The Hammond Report

«Perhaps now Liberals will admit their claim that humans cause global warming is junk science and actually their way of instituting more government control over our economy and lives.»

Don't hold your breath...

There Will Be a Brief Intermission Before the End of the World

April 30 (Bloomberg) -- Parts of North America and Europe may cool naturally over the next decade, as shifting ocean currents temporarily blunt the global-warming effect caused by mankind, Germany's Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences said.

Average temperatures in areas such as California and France may drop over the next 10 years, influenced by colder flows in the North Atlantic, said a report today by the institution based in Kiel, Germany. Temperatures worldwide may stabilize in the period.

``Those natural climate variations could be stronger than the global-warming trend over the next 10-year period,'' Wood said in an interview. ``Without knowing that, you might erroneously think there's no global warming going on.''

(Yes, as the snow piles up outside, the polar ice caps return, and everything looks normal again--don't be fooled! The endof the world is still coming!)

The Global Warming that occured before of course wasn't natural. I'm still buckling down for another hot Montana summer...

Repent! Buy a snow blower before it's too late! The Winter of 2008-2009 will be the worst winter in 28 years!

Whichever way the wind blows it bodes ill for mankind, as our chickens are coming home to roost...

Oooh. Things that bode ill are scary. Like, wow, Old Testament stuff, you know?

We are doomed.

Andy: Are you sure you believe that man caused global warming is «junk science» or are you just simply repeating crap that you have read on conservative websites? Why does global warming have to be such a freaking partisan issue!!?? There is an army of scientists (who do not have time for politics) who believe, without reservation, that man has caused some portion of the global warming we now see. By comparison, there is a tiny handful of «scientists» who claim it is some kind of liberal conspiracy to rule the world.

Where do you intend to drill after you have exploited ANWR? I personally would like to see gas exceed $5 or even $10 per gallon. Why? Because then maybe everyone (liberal and conservatives alike) in this country will finally realize that it is now time to rethink the way we live and take ACTION. At least buy a freaking Prius for God's sake and let go of the SUV.

Andy: By the way, your beloved president who you say is going to go down in history as a great president is FULLY in support of corn based ethanol. He was blathering about it the other day in his press conference. Corn ethanol is a freaking joke and you have pretty much agreed per your writing above.

Andy: And what will your children's children do when there is no more oil in the gulf of Mexico? BTW, we ARE drilling there already and have been for quite some time.

I take it you also disagree with Bush on the notion that man is NOT causing global warming? Even Bush agrees that man is causing global warming. So, your great president supports corn based ethanol and the theory that man is causing global warming. How could he be such a great president if you disagree with him so much?

How do you feel about the consensus on the theory of evolution? Is it just a big sham to keep us away from Jesus?

If gas is $10 per gallon you can bet that the free market will find another source of energy and the oil company profits will not get in the way of that! I am well aware of the importance of oil in our economy and the fact that it is used in countless products The consumption of oil for fuel, however, is the driving force behind the industry. I am not willing to forsake the future of the planet for cheaper gas prices.

I read all kinds of things both liberal and conservative. I have yet to find an «anti-global warming» website without SIGNIFICANT ties to the conservative agenda.

What is my point? I cannot take a person seriously who feels that all the fossils in the ground are just some kind of grand hoax on Christianity. At some point, I suspect the theory of man caused global warming will reach the same level of acceptance wherein people who insist on believing that man can do whatever he wishes with no consequence will be seen as ridiculous.

What do you agree with Bush on... the notion that the Iraqi people are going to embrace democracy? Yeah, right.

Bill, here's an interesting scientific article that has nothing to do with global warming. The Origin of Petroleum Any discussion of petroleum as a current and future source of energy must include a discussion of how oil is formed. I'm of the opinion that oil is not a fossil fuel, but is a renewal and abiotic resource. Some experts claim that the reserves of oil are off by perhaps a factor of over 100. link

Of course, the clean and efficient use of petroleum products is a good and admiral goal. But please leave out the hysterical comments that normally follow the increasingly insane rantings of global warming adherants. I assume you are much above that. I won't be challenged about a stupid assumption that I don't love children and want them to drink dirty water and the such.

Bill, at least you are consistent in claiming you want high prices for oil. A lot of your contemporaries are pretty darned angry about the price of fuel, and they blame Bush for it.

Do you give Bush credit for the high cost of diesel and gasoline? If you think he caused it, you should be praising him! I'd think if you like high prices of oil, and you want Democrats in office, then you'd be giving the Democrats the credit for the high cost of oil. Why aren't the democrats standing up and shouting «DANG RIGHT GAS COSTS A LOT, AND WE WANT IT TO COST MORE!»

Don't hear anything but complaints. I guess liberals don't know what they want.

I agree that our form of government is «exceptional» and that we are lucky to live here but that is just our opinion. The notion that it «...should be the model for the world» imposes our will upon others. GW himself spoke of the wrongness of «nation building» way back in one of the early presidential debates. I guess he forgot about that.

Of course, it seems only logical to us that anyone sane would embrace democracy but that is simply not true. Their culture is completely foreign to us. They have a completely different set of values you and I cannot understand. Nevertheless, I DO hope that they embrace democracy. Nothing better could happen. I think it is more realistic, however, to see it for the black hole that it is. Democracy is NOT taking hold in Iraq. Going into Iraq was flat-out a stupid, stupid decision. It is costing us hundreds of millions of dollars every single day to say nothing of the loss of life on both sides of the battlefield. How long will we have to hemorrhage our tax dollars «building a nation» in Iraq and for what?!? The incredibly remote possibility that the installation of a democratic government transcends all culture/history in Iraq and spreads throughout the middle east? Sounds like a fantasy to me but if this come to be then you will be correct... GW will be a hero. I am not holding my breath.

You speak of «our way of life» and that you hope others could have the same freedoms. You must realize that in many cultures throughout the world our «way of life» is reviled. Just because we love it does not mean others should be forced to «enjoy» the same.

Cardiac: You do you realize I only mentioned fossils in the context of evolution, do you not?

Also, I would have thought it was plainly evident why I said I would like to see higher gas prices that being because of the natural result... the forced development of an alternative, cleaner fuel. Frankly, if you have traveled anywhere else in the world you would know that gasoline in America is actually pretty damn cheap but that does not mean I enjoy paying as much as possible. Do you understand the figurative nature of my argument now? I know it might be difficult for someone who probably sees the world in black and white stripes but just do your best. That is all I ask.

Actually Bill, your context of mentioning fossils in any context when talking about petroleum products was exactly the reason I presented some non-conservative sources that begin the process of bringing the global warming skam into proper context. Kind of like the people that cite as fact the 2500 scientists that signed the IPCC report. The truth is that only 51 people signed that report, the 2500 is the number of reviewers. Period. They reviewed the report. Almost none of the reviewers agreed with the total report.

Global warming adherants lead with the argument that the argument is over, when in fact nothing is further from the truth.

I bet you learned in grade school, like I did, that oil is a fossil fuel. Today, most geologists believe that oil is abiotic. There are still those that believe that oil is a fossil fuel, and there is much discussion in scientific circles yet. Those in disagreement are not insulted. The understanding of where and how oil is produced is a very important matter and could and should influence our attitudes towards it's use. The argument is ongoing and the processes are much better understood than that of global warming, and yet those espousing global warming as concensus science are bitterly clinging to the idea that guys like me just don't understand something they don't.

To put it bluntly, I think the argument that global warming is settled science is childish for some and political for others.

Bill, your last paragraph is a perfect example of leftist thinking, first you say you like to pay higher gas prices, and conclude that you don't enjoy paying that much. Then comes the idea that as a natural result of high prices development of an alternate, cleaner fuel would be forced. Alternate I agree with, cleaner is not evident. For instance, I'm not convinced that ethonal production and implementation will be cleaner. Finally, the idea that somehow your argument is figurative in nature is obvious, because there is nothing concrete about it.

I also loved how you concluded with the idea that I see only in black and white stripes. How wonderfully delicious that you had to sign off with an insult. Now go ahead and settle back into your comfortable little world of insulting people who disagree with you by claiming we hate children or are blind to science or somehow are vision is distorted or we don't have proper concern for nature. You bring nothing to the table.

«most geologists believe that oil is abiotic» is a completely false statement. However, I do not intend to get into an abiotic oil theory debate with you. It could not be more irrelevant but I am sure you will tell me that is just my opinion.

You find it «delicious» that I would sign off with an insult? Well, bon appetit. The first communication between you and I was a post from you in which the tenor of the entire email was crass, condescending and full of insult. Now you accuse me of the same behavior? Hmmm.

AGAIN, any fool [<-- yes that is indeed an insult] would have interpreted that my initial post about high gas prices was a statement about some members of the general public's unwillingness to truly sacrifice much in the way of consumption. Lets look at what I actually said: «I ...would like to see gas exceed $5 or even $10 per gallon. Why? Because then maybe everyone... will finally realize that it is now time to rethink the way we live...» You took that statement and politicized it into a ridiculous tirade and later implied that I have been caught red handed in some grand contradiction with the following:

«...first you say you like to pay higher gas prices, and conclude that you don't enjoy paying that much. Then comes the idea that as a natural result of high prices development of an alternate, cleaner fuel would be forced...»

Ridiculous. There is no contradiction here. I will grant you that I did not mean to imply, as it could have been read, that the «automatic» result of higher gas prices would be cleaner fuel the next day. If you read any of my posts before you came into this game you would have known that I too believe (unlike Prez Bush) that corn based ethanol is a sham. Hell, sugar cane ethanol is a joke too considering the devastation that is occurring in Brazil as a result of the agricultural expansion. I do believe, however, in our ability to make technology work for us in a significantly cleaner, renewable and even sustainable manner. Maybe there just needs to be more motivation and less obstruction.

You and I are going to get nowhere fast with this little discussion. You believe oil is infinite and that humans are not destroying the earth. I, on the other hand, do not care whether oil is infinite or finite and I do believe that humans, in far too many ways, are destroying the earth. So, do you just want to keep slinging insults around or drop it?

Typical liberal. When you tell a liberal what they have just written they think it's an insult.

Why aren't the democrats standing up and shouting DANG RIGHT GAS COSTS A LOT, AND WE WANT IT TO COST MORE?

Jesus, Cardiac! Can you read?! Go ahead and keep spinning like a top. Off with you.

Bill, calm down. You sure excite easy. Of course I can read. Why, I was just reading this article by Walter Williams Environmentalists' Wild Predictions over at townhall. Wonderful reading, and I especially enjoy the comments. I won't assume you can't read, but I will point out this from the article:

This is rather amusing.

That quote again. (If this fails I'll go dig up my xhtml reference book.)

Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity? When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming?

Like I said, «Off with you». Read that.

Bill,
This is Mr. Hammond's blog. If he wishes me to quit posting I will cease immediately. In the meantime, if you don't want to read my posts, why do you?

I think this is a very legitimate question, so I'll ask it again:
Why aren't the democrats standing up and shouting DANG RIGHT GAS COSTS A LOT, AND WE WANT IT TO COST MORE?

Let's just say I am fascinated by the willful ignorance displayed by some in this world. That is why I read your posts. My fascination, however, in this case has worn thin and I am done.

Your question was asked and answered. I am not going to go through it again. In fact, I will even give you the last word here. Go ahead and respond to this post with some kind of insulting drivel and we'll just leave it at that. Sound okay to you?