Global Warming: "Patently Absurd"

**smittythewelder** · 10-10-2011

One of your whacko liberal bureaucracies getting its funding cut is the US Coast Guard, which has been operating in the high Arctic since the 1880s. The USCG currently has ONE icebreaker, medium-duty, operating in the far north, and is begging Congress for enough money to rebuild one of their two old heavy icebreakers. The Russians have twenty five: six active heavies plus two mothballed heavies, fifteen others, and two leased from the Netherlands. The Russians expect that the next big military confrontation probably will be in the Arctic; a recent stunt was planting a Russian flag made of titanium on the seabed at the north pole. Other countries are nervously preparing: Finland and Sweden each have seven icebreakers, Canada has six and hopes to find funding for another six. Lisa Murkowski, Republican senator from Alaska has spoken out about Chinese marine activities in the Arctic, saying, "We don't think that they're just sightseeing". Evidently not; China is now building its first icebreaker.

None of this would be happening but for Arctic ice thinning dramatically in recent years, as the Coast Guard knows . . .knows better than all other parties offering commentary on the situation, having been operating in the region for some 130 years. NOBODY else (including, by its own admission, the US Navy, which is war-gaming Arctic scenarios and not telling us anything else about them) has anything like the credibility of the USCG and its scientists on this matter. The Coast Guard's one active icebreaker, the "Healy" (named for Michael Healy, captain of the "Bear" which was the first and longest-operating icebreaker) is a medium-duty vessel designed specifically for Arctic research. When the scientists of the "Healy" tell us global warming is a con-job, I'll believe it.

But of course the Coast Guard scientists are dupes or liars, in on the con so they can keep their cushy jobs and get us to buy them more boats. Right.

**Powerabout** · 10-10-2011

when they can prove its not a natural cycle of the planet instead of caused by man even by CO then I might listen.

There is a glacier in the south island of New Zealand, never seems to get a mention re global warming. I guess it doesnt agree with Al Gore

from wikipedia
"This cyclic behaviour is well illustrated by a postage stamp issued in 1946, depicting the view from St James Anglican Church. The church was built in 1931, with a panoramic altar window to take advantage of its location. By 1954, the glacier had disappeared from view from the church, but it reappeared in 1997. This is due to the highly variable conditions on the snowfield, which take around 5-6 years before they result in changes in the terminus location."

**smittythewelder** · 10-10-2011

[QUOTE (a previous post)]

So, global warming is happening in the north faster than at the equator???

[/QUOTE]

Yes. That's right, that's what's happening. That is what the Coast Guard, which has spent a century operating missions in both the Arctic and Antarctic as well as a great many other places, is seeing.

Contrary to Rush and Glenn and other radio talkshow entertainers who have learned how to line their own pockets by stirring up their audience with such hairbrained ideas as the one that says, "If global warming is real, why am I not seeing it here in Meadow Muffin, Iowa (or whereever)?" The great majority of atmospheric scientists, oceanographers, and yes, the Coast Guard and the naval commanders of the world, who believe in global warming, have NEVER said that its effects will be seen as a few degrees of warming uniformly felt world-wide, and have ALWAYS said that due to changes in oceanic and atmospheric heat flows from the increased heat/energy in the system, some places will actually get cooler as others get warmer. The northern rim of the Pacific, for example, has its climate modified by the Kuroshio, the Japan warm current, which even affects us here in the Northwest. If that current changes course, weakens, strengthens, our weather will change. Same thing is true of the north Atlantic with the Gulf Stream, which is more likely to change, and European futurists are in a cold sweat over what will happen to them.

And a majority of that majority believe that human activities are responsible for a warming trend that so far appears to be proceeding much faster that previous ones, by the evidence of tree rings, ice cores, geological deposits.

You can take almost any American's belief or disbelief in this matter, and from no more information about him than that you can make a bet on his political beliefs, and win often enough to line your own pockets. That is just weird; the national budget can be political, foreign policy, immigration, gay marriage, education reform, lots of things can get political, but how did one's opinion of matters of climatology become a litmus test for aspirants to Republican party nominations, national and local?