’t specifically referring to Kate, the question nevertheless crossed my mind.
It’s called sarcasm.
I drove over and shot lots of gophers when we had global cooling. Seems like the little buggers like it both hot and cold.
It’s called sarcasm.
Yeah, I got that part. Her linking was clever and humourous. The question stands, however. Why do some people who believe GW is anthropogenic often cite the benefits to such an occurrence?
Because we’re smart enough to understand that no matter whether it’s happening, or whether it’s not, no matter whether we’re causing it or whether we’re not – that the only folly more profound than the notion that mankind can “change” the weather, is the folly that argues that we can change it back.
Kate,
Since we can’t “change it back” does that mean we should dismiss every study, book, movie and paper released pertaining to the issue?
Does it hurt to be a little bit more conscious, whether you believe the science or not?
“Yes we can – because we’re smart enough to understand that no matter whether it’s happening or whether it’s not, no matter whether we’re causing it or whether we’re not – that the only folly more profound than the notion that mankind can “change the weather”, is the folly that argues that we can change it back.”
(Standing ovation)
If its happening (Global Warming) Canada will meet its Kyoto targets with all the CO2 savings in travel to Mexico Arizona etc in the winter. No need to go south to get out of the cold.
I have always believed the environmental’s missed the boat.
If they were telling me about waste in our landfills and pollution in our air(not a common gas) as well as pollution in our water etc……
Those are the real enviromental problems.
Al Gore might go down in history as the guy telling us the emporer has no clothes while the earth was polluted
And how many tons of combustable fuel is buried each year in landfills?
All carefully wrapped in millions of plastic bags…
Known Liberal Darren McEwan asks:”Does it hurt to be a little bit more conscious, whether you believe the science or not?”
Ah, yes. The LOLbertarian mantra, “what harm can it do?”
Instead of blurting out random questions like a short pant wearing seven year old, why not take this opportunity to be the first person in world history to explain how Canada can cut its GHG emissions by 35% in 70 days while maintaining a first world economy, the highest population growth rate in the G8, and the highest immigration rate in the world, whilst simultaenously cutting personal and corporate taxes($15 billion), reversing the income trust decision and introducing income splitting ($10 billion) and universal child care ($15 billion), and ending poverty for children and Natives ($eleventy bajillion), and balancing the budget (????)?
Wonderful! He cites a study that hasn’t even been done yet and won’t report for another 3 years but already they know what conclusions will be reached. And then he wonders why people are skeptical about the “science” behind AGW. Why don’t they just save time and tax money and write their report now?
Why do some people who believe GW is anthropogenic often cite the benefits to such an occurrence?
Because they are finally realizing that the hype of AGW (aka sturm und drang) doesn’t add up when challenged. There’s a need to save face, and there’s also no need to go all I-told-you-so towards those who were willingly or unwillingly duped.
Those who know are above that level of schoolyard taunting. New Harper edict: Free engineering degrees for all!
I think the biggest issue is whether the cause of any warming is man-made (ie greenhouse gases) or not. And if not man-made, then perhaps it’s as natural and as safe as the daily rising and setting of the sun.
It’s the catastrophic doom-and-gloom from the goracle and his disciples that needs to be ridiculed the most.
Duct tape is a good way to control all that HOT AIR from the global warming wackos put some over the mouths of AL GORE and the GREENPEACE wackos
this is terrible , if we take CBCpravdas 100km food challenge we are going to have to eat those rodents.
here is another CBCpravda favourite. shows and articles about driving your vehicle on recyled frying oil.
wouldnt we be a bunch of enormous oinks if we all had to provide 2 to 3 gallons of used cooking oil every day.
and CBCpravda has a thing called reality check, wow, peter pansbridge the head fantasy reporter needs to get one.
The liberals should give me all their money, just as a precaution, and I’ll make the world a better place.
Very, very low hurricane activity this year:
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
Half the globe is run by despotic military-economic juntas with nuclear arms who are just frothing to destroy western culture/economy/life…they have their missiles aimed at us, they plot ways to destroy our dollar and trade balance…they murder their own people in plain sight, arm manics with nukes, and give environmental controls the middle finger just to aggravate our evolved sense of civil ethics….they are ramping up military-industrial capacity and creating a global particulate pollution problem unseen in human history…heavy metals in the atmoshpere from massive coal-fired production infrastructure, water affluents high in carcinogenic toxins, continent wide smogs, oceanic pollution which effects us all….
…still with all this ecological trouble staring starkly at us, the stilted Liberal obsesses about a freakish winter melt drowning an obscure rodent in a place they have never visited….their cure is to punish North American yuppies for it by banning their expensive EPA safe cars.
In all of creation is there a weaker, fuzzy headed cult than the affluent North American urban leftist?
Liberal environmentalism is a form self destructive simple mindedness….driven my some displaced guilt complex fantasy.
We can see that in what they view as predominant priorities….arctic rodents…when there is a 500 foot thick smpg cloud over China that is changing global whether patterns and toxifying global fresh water supplies.
Deader rodents that will get the idiots at PETA upset becuase the once held a dumb protest one of them was wearing a stupid rat costume and carrying a dumb sign reading RATS HAVE RIGHTS what a bunch of stupid mindless idiots only a idiot would have anything to do with PETA
Worse than a denier, someone who actually welcomes warming is guaranteed to send the true believers into apoplexy.
Remember, they think the planet is too hot, so tell them it is clear they want a colder planet. Ask them just how cold.
Canadian Parents be warned:
My two nephews both go to Oakridge High on Oxford St, London ON…Just last week, both were submitted, along with the whole school, to a presentation from an exterior source (Which I will find the name and research) entitled: “The coming Climate War” where, in a nut shell, Canada, Russia and some of it’s surrounding northern bordering countries and Great Britain will survive the brunt of mass population movements do to chaos and famine from the south…blah blah blah…doom and gloom…
When the boys got home, they told their mother about it. My sister in law was mad…Especially after I had told her about the UK having recently judged that such school presentations had to be counter presented and/or pre warned the viewers of it being just one side of the debate. (AKA The Goracle’s fakumentary “An Inconvinient Truth”)
The school teacher who had organised this ‘presentation’ was approached by my sister in law: He had never heard of the UK judge’s ruling and he told her: “You’re the only parent so far who has complained about this”
Two things I retain from this:
– This was paid with our tax dollars
– Alarming so few parents seem to know what their kids are ‘learning’ (?).
As soon as I find out the presentator’s name, I will Google in hope of finding a web site and more info…THIS NEEDS TO BE EXPOSED AND SDA IS AN EXCELLENT PLACE TO START.
Kate, I will keep you posted.
Kate hit the nail right on the head. How many tons of combustible fuel are buried each year? The envirotards completely missed the boat on this one. Instead of 2 sets of diesel spewing trucks delivering our waste to 2 facilities, we could be shipping it to a high tech incinerator and converting it to usable energy. These envirmorons, and their brainwashed minions have fought(as well, against nuclear power)this technology for over 20 years. Here in Kingston, the military offered to burn all of our waste and to ship us the excess steam. But, oh no, the NIMBY crowd cried, and we have a clusterf#$% on our hands as far as waste is concerned. Moonbat enviroidiots……WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, and did I mention WRONG! (I will qualify this by saying that the hippy’s from the 60’s did a good job in fighting air and water pollution)
Kate- your comments in bold aren’t in any way a refutation of the comment you’re quoting. You can’t defend for one lazy argument by simply putting forward another unsubstantiated argument.
We’re certain that Global Warming isn’t happening but if it is it’s not AGW it’s (insert half baked idea here).
That didn’t work:
Ok… Maybe it is happening but we can’t do anything about it.
So after years of shouting until you were blue in the face that Global Warming is happening you’re admitting that it is happening (maybe?) but somehow you were still right all along?
You guys always crow about how AGW is dead so why all the backpedalling?
Jose: perhaps you mis-interpret the ‘A’ in AGW. Try again.
Besides, what is more environmentally friendly – baked-to-death gophers or all the lead that I have left around prairie fields creating holed-to-death gophers.
Either way, their gonna get killed…
sorry, ‘they’re’ not ‘their’
Good Morning,
I would like to suggest for all to read the most recent issue of Nature Magazine. 2 professors, 1 from Oxford and one from London School of Economics (Moonbat U – Trudeau was alumnus), explain that the Kyoto Protocol is an unfit tool for preventing the release of CO2. Like a surgeon using a fork…
And another thing… what’s with the media saying that ‘scientists’ believe this therefore it’s what we must do? Scientists are concern with the testing of hypotheses, not in the governing of a country. This is precisely the reason why the field of applied science (engineering) exists. Strangely enough though, they never ask an engineer’s opinion. I think it’s because engineers are practical and understand the consequences of using a fork to do surgery.
Raphael,
To answer your question. We (deniers) are allowed to express our opinions of why such an occurrence is good regardless of whether or not it is actually happening. Think about the surge in Iraq, would it be ok for a lefty to appreciate the possibility of success even though they themselves are not convinced of said success?
I don’t think our release of airborne carbon is causing global warming. Am I therefore banned from ever making statements about how good it would be if the world was warmer?
//Call off the dogs… obviously the surge is working
Really interesting read at http://www.speigel.de/international
called, Who’s footing the bill?
German Chancellor Merckel is going around spouting off about global warming at the same time the German govt is finding out that there are severe downsides to her rosy picture.
Can’t meet the guidlines without severe damage to their economy.
Wow what a surprise!
Clarification:
Engineering exists to take science and apply it to the real world.
Haha, lefties and their weather machine…works about as well as the rest of their ideas.
The funniest part is they’re actually serious in the belief they can control the weather. ie. Jose with his comical remark that it’s an unsubstantiated argument that we can’t control the weather.
The solution to the rodent problem is simple. Harvest them. The chinese eat everything that moves. What is the nutritional value of one of these? In a world of starving people we should not be overlooking any food source. How many pounds per acre are we talking about. Don’t kill them, the chinese like their food fresh. When faced with lemons make lemonaid.
Daren
“does that mean we should dismiss every study, book, movie and paper released pertaining to the issue?”
Well, the warming believers are very selective with their studies and very dismissive of inconvenient facts and people asserting them.
You must understand what a terribly immoral cult-like propaganda death grip the warmers have on the intellectual debate. They really are getting heretics fired from their jobs and silencing people with funding and slanderous personal insults and accusations. Look at Fruit-Fly Suzuki’s behaviour for one.
Kate & al.,
What makes you so sure that humans cannot ‘change the weather’? (I won’t say ‘control’ that would be laughable for sure)
Is it because the Earth is too big for us to affect it?
I’m sure those Newfoundlanders & Europeans also said ‘the ocean is too big, we’ll never run out of cod, right?’
And those Russians who diverted some water from the 2 rivers feeding Aral Sea also said no problem, it’s too big to drain.
And like Kingstonlad mentions, most of China is blanketed by a cloud of toxic fumes. I guess for them, weather has changed.
What I know is we already managed to disturb the CO2 cycle by adding billions tons of the stuff every year. We already changed the composition of our atmosphere. That’s a fact.
You say this will have no effect, but you have no evidence to back that up. It’s just wishful thinking.
What makes you so sure that humans cannot ‘change the weather’? (I won’t say ‘control’ that would be laughable for sure)
Changing something is exerting control. By your own definition, that makes your question laughable.
“Changing something is exerting control. By your own definition, that makes your question laughable.”
Control implies a predictable (and arguably, desirable) outcome.
If I hit a patch of ice while driving my car and lose control I end up in the ditch. That’s change with no control.
It’s the same with CO2. We may change things, but what happens next is beyond our control at this point. On that, I agree with Kate. Doing what the environmentalists want would be a return to medieval times. We won’t do it, with good reason, and will live with the consequences, whatever they are. Where I disagree is that we justify our decision by saying there will be no consequences. Pure wishful thinking. Nobody can say that for sure.
GreenNeck.
There are 3 earthly components to climate on earth. They are atmosphere, earth(the dirt), and the water in the oceans which comprises over 70% of the surface of the earth.
These three materials change temperature at different rates, with water being the slowest, earth in the middle and air being the quickest.
Air temps in the fall and spring can go up and down as fast and often as a toilet seat at a bikers convention.
For a long term climate change, you really have to change the temperature of the water in the oceans, which is the largest heatsink.
The effective purpose of the oceans is to modulate our weather, not too hot, not too cold.
Since there is at least 1100 times more energy in the oceans than in the other two, it will take a long, long time to effect significant changes to any climate on earth.
Which is why we don’t have ice ages every 100/1000 years or so.
And in fact, there is only one source of energy large enough to effect that scale of change, and it is, taaa daaa, the SUN.
CO2 is really not that significant in the big scheme of things, no matter how much some people wish it was, or say that it is.
Its just disgusting that lawyers and geneticists go around scaring people over nothing.
There otto be a law against that.
GreenNeck.
There are 3 earthly components to climate on earth. They are atmosphere, earth(the dirt), and the water in the oceans which comprises over 70% of the surface of the earth.
These three materials change temperature at different rates, with water being the slowest, earth in the middle and air being the quickest.
Air temps in the fall and spring can go up and down as fast and often as a toilet seat at a bikers convention.
For a long term climate change, you really have to change the temperature of the water in the oceans, which is the largest heatsink.
The effective purpose of the oceans is to modulate our weather, not too hot, not too cold.
Since there is at least 1100 times more energy in the oceans than in the other two, it will take a long, long time to effect significant changes to any climate on earth.
Which is why we don’t have ice ages every 100/1000 years or so.
And in fact, there is only one source of energy large enough to effect that scale of change, and it is, taaa daaa, the SUN.
CO2 is really not that significant in the big scheme of things, no matter how much some people wish it was, or say that it is.
Its just disgusting that lawyers and geneticists go around scaring people over nothing.
There otto be a law against that.
“What makes you so sure that humans cannot ‘change the weather’? (I won’t say ‘control’ that would be laughable for sure)
Is it because the Earth is too big for us to affect it?”
Again with the dyslexic conjectures…no, it’s because science, natural history and first hand experience all show us that nature is far more resiliant than leftard fearmongers would have us belive.
It is the acceptance of the earth/nature as being some delicate thing kept on life support by Green ranger efforts that is the anomaly.
REAL environmentalism and regenerative stewardship efforts have shown us that man made scars have healed far faster than ever imagined if just left to nature to reclaim.
Personally, I think the science in the climate wars is so politicized with so many agendas other than good science embroiled in it, that bad weather is now being used to shake us down for revenues and control by global NGO cartels….AGW is a political issue…not backed by concrete scientific fact…only a theory that is in wide dispute.
Greeneck “What makes you so sure that humans cannot ‘change the weather’?”
It’s the belief that God gave man Dominion over the world. Most of the people digging in their heels are creationists. (And no don’t ask me for the links I’ve posted them here several times, you can Google it yourself and you don’t care anyways).
Most of the noise emanating here about Global Warming is false objections. Just like Creationists claim to be championing Scientific Skepticism with respect to Evolution.
It’s telling that people feel the need to hide behind false objections when it comes to extreme Christian dogma: creationism (masquerading as scientific skeptism), dominionism (ditto) and the End Times (masquerading as concern over the imminent threat of Brown people). It’s an interesting case of doublethink that betrays a lack of confidence in the strength of their argument.
“And how many tons of combustable fuel is buried each year in landfills? … All carefully wrapped in millions of plastic bags…”
Indeed…. I’ve been participating with a technology group that has been studying this.
You can In Fact dig up a typical landfill like you would a coal mine/pit and process the fuel through a gasifier. The resulting gaseous fuel is similar to propane with about 50% of the energy potential.
The waste is 99.9 percent inert ash.
There is more pollution from the natural decomposition that occurs ( including un-restrained GHGs ).
Now ask me how much cooperation is being offered from any of the various levels of government from Federal to local/municipal! No don’t bother…. that sad fact is that in spite of the obvious benefits there is NOT ONE pilot project in place or being given serious consideration in Canada.
The culprits are for the most part various regulators and bureaucrats who are plainly more interested in figuring out how the REGULATE such a venture than in seeing it proceed.
If you want to see a contrast …. look at the State of Michigan where they went shopping to Europe for the same thing and are going ahead … with less than 1 year wasted in dithering.
Canada is being screwed by the civil service mentality of ass covering and mindless regulation.
While politicians talk and take no action the bureaucrats are actively squashing a great deal of innovation and squandering opportunities.
Our happy socialist paradise……
Control implies a predictable (and arguably, desirable) outcome.
If I hit a patch of ice while driving my car and lose control I end up in the ditch. That’s change with no control.
Well no, you controlled the car right into the ditch. It doesn’t happen by itself. It was you, and only you, who inputted the control that put you in the ditch. To deny that is typical leftist blame shifting.
Therefore envirowackos believe they control the weather.
OMMAG
“…there is NOT ONE pilot project in place or being given serious consideration in Canada…”
Oh yes there is right here in the crucible of Canada :^)
http://www.plascoenergygroup.com/content.php?cat=projects&subcat=project33