Thursday, January 20, 2011

Where is the rejoicing?


Where is the rejoicing??? We have heard years of whines and complaints about the Arctic ice melting and (wipe my eyes free of the tears) how this is killing the (wipe them again, sob, sniff) pretty polar bears.

But when the Arctic Ice is, as it is now, ABOVE the long term average, there is SILENCE, not cheering from those most vocal about saving the (gotta wipe a few more tears here, sigh, wait a minute while I compose myself).....polar bear who can't fend for himself if we don't (loud crying here) stop using fossil fuels. Today the Arctic ice is above the long term (1979-2008) average. Where is the cheering?

Could it be that the lack of cheering is because polar bears are really only a pawn in their political gamesmanship? The polar bear isn't what they are worried about, it is political control.

Below is the current ice extent anomaly. Pardon me while I go off an cry because of the lack of truthfulness among the global warming hysteriacs

Picture from :http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.1.html

3 comments:

  1. Glad you're back. Insights and new perspectives matter.

    You are right about the lack of rejoicing. The agenda has become more important than the underlying reality. One would think that evidence of disaster forestalled would be worth celebrating. Of course, that only applies if the disaster was well-known to have been real.

    Makes one wonder about how many "environmentalists" are merely conforming to the popular trend.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the kind comment. Currently I work day and night as well as weekends. I am enjoying it but I miss the fun of the blog.

    ReplyDelete
  3. People refusing to celebrate over good news? There is something suspicious about that. It reminds me of a piece of advice my dad gave me, regarding women: “Son, never trust a brunette with blonde roots.”

    Thanks, Dad. I updated your wisdom for my kids, “Never trust a doomsayer who cries when his doom du jour is rendered less likely."

    ReplyDelete