SAY IT AIN'T SO, DEREK !

POSTED ON JANUARY 26, 2013 BY JOHN HINDERAKER at Powerlineblog.com
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...t-so-derek.php

"My wife, who is a big Derek Jeter fan, will be disappointed to see this:

Derek Jeter interrupted his rehab work on his surgically repaired left ankle to rub shoulders with the world’s most powerful at the Davos Economic Forum. Jeter — invited by Pepsi — said he hopes climate change would be discussed: “I was in New York for Hurricane Sandy . . . It’s something that needs to be addressed because we’re seeing more and more natural disasters each year, it seems like. Something has to be causing it.”

Derek Jeter at Davos: another sign of the celebrity-ization of everything. Someone needs to explain to Derek that hurricane activity has declined to a 30-year low. Other forms of extreme weather like tornadoes are down, too.

Here is an interesting question: why doesn’t anyone ever say that human activity, like emitting CO2, is causing a decline in extreme weather events? Why doesn’t the logic of “something has to be causing it” apply? If extreme weather events are declining in number, is that an argument for burning more fossil fuels in hopes of suppressing them further? If not, why not?

Discuss."

Here is an interesting question: why doesn’t anyone ever say that human activity, like emitting CO2, is causing a decline in extreme weather events? Why doesn’t the logic of “something has to be causing it” apply? If extreme weather events are declining in number, is that an argument for burning more fossil fuels in hopes of suppressing them further? If not, why not?

Discuss." Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Here is another interesting question.

Why are folks willing to spend trillions of dollars to protect themselves from terrorist when the chance of them being killed by lightening is greater?

Good question WTF; any answers ?

the ball is in your court LL.

the ball is in your court LL. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Please don't bother LL.

He is currently "tied up." He has been busy "pandering" to his guys!

another dumbass jock.
I suppose global warming caused the 1900 hurricane in Galveston.

Stop the volcanoes of Iceland, they will destroy the earth!

another dumbass jock.
I suppose global warming caused the 1900 hurricane in Galveston.

Stop the volcanoes of Iceland, they will destroy the earth! Originally Posted by The2Dogs

The climate change hoax is just an excuse to form a world government. If you believe that humans are causing the Earth to warm and the result is going to be catastrophic, then you have to believe the problem has to be dealt with on a global scale; that means a world government.

One world government has been the communists goal from day one.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...e-catastrophe/

I was in a hurry.

Did he mention Palin, Beck, Limbaugh?

If he didn't I'm sure he meant to.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/

There wern't that many SUV's back in the 1700's.

Global cooling, no wait, global warming, no wait, climate change, is nothing more than a big hoax, (ie, money grab).

The climate change hoax is just an excuse to form a world government. If you believe that humans are causing the Earth to warm and the result is going to be catastrophic, then you have to believe the problem has to be dealt with on a global scale; that means a world government.

One world government has been the communists goal from day one.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...e-catastrophe/ Originally Posted by joe bloe

If you don't believe humans have contributed to the warming you have your head in the sand.Large cities absorb heat and is always warmer than the outskirts.Carbon monoxide is another.They are not the main as climate changes over time.Deforestation is another.

Here is an interesting question: why doesn’t anyone ever say that human activity, like emitting CO2, is causing a decline in extreme weather events? Why doesn’t the logic of “something has to be causing it” apply? If extreme weather events are declining in number, is that an argument for burning more fossil fuels in hopes of suppressing them further? If not, why not?

Discuss." Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Maybe because the numbers don't seem to support the reality you would like to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_hurricane_season#Numb er_of_tropical_storms_and_hurr icanes_per_season

Sure looks like the last 20 years have been the MOST active 20 year period going back to 1850.

It doesn't take TOO open a mind to actually see the trend. For example: from 1860 through 1989, no year had more than 12 hurricanes in any year, and only 9 times in 130 years were there 10 or more in one year.

From 1990 through 2012, 5 years out of 23 have been 10+, with a peak of 15 hurricanes. The most active storm season--and the most active major (Cat 4+) storms were both in the 1990+ period.

Mayby that's why most sane people don't argue that we are seeing fewer storms--because it isn't true.

The climate change hoax is just an excuse to form a world government. If you believe that humans are causing the Earth to warm and the result is going to be catastrophic, then you have to believe the problem has to be dealt with on a global scale; that means a world government.

One world government has been the communists goal from day one.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...e-catastrophe/ Originally Posted by joe bloe

You truly are a blithering idiot at times.

We hve been able to do many things as a collective human race without a world government. The only time you need that is if you believe 100% conformity is needed to achieve anything. It is small, simple minds who see only "YES" or NO", "ALL or NOTHING", "BLACK or WHITE" with no shades of gray. The vast majority of the universe is gray, and while it often takes a while, natural selection does eventually remove most the morons.

The last 200 years is not anywhere near long enough to determine a climate cycle. For all we know, this could be normal. Climate cycles take thousands of years to develop. The earth is quite old, and has been through this before. We didn't create, we can't stop it. But is useful for those who want more government control over our lives. As Rahm Emanuel said, "Never let a crisis (real or imagined) go to waste."

It may well be part of the normal cycle that has been going on for a really long time. That is not the point. The point is--reagrdless of whether it is 100% "natural", 50%, or 0%, ignoring it is probably not a good idea.

If people want to discuss what to do, or what the causes (can't believe it is only one) are, that is fair space for differing opinions. But for someone to blindly ignore data just to support a political piece of trash seems a bit wrong to me. And unlike some other posters on here who I often think are misguided, I suspect (can't prove) Whirly intentionally ignored reality because it didn't fit his point of view. Open minded and honest do not seem his strong points.

30 years ago, these same scientists were warning of a coming ice age. Now it is warming. The fact is, the earth will do what it will. We have little or no effect on it. And all the government control the world wants to muster will not change it.