Warming q&a

-----------------------
The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info
-----------------------

Last updated on July 16th, 2017 at 09:46 am

Gary Witzenburg sets folk straight on the Global Warmenology.

Posted by Tim B. on 10/04/2007 at 10:06 AM
    1. An absolutely first rate piece of work by Gary Witzenburg. In addition to sticking to the facts, he demonstrated a high level of restraint in the face of some dizzyingly uninformed provocation.

      Posted by paco on 2007 10 04 at 10:23 AM • permalink

 

    1. Oh—oh, this makes me mad—this letter he got states a flat-out, fatheaded lie:

      My parents in South Florida complain that summer now lasts from February to December, as compared to March to September when I was a kid there.

      You little lying beast. I have lived in Florida for my entire 44 years, the first 36 in South Florida, and I can tell you now that NEVER has summer been only “from March to September.” The so-called “winter” season has always been a few weeks in January, if that many. When I was a child I experienced “cold” (in the 40s, Fahrenheit) Christmases, and warm (in the 80s and 90s) Christmases, and there were years when the temperature didn’t ever drop below 55, and years when we had frosts in November. The winter weather in South Florida depends upon how long the prevailing winds will bring down the cold from up north—I compare the effect to leaving the refrigerator door open to cool a room. And I can tell you that the past couple of years have actually seen a cooler (relatively speaking) trend. And one more thing—summers up here in Central Florida, away from the sea breeze that cools the coast, are always hotter, with many days in the 100s, which is rare in South Florida. This fool is either lying or his parents have simply finally got over the romance of living in the subtropics.

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2007 10 04 at 10:31 AM • permalink

 

    1. Wow, he’ll be burned at the stake in no time for that bit of heresy.

      Assuming one can be burned in a non-CO2 generating fashion, that is.

      Posted by Mr. Bingley on 2007 10 04 at 10:49 AM • permalink

 

    1. Your [sic] the Dufuss!

      Oh please… doofus…d-o-o-f-u-s.

      #4, specifically.

      Posted by El Cid on 2007 10 04 at 11:22 AM • permalink

 

    1. Well, that went straight to the “AMMO” folder in my bookmarks. Thanks, Tim.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2007 10 04 at 11:24 AM • permalink

 

    1. Last time I saw the name Gary Witzenburg, he was being gently ribbed in the pages of Car & Driver. The editors referred to him a couple of times in an article about a race in which several car magazines had fielded teams—The Longest Day at Nelson Ledges, IIRC.

      Each time his name appeared, it was surrounded by quote marks, as if it were a pseudonym.  I never quite got the inside joke, but I’ve adopted it in my professional life.

      Posted by Rittenhouse on 2007 10 04 at 11:26 AM • permalink

 

    1. OH real nice people…NOW it seems, I’ve incriminated myself.

      Couldn’t someone post so #4, would seem to mean…#4? Jesus!

      Posted by El Cid on 2007 10 04 at 11:26 AM • permalink

 

    1. Good thing we have our Witz about us.

      Posted by SoberHT on 2007 10 04 at 11:33 AM • permalink

 

    1. So we should risk destroying existing businesses that support millions of Americans to create new ones that address global warming, real or not? Could potentially lucrative business opportunities be driving global warming advocates who say they want to “save our planet?”

      Bingo!

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2007 10 04 at 11:57 AM • permalink

 

    1. Convincing arguments for skepticism aside, it won’t change a single mind as long as this whole thing remains a matter of faith and, for many people, an extension of personal identity. We’ll probably just have to ride this wave of madness out, with all of its attendant costs, personal, social and economic, until the next shiny bauble of secular evangelical fervor washes through the mainstream.

      Posted by rick mcginnis on 2007 10 04 at 11:59 AM • permalink

 

    1. Leftwing idiot commenter –

      “The U.S. is going to have to adapt to prevailing engineering challenges, real or not, or risk falling behind big time. Bottom line: global warming, real or not, offers tremendous business opportunities.”

      Gary Witzenburg –

      So we should risk destroying existing businesses that support millions of Americans to create new ones that address global warming, real or not? Could potentially lucrative business opportunities be driving global warming advocates who say they want to “save our planet?”

      You mean like Al Gore and his $500 a person AIT lectures?  Or Flim Flam Flannery and his $50,000 speaking fees?  Or the hundreds of former high school chess club nerds who never had a date, later became climatologists, and now have millions of dollars in government grants at stake?

      There’s a possibility there, yes.

      Posted by wronwright on 2007 10 04 at 12:07 PM • permalink

 

    1. Hey RebeccaH, I was going to write “BINGO” too.  But I felt the people here expected more of me.  Note I included the comment by the leftwing commenter and well, yours did not.  I expect a little extra in my pay packet from Tim this week.

      Posted by wronwright on 2007 10 04 at 12:11 PM • permalink

 

    1. Expect the voices in the goreball warmening choir to become even more caustic and strident as it finally begins to dawn on them that we’re (specifically we in the US, but also worldwide I think) not going to do much of anything about The Biggest Threat We’ve Ever Faced Since the Beginning of Time. No carbon taxes, no caps, no vast outlays of public money, no onerous mandates for automobile manufacturers and energy producers. Read it and weep, warmmongering zealots.

      Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2007 10 04 at 12:39 PM • permalink

 

    1. no onerous mandates for automobile manufacturers and energy producers.

      No such luck, Kyda. The SCOTUS recently ruled that CO2 is a pollutant (!) and the EPA must treat it as such. The new era of Strangled Pussified Automobiles will soon be upon us.

      The Leftards successfully brought back the Sixties, now we’re doomed to re-live the Seventies again.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2007 10 04 at 01:25 PM • permalink

 

    1. #12 I expect a little extra in my pay packet from Tim this week.

      *cough* *choke* HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

      Ahem.  Excuse me… (stifles giggle).

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2007 10 04 at 01:27 PM • permalink

 

    1. (wronwright reads RebeccaH’s comment while counting)

      … hundred twenty, hundred forty, hundred sixty … hey, how did that Aussie twenty get in my packet?

      (wronwright wads up the $20 and tosses it away)

      … hundred eighty, two hundred …

      Posted by wronwright on 2007 10 04 at 02:41 PM • permalink

 

    1. No such luck, Kyda. The SCOTUS recently ruled that CO2 is a pollutant (!) and the EPA must treat it as such. The new era of Strangled Pussified Automobiles will soon be upon us.

      Uh oh, the Pussified Automobile Car Operations will be sure to capitalize on this trend…..

      Posted by Old Tanker on 2007 10 04 at 03:32 PM • permalink

 

    1. Incapable of producing anything of actual value, Gore and his fellows produce indulgences to sell to the products of their educational systems, pieces of paper with all the value of a Confederate dollar.  They calculate that the loot will last long enough that they won’t personally suffer the consequences of their destruction of the Industrial Revolution.

      Posted by saltydog on 2007 10 04 at 05:35 PM • permalink

 

    1. #2 Andrea

      You little lying beast.

      The same could also be said of nearly ALL the AGW cultists’ claims.

      Posted by Spiny Norman on 2007 10 04 at 05:35 PM • permalink

 

    1. #10 I think you’re right Rick. I’ve given up arguing about it with people. We’ll just have to wait until the gloomier scenarios don’t come off, or the temperature takes a sustained dive or something. Even then I’m sure it will take several years of attrition to substantially kill it off. Fanaticism has a long half life.

      It doesn’thelp that in Australia some parts of the country are having a prolonged drought. Despite that droughts have always been part of the landscape here, it’s easy for people to point to it as if its proof of man-made global warming.

      Posted by Francis H on 2007 10 04 at 05:57 PM • permalink

 

    1. I wondered where that twenty dollars went!Still counting, wron? I hope you realise those kind of executive bonuses come straight out of the pittance we lower minions get…when we’re lucky.

      From the comments in the Witzenburg piece, I wonder how many average Joes out there confuse CO2 with pollution. Can’t blame them, I guess, when that’s what the courts call it. Something about the article reminded me of people complaining (in Queensland, of course, where else?) how daylight saving would fade their curtains. What a crazy little world it is.

      Posted by Dminor on 2007 10 04 at 10:37 PM • permalink

 

    1. In Columbus’ time, the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat.

      Good article but I think he might have that bit wrong. Oh and I believe the Kilimanjaro glacier is sublimating, not evaporating; but perhaps that is just pedantry.

      Posted by WhereverYouGo,ThereYouAre on 2007 10 04 at 10:37 PM • permalink

 

    1. #14–No such luck, Kyda. The SCOTUS recently ruled that CO2 is a pollutant (!) and the EPA must treat it as such. The new era of Strangled Pussified Automobiles will soon be upon us.

      Yes, I was very disappointed in that ruling, but it wasn’t quite as narrow as that. The Court ruled that the EPA has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobile emissions. It did force the EPA to regulate automobile emissions, but did say that the agency could not sidestep its authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal. So, there’s still hope. A lower court already threw out a suit brought by the California AG against auto makers because the judge ruled the plaintiffs would not be able to prove that auto emissions were responsible for the weather/climate-related conditions and damages they claimed. Of course, suing the EPA to Do Something is another matter.

      In any event, I don’t see even a Democratic president teamed with a Democratic Congress cooking up legislation that would threaten perhaps the very survival of the American automobile business or significantly raise gas and energy costs. They may be many things, but politically suicidal they’re not (or they would have de-funded the war by now).

      Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2007 10 04 at 11:14 PM • permalink

 

    1. Kyda

      I believe that Senator Dingel of MICHIGAN is about to propose a 50 cents per gallon tax to fight global waarming.

      Posted by yojimbo on 2007 10 05 at 12:35 AM • permalink

 

    1. Cold air has a tendency to be drier. Gravity seems to pull on water when it changes from gas to liquid. Go figure…

      Posted by Franklin on 2007 10 05 at 12:53 AM • permalink

 

    1. Just a few slight problems to corect.

      That’s Rep. Dingell not Senator Dingel!

      He in fact has “draft legislation that would do the following.

      A 50 buck per ton tax on carbon produced from coal and petroleum products and natural gas.

      A 50 cent per gallon tax on gas, jet fuel etc.

      A phasing out of the mortgage deduction for homes in excess of 3000 square feet with 0
      deduction for 4200 feet and up.

      You want the right to revise and extend your previous remarks?  🙂

      Did I mention his district is DEARBORN!

      Posted by yojimbo on 2007 10 05 at 12:59 AM • permalink

 

    1. It’s all a dodge, Yojimbo. Dingell has been complaining all along that Congress better not even consider putting the whole burden on Michigan by merely raising CAFE standards and calling it a job well done. So, as a distraction, he introduced legislation that would spread the (significant) pain around knowing full well it hasn’t a goreball’s chance in hell of going anywhere. His colleagues are having none of it and even he admits his proposal is meant to demonstrate that Americans won’t stand for major changes in our energy-rich lifestyles.

      Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2007 10 05 at 01:25 AM • permalink

 

    1. Update: What is John Dingell Up To? No good, says Marlo Lewis, based on the “white paper” he issued yesterday. Planet Gore

      Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2007 10 05 at 02:03 AM • permalink

 

    1. Parcel, parcel, I got a parcel!
      I’ll email later.
      Thanks!(it wasn’t ticking, either)

      Posted by kae on 2007 10 05 at 02:52 AM • permalink

 

    1. #20
      Tell me about it Francis H.

      Posted by kae on 2007 10 05 at 03:03 AM • permalink

 

    1. #30
      A classic example of “Rip’n’Read” (to use the TV term).
      Unless, of course, Brian Williams wrote the original press release.

      Posted by lotocoti on 2007 10 05 at 05:37 AM • permalink

 

    1. #9: Here’s proof.

      Jeff Immelt of GE and a bunch of other CEOs are demanding tough global-warming laws. I say we boycott these companies before it’s too late:

      GE
      Alcoa
      BP
      Lehman Brothers
      DuPont

      Posted by Tommy Shanks on 2007 10 05 at 05:50 AM • permalink

 

    1. Just this morning, I read in the Tampa Tribune that TECO (Tampa Electric Co.) has canceled plans to build build a generating plant due to greenhouse gas concerns.

      Chuck Black, president of Tampa Electric, said the utility’s decision to cancel the $2 billion, 630-megawatt coal-gasification plant project was partially influenced by Gov. Charlie Crist’s policy to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas many scientists have linked to global warming.

      The governor’s opposition to coal is worrying to utility executives, who must find new ways to meet Florida’s increasing thirst for electricity. If coal is no longer an option, where will utilities get the energy they need to meet demand?

      We in Florida have already experienced “rolling blackouts” due to insufficient power during spells of cold weather. I doubt that Global Warming will alleviate the problem. More power plants will.

      Posted by ErnieG on 2007 10 05 at 08:58 AM • permalink

 

  1. A staggering view from the NZ Royal Society. I suspect that the professor must have a Faith based degree as he seems to have abandoned science.

    1. DROWNING IN IT – SANITATION AND CLIMATE CHANGE
    Comment by Academy Councillor, Professor Keith Hunter FRSNZhttp://www.rsnz.org/news/sciencealert.php

    “ It is discouraging to see that the media in New Zealand, which is generally not known for the quality of its scientific
    journalism, continues to pay so much attention to the ravings of the
    various climate change deniers in our midst. Naysaying of this nature can
    be very dangerous and counter-productive.

    During his recent visit to Dunedin, Tim Flannery pointed out that this is
    not the first time that human society has had to rescue itself from
    impending environmental disaster. “

    Frankly, with two degrees in Geology under my belt, and vivid memories of being warned in the 1960’s of the imminent Ice Age around the corner, his comments make me proud to align myself with those that he despises.

    Posted by KimW on 2007 10 06 at 07:13 AM • permalink