I Blame Global Warming

Not since 1918 had the temperature dropped so low on Sept. 21 in Macon.
At 6:24 a.m. Thursday, the city set a record low of 47 degrees, which is 15 degrees below normal, according to the National Weather Service Office at Peachtree City.



  1. Mike says:

    The scientific community back in the 70’s must have been correct. All this damn pollution is finally blocking enough sunlight to cause global cooling. We’re all doomed!…..doomed I tell ya!

  2. rugby_fan says:

    I don’t think we can wait and see if global warming is true or not but, one thing to take in mind is that the world’s climate changes every 10000 years or so and considering past data, this models the end of an ice age (which we we are currently in).

  3. rugby_fan says:

    One final comment,

    If global warming actually exists, why (as you point out here) have the last couple of summers here in Georgia been milder than the previous?


  4. Eddie T says:

    Erick, you’ve got to be smarter than that–surely you’re not on the “global warming doesn’t exist despite what approaching EVERY peer-reviewed environmental scientist believe to be true: I have my own theory” bandwagon.

    The jury is not out on global warming. There’s more scientific consensus on global warming than just about every other scientific belief we take to be true.

  5. Bill Simon says:


    The problem is, this planet may have been on a warming track for thousands of years. More sun spots produce more heat being delivered through the vacuum of space which produces more radiation coming to Earth.

    Go take a course in simple statistics, would ya? You and Al Gore remind me of people who are terminally ignorant.

  6. rugby_fan says:

    Mr. Simon,

    the problem is, in addition to your valid skepticism, that global warming is exacerbating the climate change, and doing it at a rapid and dangerous pace.

  7. Mad Dog says:


    I can’t hang with ya on this one.

    Even if the climate is due for a change, or is changing, why ignore human effects that are clearly known?

    Here’s an example for man to control (MAYBE) his immediate future.

    psssst… most people are terminally ignorant.

    (In elections without partisan identification, if the list of candidates is alphabetic, the trend shows we elect Allen long before Zogby. Maybe that why he polls?) j/k on some of that.

    Have a good weekend.

  8. jsm says:

    Do some research on Greenland. Where do you think it got its name?

    Apparently, the Vikings settled on Greenland when it was GREEN about 1,000 years ago. Some 300 years or so later, Earth’s cooling froze their land and drove them out. Ice cores give evidence of the changes, which apparently are ignored by many so-called scientists. Similar evidence comes from the Fremont Glacier in Wyoming where there appears to have been a rapid natural warming between 1845 and 1855, before industrialization.


    Other insight:

  9. Bill Simon says:

    If you folks truly believe in evolution, then the climate is also evolving. As to whether or not a person can define it as evolving “at a dangerous pace,” what does that mean if you are an evolutionist? You don’t think there’s a God who actually cares about whether or not the “climate changes” adversely affect the human species or the prooerty they own.

    Get it straight people. Either there is God who is controlling everything or there isn’t any being controlling anything, and what is happeneing is happening all on its own…like random volcanic eruptions.

  10. Demonbeck says:

    That’s cuz you support Georgia beaches and go to Tybee Island. If you went to South Florida the water would look much bluer.

  11. Chris says:

    1) This past summer was a lot warmer than the past few – at least based on my perception and kw/h usage.
    2) Erick, don’t joke about Global Warming. I saw Day After Tomorrow. Next thing you know the ice-hurricanes will come and will all be living in Mexico.
    3) Blue water means there is no microscopic organisms living in it, dirty-brown/green indicates life. I guess when it comes to swimming in the ocean I’m an anti-life kinda guy.

  12. jkga says:

    To Erick and jsm – I’m not sure if you’re really understanding the “global” part of global warming. Local and regional climate changes are common. For the most part, like the cooling of Greenland, these can be attributed to particular causes. (In the case of Greenland, I don’t recall the details, but it had something to do with a shift in ocean currents. It’s not something that scientists ignore, it’s something that has a different explanation, other than greenhouse gas effects.)

    But the important thing is that these are changes in the *distribution* of heat across the globe. Global warming is a trend that is perceived from the sum total of all climate data taken across the world. The fact that local factors, or random noise, lead to a cooling trend in one spot or another does *not* undermine the evidence for global warming.

  13. Chris says:

    So I guess that explains why it’s back up into the 90s already, and hovering around 80 degrees outside now at 11pm.

  14. jsm says:


    The global warming myth is also based on about 100 years of temperature data along with about 1,000 years of anecdotal data. No matter how old one believes the Earth to be, we’re looking at a very small sliver of evidence.

    Scientists are increasingly less likely to claim global warming due to “local and regional climate changes” that I referred to. That ought to tell us something.

  15. jkga says:

    Hi JSM,

    You know, you can find scientists who believe just about anything. But, I’m still inclined to place my trust in the vast majority of scientists who agree that CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions are leading to a warmer Earth and that this trend is likely to get worse.

    I have a hard time understanding why some people go with the small minority. I guess it is the same reason that some people with serious illnesses turn to New Age crystals and such – they believe what comforts them.

    The models that predict a range of outcomes – from an uncomfortably warmer future to something more catastrophic – are based on physics. I know from studying chemistry and physics that CO2 absorbs IR radiation much more than it absorbs light; adding CO2 to the atmosphere does increase the retention of heat.

    Knowing that isn’t enough to convince me that CO2 is a problem. Adding that to the correlation between recent temperature and CO2 increases, and between geological temperature and CO2 increases, makes me think this is a very important topic for study. The fact that the climate modelers with access to the best data and the fastest computers are in essentially universal agreement on the significance of CO2 in driving warming convinces me that action is warranted.

    I recommend http://www.realclimate.org/
    for expert information and debate on all these topics.

  16. gatormathis says:

    It goes back to that poem,
    In 1492,
    Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
    They been calling it blue ever since.

    Like I got this snowcone maker.
    You have blue rasberry, bubblegum, and a couple more blues. You ask a kid, “What flavor?”, he says, “blue”.
    When did “blue” get to be a flavor?

  17. jsm says:


    I appreciate your point of view, but I’m not going to go with the perceived majority just because they are the majority. I have researched information from scientists on both sides of this issue, and I’m convinced that “global warming” is natural and essentially unaffected by human activity.

    There are so many questions and untested theories out there regarding temperature changes that no one can be certain of the cause of temperature trends. This is why I have a problem with a scientist adamantly stating that rising global temperatures are due to CO2 production by human industry.

    Be careful saying “essentially universal agreement.” It doesn’t exist on this issue.

  18. jkga says:


    You say that no one can be certain of the cause of temperature trends. Then you also say that you’re convinced that it is natural and unaffected by human activity. I don’t see how you can have it both ways.

    It is true is that in the past, there have been severe climate changes for reasons other that industrial activity. That tells us that the current trends are not necessarily from a greenhouse effect, but it doesn’t tell us that the current trends are natural either.

    For the sake of argument, let’s say that there isn’t complete certainty. (Which is true, there never is; we should keep in mind that this uncertainty means the models might be underpredicting the negative consequences of CO2 emissions.) Then the question becomes a weighing of

    1) the potential for negative consequences of rapid climate change.

    2) the potential that reducing greenhouse gas reduction can make a difference


    3) the costs of such reductions (and, while we’re at it, any benefits unrelated to climate change).

    I don’t see any room for argument about (1). Even if some locations get a “better” climate than they have now – and I’m guessing Georgia won’t be one of those places – rapid uncontrollable change causes economic inefficiency and social disruption. The historical record shows that rapid climate change, no matter the cause, can occur and can be painful.

  19. jsm says:

    Historically, rapid climate change has not been connected with any human influence. Since there’s nothing we could do about this kind of event, why even make it part of the discussion?

    You got me on semantics. I am convinced against human effects on global warming. That doesn’t mean that I’m 100% sure. That’s just the conclusion I have come to with relative certainty. One day I and those who agree with me may be proven wrong, but I highly doubt it. The opposite is also possible.

    With any scientific study, I start with the fact that science is nothing more than knowledge gained by observation. Observations can be distorted and/or misunderstood. Therefore, I allow for error in any theory and scrutinize it as best I can before coming to any personal conclusion. Since we rely on the work of myriad scientists, we must compare varying opinions and experimental outcomes.

    I believe that since greater rapid temperature changes have apparently occurred outside of theoretical human influence than have been proposed as a result of such influence, global warming is a natural occurence to which the earth will adjust as it has in the past. I believe earth’s atmosphere maintains a balance within the colossal universe that is nearly impossible for human life to upset.

    That doesn’t mean I’m against reducing harmful emissions, but I think we need to be reasonable. Most of the hype around global warming has been fearmongering, grandstanding, and efforts to hold U.S. industry back to the benefit of the third world (Kyoto Protocol). These factors have taken much of the credibility from the so-called “threat” of global warming.

  20. Demonbeck says:

    I’d like to know why the increase in the world’s temperature has not created more cloud coverage.

    One would think that with increased temperatures water around the world would evaporate at much higher rates thereby creating more or larger clouds resulting ultimately in cooling the Earth.

  21. jkga says:


    I’m going to call you on your semantics again.
    Historically, only lightning caused forest fires. There’s nothing we can do about lightning. Does that mean we shouldn’t take steps to reduce forest fires produced by humans, or to reduce the spread of forest fires before we’re absolutely sure that they were started by people?

    It is comforting to think that earth’s atmosphere maintains a balance that is difficult to upset. However, I think that you and I agree that climate can be very unstable, and that even over the course of a few hundred years climate change from natural causes can have devastating consequences. I’ve little confidence that the natural order of things is going to lead to stability.

    Whether human activity can make a difference – I think that we’ve seen it make a difference in the ozone layer question. The hole in the ozone layer was expanding; steps were taken to curb very specific chemicals; and now the growth has slowed. It’s not a big problem except for people living in Australia or Chile, but the community of scientists who figured all that out are the ones who are now mostly focused on CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

    I’m glad you’re not against reducing harmful emissions. I don’t really follow how Kyoto can take away credibility from the science associated with global warming; I’m sure that some people would let their political or economic interests determine their opinions about what is or isn’t good science, but I’m going to assume you aren’t one of them. I still don’t exactly understand the process by which you were convinced.

    Just to recap where I’m basing my assessment, we know that we’re putting a lot of new CO2 in the air, and we know that CO2 levels are at high levels compared to the geological record, and we’re pretty sure that the Earth is heating up, and we know that CO2 blocks more heat from leaving than it blocks light from entering. I’d call that something like “actionable evidence”. I don’t have the expertise to call it a “slam dunk”, but that’s what the majority of the experts seem to think.

  22. jkga says:

    Demonbeck – I think that increased cloud cover has been included in climate modeling, and is predicted to slow warming exactly as you say. However, water vapor – humidity that hasn’t condensed into visible droplets as clouds or fog – is transparent to light but not to heat, so it acts to *accelerate* global warming.

    Here’s some discussion by experts about the importance of this type of feedback. From what I gather, these two effects of increased water evaporation may roughly cancel out.


  23. Mad Dog says:


    Good of you to point out the two faced logic used so often by conservatives.

    “We know it’s going to happen, therefore we have to do something NOW!” (One person voting twice. Mexicans crossing the Delaware. The Liberal Race reproducing. Multiple orgasms in males. Sexual predators getting elected to the House of Representatives and emailing teenaged pages. Ops, that already happened. Some judge deciding who will be the next President. Ops, that happened, too. Judicial assassination to balance the Supreme Court. OPS! That doesn’t bother Republicans or Conservatives. Running out of oil! Fuel efficiency in automobiles! — got to nip that in the bud, eh, Barney Fife? …)

    But, when it comes to global warming and the end of life as we know it.

    “Shrug. What me worry?”

Comments are closed.