In the White House, only hours after that old elm had fallen, Bush was addressed by a reporter, thus: “I know that you are not planning to see Al Gore’s new movie, but do you agree with the premise that global warming is a real and significant threat to the planet?”
“I have said consistently,” answered Bush, “that global warming is a serious problem. There’s a debate over whether it’s manmade or naturally caused. We ought to get beyond that debate and start implementing the technologies necessary … to be good stewards of the environment, become less dependent on foreign sources of oil…”
The President — as far as the extensive and repeated researches of this and many other professional journalists, as well as all scientists credible on this subject, can find — is wrong on one crucial and no doubt explosive issue. When he said — as he also did a few weeks ago — that “There’s a debate over whether it’s manmade or naturally caused” … well, there really is no such debate.
At least none above what is proverbially called “the flat earth society level.”
Not one scientist of any credibility on this subject has presented any evidence for some years now that counters the massive and repeated evidence — gathered over decades and come at in dozens of ways by all kinds of professional scientists around the world — that the burning of fossil fuels is raising the world’s average temperature.
CONSERVE(atives) doesn’t really describe thier idea about our Earth. Why do the hate this planet?
Yes, but in his mind, there’s no debate. As we saw with Iraq WMDs, he makes his mind and then ignores contrary evidence. The dead-enders call it resolve. The majority of the country, though, knows that it is garden-variety weakness.
Of course there is…
But why bother?
There is truth and there is liberalism.
Please tell me how much of global warming is manmade. I eagerly await your answers. We’ll see if there is any debate on the contribution of humans…
Bullsh*t! Common sense says there was once an ice age and then we warmed up from the ice age. Did man do that? George Bush?
There is no debate? Really.
There are several debates.
How much -all-none-in between- do the activities of man contribute to global warming? Is this cycle of warming permanent or temporary?
Are the Kyoto protocols cost effective?
etc etc
Dugger, There is no debate!!? When there is no debate, there is no thinking. I guess you would like that.
.
That’s right Frank to Pedro and everyone in between. Who cares if mainstream scientists have no controversy with the global warming theories? So long as Exxon can produce a scientists who says otherwise, let’s debate!!!
My understanding is that nearly all the “scientists” that support the idea of human generated global warming are neither climatologists or paleoclimatologists — the men who matter.
You’ve got it rounds. They also don’t believe that smoking causes cancer (why would that nice man from Philip Morris lie?).
Here’s some grist for the flat-earth society here at OW…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_on_sc/gore_s_science;_ylt=AkczrgxawOtcc7iR_gyGzaOs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MzV0MTdmBHNlYwM3NTM-
Sure, Gore is an unamerican lunatic, but sometimes the howlers get it right…
Envision a scenario..
“What’s that radio noise. It sounds Japanese.”
“Oh, pay no mind to that, it’s just noise.”
“No, really…I think I heard them say that they’re 2 hours out of Pearl.”
“Oh…no, it’s just your imagination. We hear this kind of talk all the time.”
Dugger. The cost of you, a bonafide nitwit, being wrong, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, is too high.
And yes, I mean that. You add nothing to this debate. In fact, as OW said, the debate is over. Global warming is real.
JK
>>Frank…in a moment of mental masturbation:
My understanding is that nearly all the scientists that support the idea of human generated global warming are neither climatologists or paleoclimatologists the men who matter.
Frank,
Let me state in simple terms: You are not a smart man.
This, from NASA:
“Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800’s. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth’s natural greenhouse effect.”
Holy cow. Why don’t you guys, on the right, just stick to tax breaks for the rich (that’s all you’re good at, really, when push comes to shove) and stay the HELL OUT OF THE WAY, on the complicated stuff.
JK
For the link – impaired among you, (I mean you, JK, you arrogant imbecile):
http://tinyurl.com/krlpk
JK:
Let me state this in simple terms: One paragraph does not a bevy of climatologists make.
You are a jerk.
KJ — arrogant Nazi wannabe prick
This sums up the problem. 5 out of a hundred scientists agree….of course only 20 out of a hundred even watched the movie about their own profession, which tells you something…
http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909
Just so we have this on record, what odds do Frank_D, drpedo, Dugger and JWG place on human intervention causing the recent spike in global warming?
50%? 25%? 10%? 2%? 0.001%?
I am just curious what value you place on human life, and that’s easy to calculate if I understand your odds better.
I’m going to do the same thing I did in the last global warming debate here.
Hypothetically (can’t stress this enough, but the cons here will twist my words ayhow, so whatever), let’s say there is no global warming. However, there are numerous other problems caused by pollution. The include, but not limited to to, poisioning the air, poisoning the water, poisoning our food, and o-zone depletion. Not to mention the fact that we will run out of oil eventually. So looking at THESE problems, wouldn’t it be in our best intrest to invest in the research and implementation of alternative and cleaner fuels (possibly even renewable ones at that), rather than sell our souls for foreign oil?
Here’s another question. What do liberals have to gain if global warming is not true?
Nevertheless, the idiotic assertion here is that there is “no debate” as to whether its manmade or natural (or in between). That is truly idiotic and superstitious debate-precluding BS. It fits the left wing agenda to say there is no debate and thats that. Shut Lomborg up and spend tons of money! This is the way they would do it on campus.
Hey, debate is healthy. For the environmental bigots here, try it just once. Entertain a competing thought. It will hurt at first, but if you are a sensible person, after a while, you will welcome diversity in thought.
Dugger
So looking at THESE problems, wouldn t it be in our best intrest to invest in the research and implementation of alternative and cleaner fuels (possibly even renewable ones at that), rather than sell our souls for foreign oil?
No one is doing that?
No one?
Really?
Why did the ice age end?
Dugger. Using your argument, let’s just say for the sake of “healthy debate,” that we discuss the following:
Women’s right to vote. Good or bad?
Is Paul McCartney really dead?
Did the North really win the Civil War?
****
Yes, folks, the debate over global warming is over. The right-wing lost, due to lack of countering evidence.
Frankly, I think that Dugger, Pedro and Frank aren’t helping the environment with all the hot air they’re spewing. Maybe they should be included as part of Kyoto.
JK
Dugger, a debate requires you to make a point, defend a point, and refute points made against you. So far as I have ever seen on this topic, you don’t do that. You are more like a bomb thrower. You raise a point and don’t stick around to defend that ground. If you want to have a healthy “debate” about this topic such that the outcome would perhaps cause you to stop supporting your dangerous, unamerican position, I think some of us here might take the time to engage you in such a debate.
Why is this topic so important?
Because it’s not like other arguments into which you enter. The consequences are damaging to potentially large swaths of the globe. For my own sake, I live within 20 feet of sea level. If the ice sheets of Antartica melt, my house is underwater. You want to talk about cost? Find out what happens when the insurance industry gets to file flood claims for all the real estate of San Francisco and New York…
Conservatives get so very angry when you refuse to debate stupid shit like whether John Kerry was in fact a traitorous war criminal, or whether liberals should be thrown out of the country. “WHY WON’T THEY DEBATE!!!”, they shout to the heavens. Their rage is so funny!
Wow…for a subject that is so clearly understood NO ONE can say how much is man’s contribution to global warming! But…but…if there’s “no debate” then the answer should be available without question. What’s the matter?
Frank_D Jun 27th, 2006 at 11:39 pm
JK: Let me state this in simple terms: One paragraph does not a bevy of climatologists make. You are a jerk. KJ arrogant Nazi wannabe prick
Blah, blah, blah … JK, I suggest you prepare to let Frank know how Maca, Beefa and Ricea are doing. It’s the standard response.
Frank has a real hard on for Nazi wannabe pricks.
Just so that JWG shuts his trap, there is no debate that human activities contribute to global warming. There is debate over how much humans contribute. To JWG, those are mutually exclusive statements, but to sentient human thinkers, it is not.
There is no debate that smoking causes cancer. There is debate as to who will get cancer from smoking, and what non-smokers will get cancer.
By the way Tomy, good observation. It’s like you have to teach them how the world works again everytime you make a statement. In their world, Clinton was handed OBL on a silver platter, Bush served his military service with honor and distinction, and lower taxes increase government revenues.
I’m tired of proving these things wrong again and again. I can’t teach anyone who doesn’t want to learn. That’s why my response now is to point and laugh.
I don’t know if trepanning works, but I do have some ideas on who here should participate in the clinical trials.
Cue wingnut with quotes from an expert that lobbies for “Trepanco” telling us of the lack of danger from trepanning.
Here’s another one for Frank and Dugger…
Trepanning. Cure for mental illness?
Discuss. It’s all about healthy debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trepanning
JK
Quick, without returning to The World Book Encyclopedia of the Internet WikiPedia, which material was used for trepanning, and was tested in modern times and found usable for modern surgery?
Go, whiz kids, go!
Liberalism’s Relation to Mental illness: Cause or Symptom?
And Roni has a knack for simulating drooling with a keyboard.
What the cited ABC “news” article states:
Except when you look at the facts. Climate change has been DECREASING precipitation in the Washington DC area during June. Oops, Oliver is right…”The Facts Do Not Align.”
But wait…according to ABC:
Except the climate is not “simple.” But you lefties believe everything the media reports as long as someone tries to claim it’s due to “global warming.” Facts be damned.
Follow the money indeed, Pedro. If only you were honest, you might be a happier guy.
Why is it that only “20″ of one hundred respected climatology researchers have seen Gore’s movie?
Why is it that only 5 are quoted as agreeing with him?
How many oncologists or cancer researchers would agree that cigarettes cause cancer. Do you think it is more or less than 20%?
Whether or not global warming is caused by man, and to what extent remains an unanswered question, no matter how many times Tomy or anyone else says “end of discussion”. The liberals have hundreds of people,(al gore being one of them) making fortunes on the idea that it is manmade. That explains nicely why so many liberals are for it…follow the money if you will.
And JK, trepanning is done every day, all over the world. It immediately cures a life threatening process called epidural hematoma…ask your local neurosurgeon about it sometime. So you see, sometimes it isn’t all that cut and dried…..
So you admit then that humans play a role in global warming? It’s a start. Come to the light.
Z,
As Quick Draw McGraw would say: Wait a darn minute.
I’m here. Been here longer than you and almost all others. You chastize me about a debate on a topic upon which your ideological counterparts insist there can be NO debate. Furthermore, as to the basic issue of whether global warming is all man made, partially man made or not at all man made, I have asked twice about the ice age. How can we have warmed up from the ice age without there being significant long term natural global warming? That’s a third time now I’ve asked. But I’m told by open minded progressives, not that I’m right or wrong, but that there can be no debate on this issue. And if that warm up was from natural causes, how do we KNOW this current modest cycle is not to some extent or almost wholly the product of natural phenomna? That’s precisely why a debate instead of this superstitious hands-over-the-ears mumbo-jumbo from grant-money-hungry progressives is needed.
Now, a fourth time, how did we warm up from the ice age if not by natural means?
Is the Kyoto Protocol cost effective?
Why the smear campaign against Lomborg?
Dugger
Humans can start a fire, therefore a fire must have been caused by humans.
Your “reasoning” works both ways.
Since we know that humans contribute to global warming, it would be helpful to know to what degree. It doesn’t make sense to spend billions of dollars to curb mankind’s contributions if we’re not going to have a significant impact.
Dugger’s point is that we also know that nature plays an enormous part in global warming. How significant is our role?
Dugger,
Natural warming during the Ice Age does not in anyway conflict with the evidence that man is contributing to global warming now.
Dugger reasoning: Global warming happened during the Ice Age when there were no people, therefore no global warming event can be because of people.
The same reasoning: A fire can start naturally, therefore no human can start a fire.
And they wonder why they’re not taken seriously.
Fact misses the point again.
The human driven global warming remains debatable.
When have I not?
Dugger lied:
“Bush says there a debate about manmade versus natural”
No, what he said was:
“There s a debate over whether it s manmade or naturally caused.”
Or, not versus.
There is no debate.
The inaptly named factcheck said:
“So you admit then that humans play a role in global warming? It s a start. Come to the light.”
Well now, thats a h*lluva long way from saying there can be NO debate, now isn’t it? Bush says there a debate about manmade versus natural. Prissy snobby progressives gasp at this heresy and say there is no debate. Period. Now here at the end of this thread, one little progressive says meekly that humans can, well, “play a role in global warming”. What, not “THE” role. Is factcheck a fascist scumbag too. Does he /she need to go to some Siberian environmental sensitivity seminars. Does he become the Sen Joseph Lieber-non-man of OW.com?
Dugger, There is no factcheck, comrade. There never was a factcheck.
Here we go again…are you going to claim that it’s 100% man-made?
So Dugger and JWG, you are saying that you disagree, or agree with your president when he says
There s a debate over whether it s manmade or naturally caused.”
There is no debate.
I went over this with Paul already…but fact, here you go…
It is a physical fact, and can be mathematically proven, that Factcheck is having a gravitational effect on the orbit of the Moon! By the liberal logic, we must immediately destroy Factcheck, as he will slowly and consistently pull the moon from its orbit….
All the above is true.
So, do we get rid of fact?
Probably not worth it, eh? Even though he is affecting the orbit of the moon!?
Humans unquestionable have a “role” in global warming, we just don’t know how significant it is, and I am not ready to bring western,industrialized civilization to a halt on a hunch….
I don’t take a position on the accuracy of news articles about global warming. I defer to the scientists who actually study it.
Them goalposts be moving! Glad to see all the wingnuts are on board with the fact that global warming is occuring, and that there is a manmade element.
Learning comes slow for you people, though.
The sun has NO effect?
The earth’s natural cycle has NO effect?
The issues are:
A) Is a statistically significant amount caused by man?
B) If so, is the amount man is responsible for enough to generate a doomsday scenario all by itself?
B) If so, is there anything we can do to alter that amount so as to avoid said scenario?
C) If so, are those measures cost-effective?
All questions that need answers before we start implementing all of Al Gore’s demands willy-nilly. (Heck, let’s not forget even Al Gore refused to implement all of Al Gore’s demands!)
Only for you. You are starting to realize that people don’t really have the stereotyped “hate the environment / hate science” viewpoint that you always attribute to them. Most of us have never denied global warming or that man plays a part. Only in your deluded mind did that exist. Welcome to reality…but now you’ll be asked to leave the “reality-based community.”
“The first part of your statement is wrong since it implies 100% manmade& at least that is what you attribute to our president. ”
Of course, that’s what “context” is for, children. Your president said
I have said consistently, answered Bush, that global warming is a serious problem. There s a debate over whether it s manmade or naturally caused. We ought to get beyond that debate and start implementing the technologies necessary & to be good stewards of the environment, become less dependent on foreign sources of oil&
There is no debate whether it is manmade or naturally caused. The only debate is what the ratio is.
I remember Tomy. I hearken back to last month:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200605230011
Before repeating several of the report’s findings, Du Pont noted its conclusion — that “the science does not support claims of drastic increases in global temperatures over the 21st century, nor does it support claims of human influence on weather events and other secondary effects of climate change” — which he described as “the reality about global warming and its impact on the world.”
farris, why did you cut out the rest of my quote?
Did you forget?
“The only debate is to the ratio.”
What a liar. At least Ed Klein used elipses when he falsified a quote.
Factcheck is un-American?
“Most of us have never denied global warming”
This is a flat lie. Do you truly call yourself a teacher of children, JWG? Pathetic.
You mean, of couse, with “our” president…I agree that there is a debate as to whether the manmade factors are significant enough to cause alarm when compared to the natural factors.
If you disagree with “our” president, then you are arguing that global warming is either 100% manmade or 100% natural.
So Dugger and JWG, you are saying that you disagree, or agree with your president when he says
There s a debate over whether it s manmade or naturally caused.
The first part of your statement is wrong since it implies 100% manmade…at least that is what you attribute to “our” president. If you can say “global warming is manmade” then why can’t I say “global warming is a natural phenomenom”? What’s the difference?
Remember when conservatives used to argue that global warming didn’t exist? Why should they and their energy-industry-paid scientists be given any benefit of any doubt now?
poster formally known as “factcheck”,
What you smell is your own spoor. It comes from being badly wrapped around the axle.
Witness statement one: “humans play a role in global warming”
Clearly indicating by the article “a” that something other than humans play a role.
Witness statement two: “There is no debate. Global warming is manmade.
Clearly, since, among other reasons, we are having a debate (that you have lost) the first part of two is wrong. And also clearly the eclusiveness of the second part of two, not leaving any possibility for other than humans causing global warming, patently contradicts your own statement one.
Second Term Republican President Bush said: “There s a debate over whether it s manmade or naturally caused.”
That is 100% correct.
I do believe though, that the ‘factcheck’ of statement one won the debate with the ‘factcheck’ of statement two.
Dugger
So you disagree with your president when he says
There s a debate over whether it s manmade or naturally caused.
There is no debate. Global warming is manmade. The only debate is to the ratio.
Factcheck, do you agree with the statement made by the ABC article that
“Welcome to reality& but now you ll be asked to leave the reality-based community. ”
So since your president said:
“There s a debate over whether it s manmade or naturally caused.”
Since there is no debate, is he part of the reality based community?
“I like everything about the new site redesign, especially the who s commented recently feature.”
On the subject of the OW site redesign, there can be no debate.
Bush doesn’t represent American ideals. Therefore he is not my president. There is no debate.
I agree, factcheck. Everything becomes a political game. No issue can escape being grist for the “Democrats are the party of evil” GOP attack machine.
As an aside, Oliver, you should have a site redesign post so we can comment on it. I like everything about the new site redesign, especially the “who’s commented recently” feature. It’s cleaner and clearer all around. If I could change one thing, it would be to display the gravatar images at the size they were in the old formate. Not that I really care, but they’re a bit hard to make out now.
Dugger again left out the end of my quote
The only debate is to the ratio.
The only debate in my mind, after reading wingnut trolls distortions, is whether they are ignorant, liars, or both. I’m leading towards both.
It’s funny, tomy, how they lose the debate and then break out the ad hominem attacks. These geniuses can call us anti-American all they want, I take it as a badge of honor. History will show how some on the right side of the spectrum put party over the planet.
factcheck
“The only debate is to the ratio.”
So when it was said there was -uhh- “no debate” what was really meant was that there was a “debate”. Did I get it right?
And as of right now, then, there is a debate?
“FATHER: Right. [starts to leave] Where are you going?
GUARD #1: We’re coming with you. ”
Dugger
Dude, you keep refering to “your” president. Is Bush not your president as well? If not, then you are not an American.
Likewise, I feel that if you support the erosion of the constitution, you are not an American.
“Factcheck is un-American?”
Again, wingnuts associate being American with supporting this president.
Uh…*Doctor* (?) Pedro…
I said “Treppaning as a cure for mental illness.” Specifically.
One would think that someone with 20 years of education under his belt, and an MD, should know that drilling holes in people’s heads to ward off demons, has fallen out of modern medical practice. What’s your point, anyway? That all of this global warming might be good for us?
Are you denying that treppaning is no longer used as a treatment for forms of mental illness? Please, Dr., tell me it ain’t so.
Of course, in Frank’s case, such a procedure would cause no harm to the empty cavern between his ears, and in fact, might make him more aerodynamic.
JK
At every step of the debate, conservatives run to energy industry lobbyists for the latest talking points. Meanwhile, you participate in the full throat politicization of what is basically a scientific debate that’s reached a consensus. And then you try to pretend that they’re on the side of science! Simply breathtaking. In reality, you’re on the side of industry, and you only listen to what accepted members of your own tribe have to say. Your “debate” is nothing more than another game to rig; it’s not an exchange of ideas about the climate, but a chance for you to reconfirm your hatred and paranoia towards your fellow citizens. And this “debate” has turned out no differently.
And Dugger, let’s see links to where you are getting your “the debate is open” talking point. Got any links to peer reviewed studies? Or are you sticking with your homespun answer that every human being with a body temperature contributes to global warming?
“The human driven global warming remains debatable.”
Links to studies please.
“So when it was said there was -uhh- no debate what was really meant was that there was a debate . Did I get it right?”
Dugger you are one dishonest sack of shit.
Oh, for God’s sake, who fucking cares whether it is man-made or not?!!
Yes, global warming and cooling are natural processes; yes, it takes hundreds, maybe thousands of years. Lately, that process is happening faster than ever before. THERE IS NO DEBATE ABOUT THAT!
The point is that it is happening and we should do something about it before it becomes irreversible. Can’t we all agree about that instead of this bullshit 2nd grade jibber jabber?
Jesus, guys, get a grip.
I just heard that insurance companies moved back the flood line in RI (where I live), i.e. they used to deny flood insurance for homes 2 miles from the ocean. They now won’t insure homes 5 miles from the ocean. Hmmmm…
Duros62 “It’s time to pay the price.”
Of course, in Frank s case, such a procedure would cause no harm to the empty cavern between his ears, and in fact, might make him more aerodynamic.
JK
Ooooh, I’m wounded! I hope the kids in the playground don’t laugh at me…
Trepanning is still used today to treat blood leaking in the brain, causing pressure.
I’ve called to make you an appointment.
It’s funny how fast reasonable exchanges of ideas are turned into repetitive exchange of insults by the trolls that haunt this blog. One would think that if you had a point to make, why not just make it without all the juvenile comments.
Even W agrees that global warming is a serious problem, caused by both natural phenomena and human activities. Al Gore’s idea is an appeal to at least try to minimize human contribution. Can you at least admit that much?
That’s no way to talk about TomY (”This is a flat lie. Do you truly call yourself a teacher of children, JWG? Pathetic.”), factcheck (”whether they are ignorant, liars, or both. I m leading towards both”), frameone (”you are one dishonest sack of shit”), JK (”a bonafide nitwit” & “You are not a smart man”) and z_adura (”your dangerous, unamerican position”). Sure they result to insults, but I wouldn’t call them trolls.
If either side were to compromise, then we d have nothing to read.
Truer words were never spoken
repetitive exchange of insults by the trolls that haunt this blog
Do you mean that commenters who insult other commenters are trolls?
Of course not. If either side were to compromise, then we’d have nothing to read.
JWG Jun 28th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
That s no way to talk about TomY ( This is a flat lie. Do you truly call yourself a teacher of children, JWG? Pathetic. ), factcheck ( whether they are ignorant, liars, or both. I m leading towards both ), frameone ( you are one dishonest sack of shit ), JK ( a bonafide nitwit & You are not a smart man ) and z_adura ( your dangerous, unamerican position ). Sure they result to insults, but I wouldn t call them trolls.
Or Frank_D’s repetitive “You arrogant wannabe Nazi prick”
See what I mean.
The trolls know who they are. Rather than just making their point or counterpoint, they attempt to pick a fight or argue infinitum about something trivial. It doesn’t matter to me but it just takes away from one’s point.
You’re no troll, Zython. You’re a Master Debater!
For example? (Please note that one of the “trolls” gave plenty of counter examples.)
Yes, how dare anyone challenge a liberal statement for evidence. Bad troll, bad.
Classic.
Has anybody noticed that it’s gotten warmer since this “debate” started?
Heh
More on the “non – debate” debate:
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=062806F
Have you heard about the rightwing talk show host who said that Bill Keller should be sent to the gas chamber? Make no mistake, this is what a lot of conservatives would wish for all us liberals.
Yes, but the clear point is that while we’re warmer than in the recent past, we’re only moving to be in line with some sort of longer-term baseline, so it’s a normalizing rather than a warming. So it’s another form of warming denial, one that says we’ve all been too cold recently, so this won’t be disastrous somehow.
“That s no way to talk about …”
Hilarious, JWG, simply hilarious. The champion of serious debate scolds the potty mouths and name callers in order to defend people who do not believe in the facts the he himself knows to be true. You wrote: “Most of us have never denied global warming or that man plays a part.”
And yet you want to chastize me for calling Dugger a dishonest sack of shit? What’s worse, calling Dugger and Pedro what they really are or sticking your head in the sand while idiots try to obfuscate and distort the truth? If you assert that it is beynd doubt that man is contributing to global warming Dugger thinks that you are engaged in “idiotic and superstitious debate-precluding BS.” Pedro, on the other hand, thinks you’re just a greedy, selfish liberal:
Why are you defending these jackasses? And don’t give me any “conservatives are more open-minded” crap. These two dipshits aren’t just attacking liberals, they’re attacking the very foundations of science to do it. This to you is “serious discussion” worth defending? Calling them each a dishonest sack of shit is being too kind.
>>It doesn t matter to me but it just takes away from one s point.
It must have mattered for you enough to bring it up.
Come on….one can make a point, and still cleverly “attack” the other guy, in a “spirited” debate. I think a little “emotion” is healthy. Reminds us all of who we are, and what we believe.
JK
JWG: “Most of us have never denied global warming”
Frank: links to a statistical argument from a — what, astonomer? — saying that we’re no warmer now than we were 1000 years ago.
Next you’ll be claiming that the Holocaust is debatable.
With an ice age inbetween…which means we’re getting warmer.
I will ask my usual question Paul.
Does you logic hold to leftists too, or just conservatives.
I keeping hoping for an occasionally consistent argument from the liberals.
By your logic then, I can refer to you and all your liberal friends as dishonest SOS’s because they assume we went to war to make money for Halliburton? Since that essentially attacks the “very foundation” of our Constitution….!
Are YOU defending that behaviour, Paul?
First of all, I can find no inference of any such claim.
Second of all, I question your generalization (straw man) that “lefties suggest Bush/cheney started a war for money.”
Thirdly, you can take your condescending attitude towards me, frame and anyand all posters here who disagree with you and shove it up your…well, you know the rest.
The breadth and width of your despicableness is astounding, sometimes.
Schmuck.
Let me explain it slowly for you duros.
Paul (Frameone) was inferring that I was “attacking the very foundations of science”!(he would know, he is a movie critic and saw it once in the China Syndrome), by suggesting that there are a lot of lefties making a lot of money on the idea of man-made global warming.
My example demostrated that the lefties suggest that Bush/Cheney started a war for money.
I was drawing a parallel between the leftists suggestion that money drove the war decision and my suggestion that the liberals are driven by the money to continue to scream the “sky is falling” about global warming. Therefore if Paulie thinks that I am a S.O.S. for thinking it was about the money, so was he and his ilk.
Was that slow enough for you?
Please point to any errors in the article.
they assume we went to war to make money for Halliburton? Since that essentially attacks the very foundation of our Constitution
Wait, what? How does one relate to the other? For that matter how does this relate to what we are talking about?
Once again, Dr. Pedro in his disingenuous best has attempted to railroad the discussion by throwing out something that has nothing to do with anything.
Don’t forget your peril-sensitive sunglasses, ya schmuck.
No, Quaker, it was written by the other Roy Spencer…
Each side hands out extraneous insults. I find it funny when someone thinks only the other side dishes out the insults.
Frank, I’m curious about that article you linked.
Was it written by the same Roy Spencer who’s on the ExxonMobil payroll?
“Please point to any errors in the article.”
OK. Let’s start right at the top. Spencer writes:
Here’s what the Washington Post (and by extension, the AP) wrote in the second paragraph of its story covering the report:
Right from the start, Spencer is playing his readers. He wants you to believe that know-nothing reporters completely missed the fact that we don’t have detailed climate records from before 1600!
More?
So wait, it *is* written by an energy industry hack? And Pedro’s still insisting that *liberals* are the ones profiting off of global warming? I love the conservative movement sometimes.
Except when they’re laughing about killing liberals.
“My example demostrated that the lefties suggest that Bush/Cheney started a war for money.”
There is nothing more amusing than a wingnut in retreat.
“I repeat, please point to anything in the article which is in error.”
Please point to any credible scientist who backs him up.
I repeat, please point to anything in the article which is in error. Make sure you provide the quote.
You’ve said this twice, but not provided any evidence (because I’m not complaining). All I did was provide evidence that Bushwacked ignored as a reply. I did not start the point about insults nor have I whined about it. Is this another example of your comprehension skill?
“I find it funny when someone thinks only the other side dishes out the insults.”
I find it funny that you’re all uptight about personal insults and not the fact that Dugger, Pedro and others are arguing a case that is entirely contrary to scientific findings that you yourself know to be true. Tell me, JWG, what’s your name for people who consistently argue for the opposite of accepted scientific fact? Mine is idiot.
***cough***strawman!****cough****
Why should we believe a word of someone who writes his “science” according to the wishes of the energy industry. This isn’t about “science” at all; it’s about conservatives only trusting members of their tribe to feed them information. And it’s also about conservative hatred for liberals, because they know we’re the true heirs of the western tradition, and it burns them up.
OK, JWG. Just because you asked so nicely.
Spencer, still playing his readers for suckers, wrote:
Hmm.
Something seems to be missing here. Let’s check with the National Academy of Sciences, shall we?
Spencer seems to have carelessly forgotten to tell us that the NAS noted that all the scientists who have reconstructed temperatures for the last 1,000 years in the Northern Hemisphere have come to the same conclusions!
He also seems to have forgotten to mention that the NAS review panel’s reservations focused on the absence of proxy data from the Southern hemisphere!
Comprehension skills? You suggested that calling Dugger a “dishonest sack of shit” is the same as Dugger calling global warming science idiotic and superstitious debate-precluding BS.
Is it? Only one of these statements is true.
Republican rule #1044: We support science only so long as that science doesn’t get in the way of the Fortune 500 paying off our politicians to let them write our laws.
Its fun to see the side of “dittoheads” and “Bush Derangement Syndrome” adopt the pretense of interest in having a deep dialogue about non-partisan scientific questions. And they even bring paid industry lobbyists! You’re so helpful, guys!
You know JWG, your righteous indignation over the dismissal of your source would have had a lot more credibility if your source wasn’t bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry.
You can start building credibility by answering Tomy’s post:
“Please point to any credible scientist who backs him up.”
Hint: Don’t use a study commissioned by BP to back up the Exxon study.
HTH!
So is war, growing poverty, and budget deficits! Yum!
Tom, don’t forget, carbon dioxide is good for you!
“Aha! So there is a debate!:-)”
Of course there is. It’s just not among scientists. The debate is between scientists and “scientists”.
“it s about conservatives only trusting members of their tribe to feed them information.”
Let test that theory:
A scientific study commissioned by the Bush administration concluded yesterday that the lower atmosphere was indeed growing warmer and that there was “clear evidence of human influences on the climate system.”
The finding eliminates a significant area of uncertainty in the debate over global warming, one that the administration has long cited as a rationale for proceeding cautiously on what it says would be costly limits on emissions of heat-trapping gases.”
Just wait, pedro will respond that scientific studies can be made to show anything while Dugger will tell you it’s all Stalin’s fault.
In other words, when we “listen to the scientists” who claim that we are warmer now than in the past 1000 years, we are being good little citizens. However, when it turns out the critical scientists WERE RIGHT and we can only say with confidence that we are warmer now than since the last ice age, we “hate science.”
Here we have a perfect example of alarmists only wanting to listen to the most extreme pronouncements rather than what the evidence really demonstrates.
Now you try to downplay it by saying we just don’t have detailed records from long ago. No Kidding! Why didn’t you listen to those criticisms before? It’s because you WANT to believe the alarmists uncritically, even though scientists compete for money just like everyone else, and the most dramatic pronouncements get the money.
As a result, the academy report is not likely to resolve the fierce debate over the
Aha! So there is a debate!:-)
Leave it to my man quaker to find sense in the wilderness.
“blockquote>Spencer seems to have carelessly forgotten to tell us that the NAS noted that all the scientists who have reconstructed temperatures for the last 1,000 years in the Northern Hemisphere have come to the same conclusions!
Uh, yeah…that it was warm 1000 years ago in the Northern Hemisphere.
From the NAS briefing:
As far as pointing to anyone backing up Spencer’s article about the NAS report, it was published yesterday.
My turn!
From the NAS summary:
So while Spencer tries to paint the NAS review panel as skeptical of Mann’s findings, he simply ignores the parts of the report that say those findings are supported by other research.
There it is.
You asked for someone to point out anything wrong with Spencer’s article. It is done.
“I ll stick with what the scientists say until what they say conflicts with the interests of the GOP.”
There, I fixed it for you, JWG.
Chicken Little? From the guys who think gay marriage is going to ruin their own marriages? From the folks who think that raising fuel efficiency standards will wreck our economy? From the guys who want to give away the bill of rights cause you’re terrified of some two-bit cave dwellers? That’s rich!
You can t get much more skeptical than Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al&
Haw!
Nothing like being obvious. Why’d you stop quoting right there, JWG? Why are you hiding the rest of that sentence?
I ll stick with what the scientists say about their OVERALL conclusions.
Selectively, it seems.
Just so we’re clear, the NAS statements do nothing but support current global warming and that man plays a role. However, Mann’s conclusions and those that parroted the “hockey stick” were much overstated.
I’m a libertarian as I’ve said many times before. I don’t want the government to define marriage. I don’t want the government to dictate what car I can buy. I don’t want the government to sacrifice liberty for security.
You can’t get much more skeptical than “Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al…”
Keep your faith in Chicken Little. I’ll stick with what the scientists say about their OVERALL conclusions.
You showed it just upthread. Why shy away now?
The review panel speaks here to two specific claims attributed to the Mann report. Why? Because the proxy data is too rough a measure to determine climate patterns in a single year or even a decade.
Nonetheless, the NAS report says Mann’s OVERALL conclusions (where have I heard that before) are supported by other research.
Now tell me again what you choose to listen to?
And Gore is not making money? Scientists like Mann don’t encourage more money through dramatic pronouncements? Oh, I forgot: conservatives are greedy while liberals are selfless.
Now I know you’re putting me on.
Spencer, just like you, is suggesting that the NAS is damning Mann’s findings with faint praise. He’s pretending that the word “plausible” is a qualitative judgment.
Wow. Even when a scientist’s findings are qualified by an important group of his peers, you guys still can’t let it go. So much for “We listen to the scientists.”
Libertarian, fine, but it’s clear that you’ve chosen a tribe to support, and a tribe to hate. That’s why you only hear “science” when the GOP tribal drums are beating in the background. Anything else, you screen out as “liberal.”
“And Gore is not making money?”
Ah, so now we’ve given up on Mr. Spencer and we’re on to speculating about Al Gore’s motives.
Fill us in, JWG. How much of the money made from An Inconvenient Truth does Mr. Gore get to keep? Who are his benefactors? Did they just start supporting him recently or have they been behind Mr. Gore’s interest in climate change from the beginning?
And just where did the NAS say that any evidence contradicts Mann’s findings? (Maybe OW deleted your answer.)
Based on current circumstances. I voted for Gore in 2000. However, liberals have lost their way in their madness over Bush. All the complaints of how the GOP is pushing marriage ammendments, flag burning ammendments, anti-evolution legislation, etc. are meaningless since they will never pass. I worry about the things that will actually happen, and currently the Left can’t keep any part of their act together other than to hate Bush.
Now you must be pulling my leg. That paragraph does not say that any research or any reconstruction of climate patterns contradict Mann. An “individual proxy record” is the data collected from one source in one location–a lake bed in the Ukraine, maybe, or deposits in a cave in Saskatoon. These records are local. Mann’s findings are hemispheric.
Not if the purpose of the report was to describe the methods being used to reconstruct climate records and not to validate the findings. The NAS used precisely the right word.
Scroll up.
I said nothing about Gore’s motives. Once again you demonstrate that you associate making money with alterior motivations. I’m sorry that you think you can’t have principles and still make money, but that says more about you than it does about conflicting scientists.
I guess when he writes, “Keeping the door open to the possibility that Mann might be right anyway, the new report says that it is at least ‘plausible’ that we are warmer now than anytime in the last 1,000 years,” he is somehow “completely” ignoring how the NAS support Mann?
In reality, the article was about the failure of the back end of the “hockey stick” to be based on credible evidence, and how the media ignore that part of the NAS report. Spencer made no factual errors in the article, and did not ignore the NAS support for Mann. He provided a criticle look at how the media ignored the NAS correction of Mann’s exaggerations.
Right underneath your supporting quote:
How much of a “larger fraction”? It couldn’t be too big or else we would’ve gotten stronger language than “plausable.”
“What part of the NAS assertion that Mann overstated his conclusions because he doesn t have the data do you not understand?”
Um, I believe those goal posts belong over there Mr. JWG.
The challenge was to point out what was wrong with the article written on behalf of ExxonMobil, not to support Mann’s findings.
Fact is, Spencer’s article completely ignores the parts of the NAS report that back Mann’s findings. Further, he implies motives on the part of the review panel that he neither supports or has any way of judging (other than through mind-reading, of course, but a man of science wouldn’t stoop to that, would he?).
Spencer’s article is a spin job written for a site with no standards on behalf of a big money benefactor.
But other than that, it’s a perfectly good article.
That’s not all:
More from the NAS:
Wow! The NAS (you know, the guys and gals who dumped all over Mann’s findings? Haw!) say that there’s even more evidence of warming and it’s even better than Mann’s evidence and it shows that the warming is caused by humans.
I guess I missed that part of Spencer’s article.
Ooops. I almost forgot this:
“And contradicted by others.”
Now it’s your turn. Where does the NAS report say that any research contradicts Mann’s findings?
Even Spencer didn’t try to make that claim.
And contradicted by others. Talk about selective reading!
Um…you answered your own question. How many times do I have to post the same information? What part of the NAS assertion that Mann overstated his conclusions because he doesn’t have the data do you not understand?
See him on Daily Show last night? Miss the part when he said he’s been giving this lecture for more than 10 years? I honestly don’t believe that he is in it for the money.
Unlike Mr. Spencer.
Hunh? What scientist and what findings are you referring to now?
Sure you did.
I said Spencer wrote a spin job for a big-money benefactor. I was most certainly questioning his motives.
You responded directly by asserting (without evidence) that Al Gore was also taking money for his efforts. If you weren’t implying that the money was the impetus for Mr. Gore’s actions, perhaps you could clarify what you meant.
And I have nothing against making money as long as it is made honestly. Accepting money to mislead people isn’t honest.
Spencer ignored that point too. Does that make him a liberal?
JWG: Ignore Quaker. Argue with him long enough, and he’ll try to get you to believe there was no article.
Meanwhile, I’m reeling at the idea that this “non-debate” is one of the longest threads in Krypton Central’s history.
I feel like the liberals are cult members trying to break down the skeptics.
Thanks for ignoring this statement from me (typical liberal action):
And keep ignoring the NAS’s other conclusions that reigned in Mann’s unsupported statements. Nothing new there…ignore whatever doesn’t fit into your worldview.
Libertarian=self-hating Republican
I guess we must be out of things to talk about because now you’re making stuff up.
You made the claim that the NAS report said that some research contradicts Mann. I pointed out that the paragraph you cited doesn’t support your position.
So somehow, if I point out that you’ve made an error, that means I’m ignoring the facts?
Say goodnight, Gracie.
I see. If they support Mann, then they’re acceptable. If they don’t support Mann, then they are meaningless. Typical liberal response. Thanks.
I shall.
Because while you are discussing Mann’s findings, I am contemplating Spencer’s ridiculous presentation of the NAS report.
Oh I see. Qualified. You’re arguing Mann’s findings again instead of Spencer’s article.
Wow. Even when a scientist s findings are supported by an important group of his peers, you guys still call it “foxes guarding the henhouse”. So much for We listen to the scientists.
“JWG: Ignore Quaker. Argue with him long enough, and he ll try to get you to believe there was no article.”
Article? What article?
Haw. You missed the party, Frank.
Frank_D Jun 29th, 2006 at 6:45 pm
JWG: Ignore Quaker. Argue with him long enough, and he ll try to get you to believe there was no article. Meanwhile, I m reeling at the idea that this non-debate is one of the longest threads in Krypton Central s history. I feel like the liberals are cult members trying to break down the skeptics.
Advice from the blog’s only poster to publish his street address in a fit of anger to challenge JK to personally visit Frank in New York and “MAKE” him move to Oz.
And you’re wrong. I find it incredible that you cannot accept that the NAS has corrected Mann’s statement based on available evidence. Spencer focuses on that point since it’s the sensationalist claim that made Mann famous and often quoted, and you piss and moan that he doesn’t pay due homage to what Mann got right (we’re warmer than since the last ice age — really big news).
Now you are maligning Gore’s motives, unless you blindly accept everything Gore is saying is 100% correct. As far as Spencer goes, his statements were true and he even mentioned that the NAS found Mann’s most incredible statement to be plausible (they would’ve used “likely” if the statistics placed the certainty above 67% and “very likely” above 90%). If you’re going to argue that not giving enough time to every single aspect of a scientific briefing is “misleading” then you’ve put a great many articles into a tough spot.
You were making a logical fallacy called Ad hominem circumstantial and I was using Gore as an example of why it is a poor argument. Just because Gore is in a position to make money from his endeavors does not argue against the validity of his statements.
You were making a logical fallacy called making stuff up. You have no idea whether Mr. Gore has accepted so much as a Cherry Slurpee for his efforts. However, that didn’t stop you from suggesting it.
You should find it incredible because it’s not true.
Let’s review.
I wrote: “Nonetheless, the NAS report says Mann s OVERALL conclusions (where have I heard that before) are supported by other research.”
To which you responded: “And contradicted by others.”
I can’t find any place in Spencer’s article where he claims that the NAS cited research that contradicts Mann’s findings. (Note: there is an important difference between “contradicts” and “is not sufficient”.)
Similarly, I can’t find any phrase in the NAS report that contradicts Mann’s findings.
Despite your insistence that I’m carrying the banner for Mann, I’m not. I’m discussing Spencer’s phony article and his misleading and incomplete presentation of the NAS effort.