Gore was seated in the first row, along with his six fellow board members, in Apple’s Town Hall auditorium as several stockholders took turns either bashing or praising his high-profile views on climate change.

At the first opportunity for audience participation just several minutes into the proceeding, a longtime and well-known Apple shareholder–some would say gadfly–who introduced himself as Sheldon, stood at the microphone and urged against Gore’s re-election to the board. Gore “has become a laughingstock. The glaciers have not melted,” Sheldon said, referring to Gore’s views on global warming. “If his advice he gives to Apple is as faulty as his views on the environment then he doesn’t need to be re-elected.”

Via JammieWearingFool.

It would be hard to concoct a statement more disqualifying of somebody who presumes to write about matters of science than this:

Climate change science is a wondrous intellectual activity. Great scientific minds have learned over the course of many decades to “read” the Earth’s history, in order to understand how the climate system works.

Related: Is There Any Problem Jeffrey Sachs Can’t Solve?

H/T Mike B.

July 2009:

The Bay Area just had its foggiest May in 50 years. And thanks to global warming, it’s about to get even foggier.

February 2010:

The sight of Golden Gate Bridge towering above the fog will become increasing rare as climate change warms San Francisco bay, scientists have found.

My prediction for a report circa 2011:

The amount of fog over the San Francisco bay this year is perfectly normal. Almost too normal– indeed, eerily normal. It can only be attributed to the global warming that imperils our planet.

H/T Mike B.

Via the White House Flickr/self-parody feed.

Via David S. Van Dyke at the American Thinker:

Although it has been only a little over twenty years since the Montreal Protocol, which effectively created a global ban on chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), the interesting history of the ozone hole has slipped under the radar, largely eclipsed by the much greater story of the anthropogenic global warming fraud. It’s interesting to revisit the CFC/ozone depletion scam and note the striking similarities to the current campaign against CO_2.

If nothing else, it seems counterintuitive that the massive blizzards and record low temperatures we are experiencing are symptoms of global warming (anthropogenic or otherwise).

Here is some similarly inconvenient illogic from the CFC dress rehearsal:

Strangely, the most significant thinning of the ozone layer has been observed over the Antarctic. Most CFC use has been in the northern hemisphere.

…

[Human] health threats erupted, most notably the threat of an increased incidence of malignant melanoma. This is interesting, as melanoma is not influenced by UV-B radiation [which is blocked by ozone], but rather UV-A radiation (which is not blocked by ozone).

…

[T]he exact role of atmospheric CFCs remains uncertain. It appears that the primary catalyst of ozone depletion is atmospheric chlorine, and the most atmospheric chlorine by far is out-gassed from the oceans or emitted by volcanoes.

H/T Mike B.

[T]he latest AGW hystericist to employ the [precautionary principle] concept is Tom Friedman:

“When I see a problem that has even a 1 percent probability of occurring and is ‘irreversible’ and potentially ‘catastrophic,’ I buy insurance. That is what taking climate change seriously is all about.”

Well, I do that, too. But I buy insurance that has a price commensurate with the expected value (i.e., the cost of the disaster times the probability that it will occur). For instance, I’ll pay a few hundred bucks for a million-dollar policy against the small chance that I’ll kick off tomorrow. Presumably, Friedman assumes that the proposed palliatives of cap’n’tax or carbon taxes meet that criterion, but he doesn’t do the calculations for us, because he can’t. Warm mongers like him propose to spend trillions of dollars now to prevent an unknown amount of cost later, in defiance of the basic economic principle of discounting the value of future expenditures.