March 01, 2010

CONSENSUS WATCH – 3/1/2010

An ongoing series dedicated to vigorously monitoring emerging threats to The Consensus that global warming is real, caused by humans, and must be addressed at all costs.

 

Because without Consensus, scientific conclusions could be subject to public scrutiny.

As a result of the minor climate contretemps of the past several months in which the entire construct of global warming theory has been called into question, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has decided to launch an independent review of its research vetting process with a specific focus on IPCC chief Rejandra Pachauri, plus re-examine 160 years of temperature data.

Call it a scientific “do over.”

This, of course, should not in any way impede our progress towards manic implementation of hastily conceived measures meant to address the very real threat of manmade public hysteria over impending climate catastrophe.

After all, we already know the conclusion.  Think of these investigations as more of a formality, like a real estate closing only without as much uncertainty.

In another positive development, the multi-talented, Nobel Prize and Academy Award winning Al Gore broke his weeks-long silence (no doubt spent in quiet contemplation with his spiritual advisor and tax accountant) to address a world desperate for his guidance.

While we had hoped he would deliver his message through an interpretive dance routine, thereby all but ensuring a Tony nomination, he chose instead the more conventional path of writing a piece for The New York Times in which he addressed the “two minor errors” of the IPCC reports.

Okay, so he’s a little bit behind on his reading, but that’s not what’s important.  What is important is that he laid to rest once and for all the charge that global warming is somehow faith-based, more akin to a religious belief than hard science, by pointing out in no uncertain terms that:

“From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption.”

Now does that sound like some kind of evangelist?  You probably don’t know this, having not been back to school in a while, but “an instrument of human redemption” is the correct answer for about 35% of all physics midterm exam questions.

So not to worry, Consensus Watchers, we have nothing to fear from science.

This damn Internet, on the other hand…

J.

Consensus Watch T-shirt Want to make sure the world knows you won't allow yourself to be bullied by facts?  Then check our our extensive line of CONSENSUS WATCH MERCHANDISE!

We have a complete line of "Stop raping the planet! You may, however,Inappropriate touch it inappropriately," items (coffee cup, bags, coasters, stickers, buttons), and the classic Consensus Watch coffee mug and beer stein (along with assorted T-shirts, sweatshirts, and other garments): "Consensus Watch Because without consensus, scientific conclusions would remain vulnerable to new data."

March 1, 2010 at 02:21 PM in Global Warming with CONSENSUS WATCH | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 08, 2010

CONSENSUS WATCH – 2/8/2010

An ongoing series dedicated to vigorously monitoring emerging threats to The Consensus that global warming is real, caused by humans, and must be addressed at all costs.

Because without Consensus, scientific conclusions could be challenged by people demanding hard data.

Wet Heavy Global Warming

While we continue to dig ourselves out from under two feet of wet, heavy, anthropogenic global warming here at Planet Moron headquarters, we take comfort in knowing that frequent record-breaking snowfalls do not in any way suggest that global warming is anything but real.

Which is not to say that mild winters don't prove it is real, of course.

This is important to remember, as it has been revealed lately that much of the science underpinning The Consensus didn’t come from “research” in the traditional sense of the word, but rather from more unorthodox sources, such as magazine articles, college student homework assignments, press releases, and idle conjecture.

Sure, that might sound bad taken out of context, but what skeptics fail to appreciate is that the whole purpose of establishing consensus in the first place is to take the science part out of the equation. That way we can move forward with what’s really important: Maintaining levels of hysteria necessary to spur legislative action.

Besides, according to Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the errors and fabrications are actually positive developments noting that such mistakes :

"…Could increase the credibility of the IPCC, not decrease it. Aren't mistakes human? Even the IPCC is a human institution."

(We don’t suggest you try that at work unless there is already a consensus with your bosses that you’re doing a good job.  Kind of like with Tim Geithner.)

Given the unconventional nature of global warming science, it is important that Consensus supporters be prepared for additional revelations including some of the following:

Claim: Sea levels will rise in the coming decades, swamping coastal cities.
Source:
Something James Hansen thought he saw while watching “The Day After Tomorrow” on his new Blu-ray player.

Claim: Polar Bears are resorting to cannibalism.
Source: Nostradamus.

Claim: Global warming could cause malaria as far north as Germany.
Source: A flyer Michael Mann saw in Berlin for the post-punk German band, “Malaria.”

Claim: We must reduce carbon emissions or we are all doomed.
Source: The image of Al Gore miraculously appearing one morning in a bowl of Rajendra Pachauri’s Wheatena.

Al Gore in Bowl of Wheatena

Claim: Tree ring data proves CO2 causes global warming.
Source: Hidden message found when you play the Beatles “Revolution 9” backwards.

Also, Paul is dead.

Claim: Hurricanes will increase in frequency and intensity unless we transition our power generation away from carbon sources and toward wind turbines.
Source: An advertisement from wind turbine manufacturer, Southwest Windpower.

Naturally, skeptics will continue to blow these discoveries all out of proportion claiming that they are some kind of indictment on The Consensus.  Unfortunately, these appeals to reason and common sense do occasionally gain traction with the lay public, unfamiliar as they are with the scientific process, so just in case, supporters of climate change legislation have a back up plan:

Make believe it’s a jobs bill.

Remember, Consensus means never having to say you’re sorry. Or wrong.

J.

CW Sweatshirt Global Are you digging yourself out of several feet of global warming too?  Don’t forget our “My parents fought Global Warming and all I got was this lousy sweatshirt!” along with all our Consensus Watch merchandise.  Remember, the earth is getting hotter, so be sure to bundle up!

February 8, 2010 at 11:50 AM in Current Affairs, Global Warming with CONSENSUS WATCH | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 19, 2010

CONSENSUS WATCH – 1/19/2010

An ongoing series dedicated to vigorously monitoring emerging threats to The Consensus that global warming is real, caused by humans, and must be addressed at all costs.

Because without Consensus, scientific conclusions would have to be based on something other than hearsay.

Proponents of anthropogenic global warming have had a difficult couple of months, as the scientific foundation of their claims has come under serious question.

But The Consensus does not rely solely on scientific research.  In fact, the IPCC scientists at the United Nations, who have long been at the forefront of research into which climate factors have the greatest influence on increasing levels of global hysteria, have a number of sources from which they draw their most important conclusions.

Such as “stuff they read in a magazine somewhere.”

For example, the headline-grabbing announcement a few years ago from the IPCC that global warming would cause the Himalayan glaciers to completely melt by 2035 was based on something the researchers had remembered reading somewhere in an eight-year-old copy of New Scientist magazine. Perhaps in the dentist’s office.  Or was it the hairdresser?

Regardless, some challenged the claim saying that the data showed that the Himalayan glaciers were under no such dire threat, but those denials were simply a sign of arrogance.

Look, these guys read it in a magazine somewhere.  What more proof do you people need?

Let’s face it, “stuff someone read in a magazine somewhere,” has long served as an important source of information on which we have all grown to rely.

For example, see if this sounds familiar:

Friend #1: You want another beer?

Friend #2: Nah, I think I’ll switch to gin and tonics.

Friend #1: Did you know that if you mix your alcohol you’ll get a worse hangover?

Friend #2: Where did you hear that?

Friend #1: I read it in a magazine somewhere.

Friend #2: Wow.

Friend #1: Also, you’ll grow breasts.

With the advent of widespread access to broadband connectivity, the dissemination of information in this manner has only increased:

Friend #1: You want another beer?

Friend #2: Nah, I think I’ll switch to gin and tonics.

Friend #1: Did you know that 9/11 was an inside job, Obama isn’t a natural born citizen and Trig isn’t Sarah Palin’s son?

Friend #2: Where did you hear that?

Friend #1: I read it on the Internet somewhere.

Friend #2: Wow.

Friend #1: Also, you’ll grow breasts.

Sure, sometimes stuff you read in a magazine somewhere doesn’t always pan out, but that in no way should call into question the legitimacy of The Consensus.  In fact, if we don’t act soon to reduce carbon emissions, the ice caps will melt, people will starve, hurricanes will destroy our cities, the rivers will run with blood, and we will be beset upon by locusts.

Also, you’ll grow breasts.

We read that in a magazine somewhere.

J.

Consensus Watch T-shirt Looking to increase your carbon footprint?  Don't forget our extensive line of CONSENSUS WATCH MERCHANDISE!

In addition to the “my parents fought global warming and all I got was this lousy sweatshirt” hoodie we introduced last month, we’ve updated most of the Consensus Watch store adding T-shirts, thermoses and other items Stop Raping The Planet Shirt most of which were probably shipped from China.

Hey, those polar bears aren't going to drown themselves, so get cracking and order stuff you don't need that has to be shipped a lengthy distance!

January 19, 2010 at 04:29 PM in Global Warming with CONSENSUS WATCH | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

December 09, 2009

CONSENSUS WATCH – 12/09/2009

An ongoing series dedicated to vigorously monitoring emerging threats to The Consensus that global warming is real, caused by humans, and must be addressed at all costs.

Because without strictly enforced scientific consensus, public policy would be driven by the public.

This week’s move by the Environmental Protection Agency to classify CO2 and other greenhouse gasses as pollutants under the Clean Air Act allows President Obama to skip democratic processes and that whole annoying “seeking the consent of the governed” thing (which frankly can be rather time consuming) and make some real progress on the Consensus by simple decree.

This is critically important as the “hockey stick” graph which supported the theory that global temperatures were rapidly rising due to increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 has started to look a little flat.

And let’s be honest, no one is going to reorder the world’s economy based on a “pool stick” graph.

Famous Pool Stick Graph

We’re also fortunate to have the always refined and erudite Al Gore around to gently question critics, much in the manner of Socrates, as he did in an interview yesterday with Slate:

“What in the hell do they think is causing it?”

Elsewhere, Mr. Gore noted that the emails from East Anglia’s CRU that have been causing so much controversy were “taken out of context.”

There is no question that this is the case. For example, when you read that on November 16, 1999, Phil Jones emailed the climate group about his efforts to “hide the decline,” that sounds pretty incriminating on its face, but the email is taken completely out of context and before you jump to any conclusions, consider this email sent the day before:

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

To: ray bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1999 11:23:10
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx


Hey guys, check this out: I’m going to completely punk Mann and Hughes, okay? So play along.  The email I send tomorrow is going to have something about “hiding the decline,” like I’m trying to manipulate the data or something. Those guys are so going to freak!!  I’m thinking of adding something about “Mike’s nature trick.”  Too much you think?  I don’t want to give it away by being too obvious.

This is going to be so awesome!!

Cheers

Phil

Now that it’s been placed in the proper context it takes on a whole new meaning, doesn’t it?

Al Gore also said today of the Consensus,

"It's a principle in physics. It's like gravity. It exists."

Exactly. It’s just like the physics of gravity:

F=Gm1m2/d2

Except we don’t know the value of “G,” Newton won’t release how he got to “d,” “m1” was deleted and no one can find  “m2.”

But, hey, let’s not get all caught up in a highly technical scientific discussion.  Look!  Someone has to save this girl!

Clearly now is not the time to have an “honest and broad scientific debate on the basic science of CO2 ’s influence on global temperature.”

As Al Gore might say:

“What in the hell does that have to do with The Consensus?”

J.

December 9, 2009 at 06:17 PM in Global Warming with CONSENSUS WATCH | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

December 01, 2009

CONSENSUS WATCH – 12/01/2009

An ongoing series dedicated to vigorously monitoring emerging threats to The Consensus that global warming is real, caused by humans, and must be addressed at all costs.

Because without consensus, scientific conclusions would remain vulnerable to data that hasn’t been properly scrubbed of ideological impurities.

Clearly, The Consensus has come under some pressure recently with the unauthorized release of computer files from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, despite the fact that they consist of little more than a decade of accumulated data, communications, and models that implicate scientists and research institutions the world over in a potential conspiracy to fake data, suppress contrary evidence, and punish those who question human-caused global warming.

Like that’s somehow “newsworthy” all of a sudden.

Given this, Consensus supporters must be prepared with persuasive counterarguments to effectively parry the unfortunate questions the release of these files is bound to raise.

For example, let’s say someone comes up to you at work and says:

"Wow, did you hear the CRU threw away all the original data on historic temperature readings leaving no actual evidence of any kind to support the notion that humankind's emissions of carbon dioxide has in any way resulted in the planet warming beyond natural norms?"

To which you can reply, drawing on your own extensive knowledge and experience in the area of climate research:

 "The science is settled!"

See how easy that is? Just remember to say it authoritatively so the listener will know you’re telling the truth.

Let's try another.  What if your brother-in-law comes over for dinner and casually mentions:

"I hear Phil Jones, one of the principle proponents of anthropogenic global warming and the director of the CRU is stepping down over allegations that he rigged data to support his climate change theories."

You can simply retort:

"While that may be so, most of the world’s population will be wiped out if leaders fail to agree on a method to stop global warming!!"

Ouch.  That's going to leave a mark. Just remember, the most important thing is that you address their questions with specific examples of your passion and provide clear evidence of your emotional commitment to the issue. This will enhance your credibility.

One more.  What if a neighbor casually mentions that:

"It looks like climate scientists simply deleted data sets that failed to produce temperature graphs that fit their preconceived notions regarding climate change."

Don’t panic, you can turn that argument right back at them by making these specific points:

"The shrinking ozone hole will dramatically increase temperatures in the Antarctic!"

"Major cities are threatened by rising sea levels!!"

"The polar bears are eating each other!!!"

"It costs $1200 to shake Al Gore’s hand!!!!"

As you can see, the informed Consensus Watch supporter has nothing to fear from a robust dialogue with global warming deniers. 

After all, you have the facts on your side.

J.

December 1, 2009 at 04:52 PM in Global Warming with CONSENSUS WATCH | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 25, 2009

CONSENSUS WATCH – 11/25/2009

An ongoing series dedicated to vigorously monitoring emerging threats to The Consensus that global warming is real, caused by humans, and must be addressed at all costs. Because without consensus, scientific conclusions would remain vulnerable to new data.

 Controversy continues to swirl around the release of confidential files from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, one of the premier global warming Consensus supporters in the world, that seemed to suggest that data was deliberately manipulated, competing scientific theories were suppressed and documents illegally destroyed.

What casual readers probably don’t realize is that scientific progress has long been founded on the timeless principles of subterfuge, deception, and trickery.

For example, some critics suggest that this statement from a private email sent by climate researcher Kevin Trenberth to Penn State’s Michael Mann illustrates inner doubt within CRU that was never expressed publicly:

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

But compare that to similar doubts Isaac Newton expressed regarding his theories on gravity, in a private letter to English scholar, Richard Bentley:

"That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one another, is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it."

What if some nefarious character had hacked into Bentley’s oak secretary desk and released this letter to the public?  Sure, Newton could try and claim that the statement was taken out of context but by then, the damage would have been done.

And that whole apple-falling-on-his-head story?  A complete fabrication of little scientific value intended as nothing more than an emotional appeal to the masses.  Imagine what might have happened had this come to light at the time. Gravity-deniers would use the revelation to cast doubt on Newton’s work. He would lose all credibility, as would his ideas.  The consequences?  Think of all the ways Newtonian physics lay at the foundation of our modern way of life:  Satellites.  Commercial air transport.  Donkey Kong.

Another source of controversy to emerge from the hacked files are the inaccurate data sets, fundamentally flawed climate models, and hopelessly corrupted results.

However this recalls an earlier innovator, Thomas Edison, who famously said, in explaining his 10,000 failures in developing a storage battery:

“I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.”

You see, Consensus supporters haven’t failed to prove that humans are causing sustained global warming through emissions of carbon dioxide that must be addressed immediately if we are to prevent climate catastrophe.

They’ve just found 10,000 ways that don’t prove that humans are causing sustained global warming through emissions of carbon dioxide that must be addressed immediately if we are to prevent climate catastrophe.

J.

Greenhouse Gases Bodysuit We have new baby items for our Consensus Watch Store.  Because if you can’t exploit an innocent baby to further your own personal political agenda, what good are they? 

Introducing our “You're worried about Greenhouse Gases?  I'll give you Greenhouse Gases!” infant bodysuit and bib, and our “Looks like my parents are going to need Carbon Offsets Bodysuit some serious Carbon Offsets!” organic baby bodysuit.

November 25, 2009 at 12:58 PM in Global Warming with CONSENSUS WATCH | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack

November 20, 2009

CONSENSUS WATCH – 11/20/2009

An ongoing series dedicated to vigorously monitoring emerging threats to The Consensus that global warming is real, caused by humans, and must be addressed at all costs. Because without consensus, scientific conclusions would remain vulnerable to new data.

While we were putting the finishing touches on our piece yesterday regarding Senator John Kerry’s harmless hyperbole overstating increases in US Carbon emissions by a factor of 32, and Al Gore’s innocuous exaggeration of the earth’s interior temperature by a factor of a thousand, news was breaking that a major global warming research center’s database had been hacked revealing that climate scientists had manipulated data in order to support The Consensus.

Naturally, the usual suspects are suggesting that this information demonstrates that The Consensus is a fraud and that scientists are faking data, basing their accusations on little more than the fact that the information demonstrated that scientists are engaged in fraud and are faking data.

This is a woefully inaccurate interpretation of the material.

First, we have already determined that The Consensus is real and that “urgent action is needed by world leaders in order to save our climate.” Given that, it’s not clear why we’re still examining research data.

Second, we have to remember that simply reporting data is easy. However, consensus science demands far more rigor, and requires that we have researchers dedicated enough to do the hard work necessary to apply statistical tricks, hide inconvenient results, and occasionally just make things up. This is largely due to the fact that consensus science requires that research support a pre-determined conclusion, whereas regular science is a more chaotic, sloppy affair, in which no one knows what the data will prove until it’s been produced.

So before we start casting about accusations and aspersions on peoples’ character, we should stop and think about the difficult, thankless work consensus scientists perform, day in an day out, never knowing just how much data will need to be tampered with and massaged.

As Kevin Trenberth, an IPCC lead author, said in one email: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

But have faith, Consensus Watchers, we’re sure they’ll find a way.

J.

November 20, 2009 at 10:39 PM in Global Warming with CONSENSUS WATCH | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

November 19, 2009

CONSENSUS WATCH – 11/19/2009

An ongoing series dedicated to vigorously monitoring emerging threats to The Consensus that global warming is real, caused by humans, and must be addressed at all costs. Because without consensus, scientific conclusions would remain vulnerable to new data.

Proponents of global warming have been caught engaging in some harmless exaggerations this past week while discussing the various anthropogenic climate threats facing our planet.

First, Senator John Kerry, in explaining the need for a climate change bill, noted that in  “the last eight years emissions in the United States of America in greenhouse gasses went up four times faster than in the 1990s.”

Unfortunately, a strict reading of the data indicates that greenhouse gas emissions did not go up the “four times faster” claimed by Senator Kerry but slightly less, in the sense that they went up many times slower, not faster. But in fairness to the Senator, he was correct in noting that there was a period once known as “the 1990s.”

Second, Al Gore, making the argument for geothermal energy, explained that temperatures in the interior of the earth run at “several million degrees.”

Only a real perfectionist would point this out, but that’s off the mark.  By several orders of magnitude.

But all this ignores the fact that science isn’t so much a science as it is an art, and so we should grant a little poetic license sometimes.

For example, Einstein’s famous equation E=MC²?  A complete exaggeration, meant to help get his point across to an audience skeptical regarding the relationship between mass and energy.  (At most, E equals M multiplied by C doubled.)

Thus freed from a strict adherence to accuracy, proponents of climate change should feel free to discard factual data, which has clearly contributed to insufficient levels of hysteria among the public, and instead be more creative. 

We suggest the following lines of argument:

The amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average SUV in just a single year doubles the total output of the Mt. St. Helens eruption.

Every time you exhale, a butterfly cries.

Polar bears, particularly vulnerable to global warming, face grave risks to their survival as temperatures rise.  Here is a polar bear as it lives in the wild today:

Cute Polar Bear

And here is a polar bear after ten years of exposure to projected levels of global warming:

Polar Bear Global Warming Victim

If oceans rise at the rate expected, by the next century, Kevin Costner will have gills.

Bookerundersea_1509075c This underwater cabinet meeting in the Maldives was NOT a stunt.  This is an actual cabinet meeting.  The entire population of the Maldives now lives under water which has wreaked havoc with the country's agriculture, gas ovens, and check writing.

These people naked on the Aletsch glacier in Switzerland had their clothes burned off… by global warming!

See how easy it is to make a compelling argument regarding The Consensus once you no longer feel imprisoned by facts and data?

Just ask President Obama.

J.

Consensus Watch T-shirt Just in time for the traditional Thanksgiving gift-giving holiday, CONSENSUS WATCH MERCHANDISE!

In addition to the “my parents fought global warming and all I got was this lousy sweatshirt” item we introduced last month, we’ve updated most of the Consensus Watch store adding T-shirts, thermoses and other items Stop Raping The Planet Shirt and improving some of the graphics ensuring that all items are guaranteed to be 63% less crappy!  Why? Because at Planet Moron, quality is Job #27

November 19, 2009 at 09:24 PM in Global Warming with CONSENSUS WATCH | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

October 22, 2009

CONSENSUS WATCH - 10/22/2009

 An ongoing series dedicated to vigorously monitoring emerging threats to The Consensus that global warming is real, caused by humans, and must be addressed at all costs. Because without consensus, scientific conclusions would remain vulnerable to new data.

 The Consensus has come under attack from an unlikely source, the BBC, which noted that despite ever-increasing concentrations of CO2 and predictions to the contrary, the earth has been cooling over the past decade.

Fortunately these blatant appeals to logic rarely work.  Yes, people might momentarily get caught up in the facts of the moment, allowing reason to overwhelm their emotions, but when all is said and done, true adherents to The Consensus can take comfort in knowing that once everyone has had a chance to stand up and get excited, less sober minds will ultimately prevail.

For example, here is a piece of thoughtful research released by ACT ON CO2 (a creation of the UK government) that explores the very real consequences of telling a little girl that everyone is going to die.

This study makes a number of compelling points. For example, CO2, rather than being an abundant natural gas upon which all life on earth depends, is in fact a menacing demon stretching across the sky and spewing forth flying ghost blobs.

Carbon Monster

We did not know that.

The video also makes clear that based on current climate modeling, unless we take action to reduce CO2 emissions now, your daughter’s puppy will drown. 

Drowning Puppies

Consensus deniers might insist this is an exaggeration, or possibly even a complete fabrication, but it’s difficult to dismiss what you are seeing with your own two eyes, irrefutable evidence as portrayed in a whimsical imaginary drawing.

What can we learn from this?

Global warming makes bunnies cry.

Crying Bunny

Also, despite what you might have heard on the news, or read in a peer-reviewed article, or saw at a screening or experienced personally by walking outside, it is clear that without drastic action, we are facing a bleak future in which little girls’ puppies are drowned.

And we can’t have that.

We might want to use those pups for food.

J.

Consensus Watch T-shirt CONSENSUS WATCH MERCHANDISE: In addition to the “my parents fought global warming and all I got was this lousy sweatshirt” item we mentioned the other day, we’ve updated most of the Consensus Watch store adding T-shirts, thermoses and other items and improving some of the graphics.  Why? Because we care.  Also, the liquor store was closed.  Stop Raping The Planet Shirt Okay, mostly because the liquor store was closed.

But we sure cared about that.

UPDATE: A slightly different take from The London Fog (language warning at end):

 

October 22, 2009 at 05:07 PM in Global Warming with CONSENSUS WATCH | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack

October 21, 2009

Well, At Least They Can Claim That The Climate Is Changing…

Mid-October snowfall in Pa. sets record

Tampa sets record low temperature

Morning low ties 61-year-old record

Few Octobers have been colder so far

Cold Records Smashed in Denver

Just in time for melting polar ice caps that refuse to melt and rising sea levels that refuse to rise, Planet Moron together with Consensus Watch presents our official Global Warming Sweatshirt:

My parents fought Global Warming

Lousy Sweatshirt
And all I got was this lousy Sweatshirt!

J.

Welcome Daily Crux readers!

October 21, 2009 at 12:36 PM in Global Warming with CONSENSUS WATCH | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack