Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (76397)	1/5/2010 4:44:40 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 90947

Too cold in Peru? Blame global warming. By: David Freddoso Online Opinion Editor beltway-confidential 01/04/10 8:43 AM EST This article in The Guardian serves as just one more piece of proof that proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming will take any weather phenomenon whatsoever and explain it in terms of Global Warming -- including the cold. Mountain dwellers in Peru are now endangered by ever-colder temperatures, and "climate change" is blamed: <<< In a world growing ever hotter, Huancavelica is an anomaly. These communities, living at the edge of what is possible, face extinction because of increasingly cold conditions in their own microclimate, which may have been altered by the rapid melting of the glaciers. >>> It really looks like someone just tacked a Global Warming lede onto an unrelated article. No serious attempt is made in the article to explain the connection. (And no, the world has not been growing hotter since at least 1998.) In any case, the hyperbole continues: <<< Climate change campaigners and development NGOs say that the failure of Copenhagen has signed the death warrant for hundreds of thousands of the world's poorest and that a quarter of a million children will die before world leaders meet again to try to thrash out another deal at the United Nations next climate change conference in Mexico in December. Among them may be these children of the high mountains. >>> Simply assume the accuracy of the old carbon consensus, whose foundational data have been recently called into question. The writer of this article, or at least the "campaigners" cited, seem to be implying that there's a switch somewhere that can just change the temperature and carbon level in a matter of months or years. That's totally unrealistic. The effects of any Copenhagen agreement on carbon would not have been felt for many, many years, perhaps decades. (Although its destruction of American jobs would have been felt immediately.) The effects of any such agreement on temperature, if any, would have been even further delayed. washingtonexaminer.com