Climate War
Tweet
Marc Morano used to work for the far-right CNSNews, trafficking in all kinds of smears of Democrats and progressives. He’s now employed by whack job Senator James Inhofe as his lead attack dog against fighting global warming. But now he’s engaged the weather channel in a battle of actual science. He will lose.
85 Responses to “Climate War”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
We all know it is just the Flying Spaghetti Monster changing the numbers.
That will be fun to watch though. Maybe he can call on Crichton for some back-up.
So you agree that meteorologists should be “stripped” of their American Meteorological Society “seal of approval” if they don’t believe global warming is mostly man-made?
“Meteorology” is a science. a scientist who chooses to go against what is accepted by experts the world over as scientific fact, tends to find himself not taken seriously.
You wouldn’t listen to a geography professor who says the world is flat.
Are you comparing the scientific certainty of the spherical nature of the planet with the scientific certainty of man’s responsibility for global warming?
Hmmm…
Once again, I ask for anyone to give me the “scientific consensus” about how much mankind is responsible for global warming. Give me the “accepted” amount that will help every meteorologist from being excommunicated if they give the “wrong” answer.
It should be easy since it is “accepted by experts the world over as scientific fact.”
By the way, is no one else amused by the irony of suggesting that a meteorologist should be kicked out of the club for being “inaccurate”?
I ask for anyone to give me the “scientific consensus” about how much mankind is responsible for global warming.
Got your consensus right here man. I suppose I could too point to the multitude of peer-reviewed articles submitted to scientific journals that support the anthropogenic climate change consensus, and how prominent they are, but I think its more relevant that you probably cant point to one that rejects it.
Thanks, Rex. Turns out it was easy, because in fact it is accepted by experts the world over as scientific fact. Thanks for playing.
Yes, I’m well aware of the “most” warming is “likely” due to humans “consensus”.
I’ve posted repeatedly about the scientifically accepted meaning of the term “likely”. It’s 66%-90%. That’s below “virtually certain” and “very likely”.
Are you willing to say that it’s “likely” that the earth is spherical, though we’re unwilling to state that we’re “virtually certain” or even that it’s “very likely?
Regardless of where you stand on global warming, does anyone else find it unbelievably petty and laughable that there are Senate staffers drawing salary to attack the Weather Channel? THE WEATHER CHANNEL?!?!! These guys are descending so far into self-parody that we no longer have need of the Daily SHow.
Oh, and I forgot to ask…
Is the consensus about man’s responsibility for global warming saying that man is now MORE or LESS reponsible for global warming than previously thought?
Since I’m bringing it up, you can probably guess the correct answer.
Hey Nimrod,
Before the world believed the earth to be round, the scientific consenus was that it was flat. Right?
And please note how all of these imminent scientists are now using the phrase ‘climate change’ to cover their *sses – what with ice dripping off of fruit in Texas and Califirnia. This is just like the 1970′s when many believed in global cooling.
And why did al Gore dodge Bjorn Lomborg?? Anybody?
And how do we know the lastest small spike in global warmth is not at least partially, caused by natural phenomena, when there have clearly been global warming spikes in the past – pre industrial revolution.
Shorter JWG: Your evidence doesn’t count because I said so. And no backsies. And here’s a set of completely arbitrary standards that I just pulled out of my arse and if your evidence doesn’t retroactively fulfill it then that proves I’m right. Oh, also it is absolutely appropriate to dick around with the issue of Global Warming like this. It’s not as if it’s important.
Before the world believed the earth to be round, the scientific consenus was that it was flat. Right?
WELL THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING IN A SINGLE SENTENCE OF STARTLING PROFUNDITY WHICH NO-ONE HAS EVER SAID BEFORE
Also, “climate change” is not a new phrase, you goddamned idiot, it’s the correct scientific terminology (since it involves more than just warming). “Covering their asses…” Jesus Christ, man, get a fucking clue.
Again, I feel obliged to point out how interesting it is that you believe that climate change is a) a partisan issue and b) worth nitpicking around like it’s not important.
Huh? What evidence? I asked for the actual amount of responsibility for human-induced global warming, and the best you can come up with is that it’s “likely” to be due in some part by humans.
HOW MUCH is it due to humans? What is the consensus?
Which standard would that be?
Rex posted an article detailing the consensus. You don’t think it counts because shut up that’s why.
If you can’t remember the things you just typed minutes ago, it’s not my problem.
All it said is that there is consensus that it is “likely” that humans contribute to global warming. I have never disagreed.
We’re somewhere between 66-90% confident that humans play a role in global warming.
That doesn’t answer my question.
How much of global warming is due to humans? What is the consensus?
If there was the slightest chance you’d be satisfied with any answer at all, I’d look for one.
Just give me the consensus. It shouldn’t be hard since nearly everyone agrees on it.
I just want to know what a meteorologist is allowed to say so that he/she doesn’t get kicked out of the club.
Is a meteorologist allowed to say that there is NO consensus on the amount of responsibility attributed to humans for global warming?
If not, then give me the amount a meteorlogist MUST say in order to avoid penalties.
HOW MUCH is it due to humans? What is the consensus?
Well since you ask there is no precise consensus on an issue of degree of course, given that we’re dealing with an ongoing study of progressing events in which of any series of predictions over any time span relatively few have been precisely right. The “arbitrary standard you pulled out of your arse” in this instance is that youre trying to find a definite consensus on what isnt known specifically. Its akin to saying “This one scientist says gravity is equal to 9.78 m/s^2, but this other one says its equal to 9.81 m/s^2. Theres no consensus, so that means I can jump out the window without falling.” The margin of error in the scientific consensus on mankind’s affect on unnatural global climate chance is not so great that it destroys the basic concept of it. Your need to see a solid set rate for a process which has as many variable and disperate effects as it does variable and disperate causes is kind of ridiculous.
Noooo…
A more proper analogy would be:
One scientist says gravity is 10 m/s^2 while this other one says 2 m/s^2. Your results after jumping out of a window are going to be quite different based on which one is accurate.
Again, noooooo…
Spending trillions of dollars to have a minimal affect on reversing climate change is important. How much can we actually change global warming?
What’s the consensus so no one will get stripped of their AMS status?
One scientist says gravity is about 10 m/s^2, the other scientist is employed by people for whom that figure is an obstacle to profits.
It’s the oil lobby that’s worried about us spending “trillions”. Most of us will save as much going to greener, more efficient energy. We’ll save land and natural fertility, have fewer episodes of out of balance weather. And if “global warming” gets us out of the business of manipulating Middle Eastern governments to insure a steady supply of petroleum for our cars, it will save lives and money. There will be whole new industries specializing in green power production, the new hybrid and electric cars, insulation and distributed energy production. Most of what we need is already running: solar panels, wind power, ethanol from various plants, florescent light bulbs. There is a skyscraper in NYC that is built solely on a green basis. The remainder of any money spent that is spent by government will be in research and data gathering which is already paid for by our tax dollars.
As for censorship, I doubt that someone who has a degree in medicine, but practices trepanning, would be allowed to keep their medical license either. He can say what he feels, but not at the expense of the medical profession
Spending trillions of dollars to have a minimal affect on reversing climate change is important. How much can we actually change global warming?
This is, again, something disputable to a matter of degree. Some say that we’ve gone too far and cant make it right again, some say it can be done but at cost, others say it can be done at relatively minimal expense. There’s also the issue of who precisely you mean when you say “we.” If youre talking about we as an aggragate through government initiatives and all, then of course this lack of consensus is a stopping block in the way of a single plan of action. However if you mean ‘we’ as a collective of individuals, many believe that there are smart, small-scale solutions that can have the cumulative effect over time of correcting this. The thing too is that these solutions are basically all positive too. Making your home more energy efficient, getting a hybrid car, all things that use less energy, burn less coal, pollute less, and also cost ‘we’ the consumer less money.
The consensus youre referring to in regards to the weather channel however isnt the nonexistant one over specifics of degree, but rather the consensus that I posted the article regarding, which is to say that if fundamentally all scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change, and you, as weatherman, in a position of effectively speaking for the science of climate study deny something that has the backing of the scientific community at large, that you shouldnt be able to pretend youre speaking on science’s behalf any longer.
How is a person who predicts the weather involved in malpractice if they correctly don’t think there is a consensus on the amount of human responsibility for global warming?
Additionally, medical doctors say all sorts of things about health and medicine and keep their licenses.
Yes, we wouldn’t want any scientists to speak publically about any skepticism. That would be bad.
If you define skepticism as saying “I dont care what all the evidence, logic, and all professionals say, I say the moon is bade of norweigan beaver cheese” then yes, we actually dont want that kind of skepticism to be given an audience that would only grant legitimacy to a preposterous and baseless theory.
It isn’t about skepticism. Its about misinformation being given by somebody who knows better, having studied the subject themselves. Many people rely on their local meteorologist for accurate information regarding everything having to do with climate. Millions of dollars and hundreds of lives are at stake, too much to allow the public spokesperson to deliberately spread disinformation.
Gosh, you’d think with all that we’d be able to come to a consensus with more certainty than “likely,” no?
Are you only 66-90% certain that the moon is not made of cheese?
Yes. Thank goodness the weather reports are never inaccurate or we’d all be dead by now!
Sounds like a crushing of dissent in the Meteorological society.
No, only from people at The Weather Channel who proposed the excommunication.
Why is it so important to have the exact percentage, agreed to by everyone in the scientific community, of man’s impact on the environment? What possible difference would it make? Can we at least agree that humanity has had an impact on the climate since the Industrial revolution? How much, exactly? Who cares?
If you’re driving down a mountain road with loose lug nuts holding your tire on, are you gonna stop and fix it or are you gonna keep going because there is no consensus that the nuts will come off and no one can say with absolute certainty how long it will take for the nuts to fall off and you’ll be killed?
I think it is better to err on the side of caution, regardless of the percentage of human cause. Maybe cow farts are solely responsible for climate change; does that mean we shouldn’t do anything because hey, it ain’t our fault. Let the cows handle it.
Oh, and π=3.
Are you only 66-90% certain that the moon is not made of cheese?
Are you? I mean if all we have to go on is the consensus of the scientific community, who are clearly biased to find such information as supports their anti-beaver-cheese hypothesis, how positive can you honestly claim to be regarding the composition of the moon? You ever been there? Neither have I, so how do either of us know?
1) Because the claim of “consensus” is misused.
2) Because it doesn’t make sense to spend trillions of dollars and adding more and more government control if there’s not going to be any impact.
In other words, let’s spend our money somewhere where we know it will provide a benefit (and if that means slaughtering all of those bovine bastards…then so be it).
Telling someone who’s demonstrably wrong not to pretend he’s right isn’t excommunication.
Because the scientific consensus is stronger than claiming it is “likely” the moon is something other than cheese.
What is the down side to accepting Climate Change and working towards more fuel efficiency, alternative fuels and less pollution?
Removing his membership because he is a heretic is excommunication with only a slight bit of hyperbole.
It depends on how you do it. Will the costs outweigh the benefits?
If you believe TEH SKY IS FALLING then no cost is too much.
1) Because the claim of “consensus” is misused.
Well, okay, I can accept that. Much as the term “global warming” is misused. And “Islamofacism”, but I digress.
“Climate change” would thus be a more accurate term, yes? I mean it’s in the low 50′s here in NE and freezing in Austin, TX. Clearly, something’s up.
so how do either of us know?
I’ve heard Buzz Aldrin speak. I’ll take his word for it.
Being demonstrably wrong isn’t heresy. This is the point you refuse to grasp.
Oh, and it should not be heretical to claim that there is no consensus on the amount of Man’s responsibility for global warming.
Yeah, put me down for the “no cost” thing.
Will the costs outweigh the benefits?
Um… given that one of the long term benefits of increased fuel efficiency and alternative energies is actually less cost, I’m going to go with yes.
And if you go broke in the short term?
I’m not aware of any “global warming denier” that is against increasing fuel efficiency and alternative energies.
The question is how fast do we need to get there, how much money are we going to spend, and how much government regulation are we going to tolerate?
*rereads question* oh son of a damn, I mean no. No, the costs wont outweigh the benefits.
I don’t think JWG is being entirely unreasonable with his inquisitive position here. I think it’s important that we know all the parameters associated with man’s manipulation of the environment. Unfortunately, unlike issues like the composition of the moon, this particular issue has a multitude of factors that make estimation difficult. This is why there is some controversy about the extent of man’s effect on climate change (but not of the existence of the effect itself).
IMO, our current inability to provide exacting numbers for the magnitude of the effect should not prevent us from taking ultimately beneficial action. Oil is a limited and increasingly scarce resource; energy independence would be a boon to our country, and would allow us to sever close ties with countries like Saudi Arabia; it seems morally repugnant to not reduce our negative impact on the environment, whether that’s in terms of greenhouse gas emissions or pollution in general, to the extent that we can. As long as we continue in the direction we’re going now, the costs of our inertia will continue to grow, such that trying to reverse course may indeed become prohibitively costly, or impossible.
Nobody has yet to prove how much the recent global warming ‘spike’ is cauud by man made factors verss natural factors. Nobody. Thee are strong vested interests on both sides of the equation. As such the last thing anyone should be trying to do is to squelch debate by threatening to decertify (and thereby ruin the careers) of ‘nonbelievers’.
There are way way too many illustrations of ‘consensus’ being wrong. If you think about it, there would never be progress if we determined ‘consensus’ was always right.
That this kind of Lysenkoistic crap is going on at all only reinforces my inclinatiion to doubt the manmade global warming hysteria mongers. Why are you so afraid of debate – of differing opinions.
Dugger – I think the reasons for this are several. For one, those who strongly believe that we’re causing climate change view it as a precipitous situation. E.g., if we don’t act with some urgency and immediacy, we could be in a world of trouble. Debate takes some time. Secondly, the ones who deny man-made climate change are often viewed to be in bed with entities that have a vested interest in the maintenance of the status quo, e.g., the oil companies. Thirdly, and this goes with the last point, most of those that deny manmade climate change are viewed to be suspicious of science in general, from Inhofe, to Bush, and other conservative Republicans. It’s difficult to reconcile their negative view of science with their position on the existence of manmade climate change.
I don’t like the flat earth analogy, maybe tobacco companies versus cancer would be better.
Let’s see: CO2 emmissions have been shown to trap heat. Human factories, energy plants, vehicles, and other activities have been shown to increase CO2 emmissions, therefore….
See, logic isn’t all that hard.
Now examine the “vested interests”
Oil company side: keep using oil, it’s great for profits.
Environmental side: reduce CO2 emissions because of drastic results on environment that will harm human society and living conditions.
Gee, I don’t see a equality of “vested interest” there.
Evidence shows a sharp spike in CO 2 levels
…The earth is struggling to absorb carbon dioxide so a strong shift in environmental policy better be happening quickly for the sake of us all.
New figures from dozens of measuring stations across the world reveal that concentrations of CO2, the main greenhouse gas, rose at record levels during 2006 – the fourth year in the last five to show a sharp increase. Experts are puzzled because the spike, which follows decades of more modest annual rises, does not appear to match the pattern of steady increases in human emissions….
What would the results of continued inaction be?
What is to debate, the faith based assumptions of the right or the fact based evidence of the scientific community?
Why are you so afraid of debate – of differing opinions.
Theres also the issue of a ‘debate’ not serving the best intellectual interests of the people. One side has science and the backing of evidence, the other side has an agenda and the backing of Exxon. The fact of a debate between these theories de facto legitimizes the wrong theory at the expense of the right one. Its happened before. It doesnt matter, for instance, that the Swift Boat Veterans claims were almost unanimously lies (and what few truths they did get are by and large inconsequential to their attack on Kerry) the fact that the claims were debated at all granted them legitimacy that lives on still after almost all of them have been disproven. The ‘debate’ itself gave credence to a side in the form of peolpe telling themselves “well there must be some legitimate truth to it” when of course there really wasnt any. The same with creationism, which has no real scientific backing, and yet the demand for a debate has put Fact and Fiction as being roughly equal in the eyes of the public. It is not an exaggeration to say that the fate of the world may rest on the legitimacy of Anthropogenic Climate Change, and as such its not a ‘debate’ we should have that legitimizes an opinion that is not only in the severe minority as far as agreement with the science, but which typically has no real objection to the recommendations of climate scientisis beyond spurious claims that, for instance, forcing higher fuel efficiency standards would destroy the auto market (it happened in Japan, which explains why its impossible to buy a Toyota stateside, right?) and no real comparable benefit to not acting as opposed to action. To put the profitability of a stagnant and failing business model ahead of the fate of the Earth’s climate patterns in the guise of ‘debate’ is simply immoral.
rex, Please.
Both sides are incentivized to go outside science. I will accept oil companies ‘might’ back ‘science’ that reinforces their profit propsects. Do you acknowledge grants, publicity, political power and political ideology (anti-capitalist) COULD be behind some ‘global warming as a manmade phenomenon ‘ advocates? Do you really believe a free and open debate doesn’t serve the public interst. Are you aware of global cooling theory in the severnties. of Worldwatch claiming global warming cause more hurricanes.
For me. I think there is some manmade input to the global warming spike, but I’m not convinced that there is unbiased analysis showing it is more than a spike and excatly how much is the result of man versus nature. Nature has done it many times in the past. The fact that there are more CO2 emissions does not mean nature is still not at work. So how much and why not a debate?
mambo,
I am admittedly no expert, but I have heard of no one (now) talking about a ‘precipitous’ situation. Al Gore certainly seems to have overstated the ocean rising situation and there were some apocalyptics in the 70s-90s who claimed we had ten years or so before X happened (pick your doomsday scenario). But they weren’t borne out.
it only reinforces our doubt for teh left not to denounce those who threaten and wnat to curtail and stop free speech. And if I can’t say what I believ without losing my job, my speech ain’t free.
Dugger-
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/01/18/climate.crunch.reut/index.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1546824,00.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0211-05.htm
http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2904
That took me all of 30 seconds to find, and there was plenty more where that came from. You may question the sources if you wish, but to say that NO ONE is considering it an immediately pressing situation is flat wrong.
“there were some apocalyptics in the 70s-90s who claimed we had ten years or so before X happened (pick your doomsday scenario). But they weren’t borne out.” -Dugger
Uh huh… explain to me how this is evidence that certain current scientific predictions (of mass casualties, droughts and flooding, etc) of global warming are flawed. ‘Cause it seems to me that the current situation is independent from this stuff.
If a teacher “believes” that 2+2=applesauce, would Dugger want them to continue teaching?
Do you acknowledge grants, publicity, political power and political ideology (anti-capitalist) COULD be behind some ‘global warming as a manmade phenomenon ‘ advocates?
Well by advocates who exactly are we talking about here? If we’re talking about actual burlap parka-wearing, bad weed-stinking, Earth Day-worshipping hippie-types then yes, I’ll concede their (in my eyes misguided) anti-capitalist ideals and a fetishization of ‘Gaia’ may be at the heart of their “environmentalist” stance.
As far as Grants? I think you put that in there without thinking. Seriously, okay, I’m a scientist. Now, which do I think is more likely if I have a chioce: A- Going to work for Exxon and being paid well to help ‘prove’ something at odds with what is largely considered scientific fact; B- Working at a research institute and hoping to recieve any kind of comparable government or research grant to potentially support what is already a widely established idea. Now if, in this case, money is my primary impetus, which do you honestly think I’m going to choose.
As far as publicity and political power… well I’ll ask, how many people do you think have seriously become famous through talking about global warming? Not already famous people (actors, singers, politicians) who latch onto environmentalist causes to get more positive press, I’m talking about the scientists here. How many of them are famous for groundbreaking studies that shed light on the truth of the matter on either side? I can’t name a famous climatologist, and I doubt most people could either. Even if we limit ourselves to a more sensible scope and talk about mere notoriety within the scientific community itself… well here’s where my first post comes in again. If there were real earth shattering proof that climate change is a hoax, that something which the scientific community has accepted for years in fact turns out to be completely wrong on every count, proof which adheres to the core principles of the scientific method to support itself (read: peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals) dont you think that would be inherently more noteworthy than throwing one more essay on the not-hoax pile?
Look my point is that I’m not talking about the “advocates” here, not the hippies, the businessmen, the politicians on either side, I’m talking about the science, not the people behind it. And the science overwhelmingly supports the idea of man-made climate change.
From what I understand, they even let some liberals teach. Go figure.
Al Gore certainly seems to have overstated the ocean rising situation
Really? What did he say?
There is a “C”, you know. What about making a comfortable living researching something you believe to be true? What do you when that belief, and, therefore your income, is threatened? Jump ship and run to Exxon?
Of course not, you hunker down and jealously guard your position, so as to keep your income…
One doesn’t necessarily change a deeply cherished belief to increase their income from X to X+n.
Incidentally, analogous examples abound in criminal justice and social work…
2) Because it doesn’t make sense to spend trillions of dollars and adding more and more government control if there’s not going to be any impact.
This is where you’re wrong, and you would realize this if you ever read any of my comments on previous posts dealing with global warming. The regulations that would curtail global warming also curtail other pollution caused problems, including O-zone depletion, and poisoning the air. Now, you’re not suggesting that increased rate of skin cancer and asthma is preferable to companies losing a few bucks, now are you?
Also, don’t try quoting costs of the Kyoto Protocals as a counter-arguement. The costs of pollution are already being imposed on society, all the Kyoto Protocals do is force those causing the pollution to pay, rather than those that have nothing to do with it.
I’m not aware of any “global warming denier” that is against increasing fuel efficiency and alternative energies.
So why the debate in the first place?
The question is how fast do we need to get there,
The sooner, the better.
how much money are we going to spend,
At least as much it costs to pump oil, which is climbing every day.
and how much government regulation are we going to tolerate?
Seeing as how the private market has no incentive to do the research themselves, we should at least tolerate government funding.
There is a “C”, you know. What about making a comfortable living researching something you believe to be true? What do you when that belief, and, therefore your income, is threatened? Jump ship and run to Exxon? Of course not, you hunker down and jealously guard your position, so as to keep your income…
Congrats, Frank, you’ve successfully missed the point of what I was saying yet again. I was addressing specifically money as an impetus, in which case the Exxon job is clearly the better choice, which was meant to negate Dugger’s premise that money is a significant factor in having scientists choose to stick with their cockamamie theory that has the backing of fundamentally the entire scientific community.
As for your proposed C-option… youre actually suggesting that climatologists are willing to… well you dont explicitly say but youre basically suggesting theyre potentally willing to go falsifying evidence so they can keep their comfortable jobs researching a lie that theyre never called on. Ignoring the very basic fact that they just could go into another field if they felt their income threatened, youre suggesting we’re dealing with a lie so grand that in fact they must all be in on it, given the abundance of supporting articles and the dearth of contradictory. Surely all the powerful, influential climatologists of the world are suppressing what must be Mountains of evidence that shows unchecked burning of fossil fuels is actually the best thing that could happen to the earth. Its a conspiracy man! I global conspiracy to keep the worlds climate research scientists in their mundane position of general comfort!
Eat dick, Frank.
Poor pathetic wallflower Heidi Cullen really has no power whatsoever. She merely has a podium, one of many in this debate. She has zero say-so in granting or denying AMS seals of approval. Mega dittoes to that heroic red state meteorologist James Spann for raising the sword!
Heidi Cullen’s Weather Channel segment, “Climate Code”, has had (clears throat) “non-political” promos featuring such luminaries as Richard Branson, Ted Turner and The Mighty Algore. Makes me wanna both vomit and laugh. Talk about a whole lotta bed-wettin’ goin’ on!!
I’m glad to see a few of my fellow crusaders applying the boot to the throat on this. TWC might want to recall what we did to the career of Dan Rather (heh-heh-heh!!)
Get used to it!
Rex, you’re an asshole.
Do you really think that when a scientist goes to work for Exxon, he’ll lie for a paycheck, but a guy working at a private research facility won’t test and retest his pet theory, because he just can’t believe that it could be wrong (and, at the same time, fearful that he’ll be hitting the bricks looking for work if he’s wrong)?
Did you notice that the Weather Lady’s comments were followed by about a thousand objections? I guess all those people were paid by Exxon to make those comments?
You’re a jerk. Don’t tell me what I suggested (“well you dont explicitly say but you’re basically suggesting”)
I’m not suggesting anything.
I am saying that people are not solely motivated by money. Sometimes, they are motivated by pride, arrogance (I’m sure you can identify), fear of ridicule, peer pressure and a million other things beside a paycheck.
A researcher in his 40′s with a mortgage to pay can’t just “switch fields” — what do you think he’s going to do, go back to school for 6 plus years and get an MBA?
Top notch thinking.
For a kid just out of his teens. In the real world, there’s a whole lot for you to learn.
Like, for example, after telling someone to “Eat dick” about 10 times you start to sound like an 8 year old.
Funny Rory mentioned Dan Rather. What made him lie? Money?
Come back when you’re half my current age — six years from now. I bet the world will look a lot different — and it won’t be because of global warming.
You see, Rex? I make a simple comment, which represents a deviance from your truthyness, and you go off like a skyrocket, and start the same old crap all over again.
I don’t care if you don’t like me. You have have fully demonstrated the fact that you are not the kind of person that I would like to know. Your not liking me impresses me not in the least.
Exhorting me to “eat dick” indicates that you are undeniably immature, a situation from which you cannot extricate yourself, so you must continue with this idiotic tantrum – like behavior.
You’ll grow up some day. We all do — maybe even you.
Come back when you’re half my current age — six hundred years from now. I bet the world will look a lot different — and it won’t be because of global warming.
Fixed your little typo. And it’ll probably look different because of nuclear winter. How nice.
zython: yes, I’m six hundred years old.
Yuk! Yuk! very funny.
Let me make a correction for you: I am ten times more mature than you.
But then, so is everyone.
In an intelligence competition, you would come in second…
Everyone else on Earth would be tied for first.
In an intelligence competition, you would come in second…
Everyone else on Earth would be tied for first.
How very witty of you. Pretty funny, though, coming from someone who has yet to beat me here.
But then, so is everyone.
You haven’t see much of the internet, have you?
And tell me, good sir, how are these petty insults any mroe mature than my comments? I think you may be mistaken on the definition of “mature”.
Frank, you obviously have no idea how science works. Scientists are trained and strive to find objective truth through empirical analysis. Are there “bad” ones that may turn a blind eye to contradictory evidence, in all scientific fields? Sure. But to think that there is a conspiracy on a massive scale amongst all the world’s climatologists, as you suggest, is patently absurd.
What’s more likely, that all the world’s climatologists are lying through their teeth, or that the globe is actually warming due to man’s activity?
Better yet! I know you love this word… what’s more PARSIMONIOUS, Frank? Look it up if you need a refresher.
But to think that there is a conspiracy on a massive scale amongst all the world’s climatologists, as you suggest, is patently absurd.
I did not suggest that. So far, you and your Tourette’s afflicted friend have claimed that I have asserted it.
What’s more likely: That there is unanimity on the imminent catastrophe of global warming, or speculation as to its possible danger?
Every serious statement on the subject is written in language like this (from the NOAA):
I took some science in school — I don’t remember my teachers saying H2SO4 is expected to be Sulfuric Acid, or that we have a computer model of the existence of the Sun.
How’s this for parsimony, Mr. Wizard?
Are we in DANGER from global warming or are we EXPECTED to ACT like we are?
Y/N
BTW, according to “pepperoni” zython, I’m 600 years old. I know what the weather was like…
zython: Since you’re about 600 years closer to your playground days than I am,you should remember the end of this one: “I’m rubber, you’re glue…”
I thought this was funny:
Frank, if you don’t know what the word means, just look it up.
Are you actually saying that we shouldn’t do anything to combat climate change because we’re not absolutely 100% certain about it? Just because it’s ONLY extremely likely, we should ignore it? Our best current scientific analysis indicates that there is some level of climate change that is predicated on human action… should we ignore the evidence because it doesn’t live up to your standards of certainty?
“Do you really think that when a scientist goes to work for Exxon, he’ll lie for a paycheck, but a guy working at a private research facility won’t test and retest his pet theory, because he just can’t believe that it could be wrong (and, at the same time, fearful that he’ll be hitting the bricks looking for work if he’s wrong)?” -Frank
I must have misinterpreted this statement. Somehow, it makes it sound like you’re claiming that its possible that all the climatologists who claim manmade climate change is occurring are lying, from all corners of the globe. My apologies.
Answer: Indications are that yes, we are in danger from global warming. YES.
Frank, are you actually a Stephen Colbert imitator? Because that’s the only explanation that makes sense to me. Oh yeah, other than the possibility that you’re just a complete idiot.
mambochicken: Surely you don’t think that insulting me passes for intelligence, do you?
“Indications are” Even you can’t bring yourself to make a simple declarative statement — “We ARE in danger from global warming.”
Why the hedging?
I never grow weary of people who pass themselves as intelligent… They are truly (unintentionally) amusing.
should we ignore the evidence because it doesn’t live up to your standards of certainty?
No, we should DEBATE the evidence, rather than bend over backwards to believe it. Not because of my standards of certainty, but because of the standards of certainty due to my familiarity with science, and how it works.
I grew up in an educational environment where hypotheses were subject to testing, and the results were analyzed, and the analysis subject to debate.
There was no “majority rules” science, and no such thing as “consensus of scientific opinion.”
Call me an idiot if you want — that’s easy.
The difficult part is answering the arguments and the counter evidence that global warming is bullshit of the nth degree.
If you wonder why people are not all bent out of shape by the prospect of global warming, don’t blame the right.
Blame all the ecofreaks who “cried wolf” in the past. Endangered species that weren’t endangered, carcinogenic foods that didn’t cause cancer, FDA disapproval of drugs that work — that’s why your apocalyptic “message” is falling on deaf ears.
Not because you think I’m an idiot.
Frank, it’s obvious you don’t know anything about science. Stop lying.
For the millionth time, as said by responsible people for years… there is no debate on this issue. Manmade climate change is real. Any reasonable “debate” that you’ve imagined is on par witb people who want to debate the theory of evolution vs. intelligent design. In other words, no real debate at all.
You’re infuriating in your persistent foolishness. Do everyone a favor and drink whatever is under your kitchen sink.
Your campaign to subjugate corporations to government rule (using “global warming” as a Trojan Horse); and make America your personal eco – Lab isn’t working.
Wishing I would die is just the thing your ilk employs in a debate.
“Why, oh why won’t they do it our way.”
It may not be obvious that you don’t know anything about science, but it is obvious that you don’t know a damned thing about global warming.
That’s why your pesky opponents are not going, and will not, go away.
Your facts should speak for themselves, BUT THEY DON’T!
And you sure don’t know anything about Americans, if you think they are stupid enough to fall for your pseudoscientific gobbledygook.
Have you noticed how little talk of global warming is going on right now as huge areas of the US, formerly known for their balmy climate, are suffering from subnormal temps? California’s orange crop is covered with ice; it’s snow and ice from there straight across to FLA.
To paraphrase Edward G. Robinson in The Ten Commandments: Where’s your Global Warming now?
You have asked someone to drink poison because they disagree with you. I ask you, is this the action of a reasonable man?
Choose one:
1. No
2. Hell, no!
The facts don’t “speak for themselves” because there are people like you that choose to ignore the facts on ideological grounds. The same thing has been happening in regards to evolution for some time now. The evidence is there, maybe you should pay attention to it.
Btw, the current icy conditions across much of the U.S. actually support the idea of climate change. Counterintuitive? Perhaps. True? Absolutely.
Why don’t you go research how much the AVERAGE global temperature has increased over the last century, and how much CO2 concentrations have increased in the corresponding timeframe, and get back to all of us?
P.S. If you think that I was dead serious about my suggestion that you kill yourself, you’re a bigger fool than I thought.
I guess I could use your tactics, and say if you weren’t serious about that, you have never been serious about anything.
But I won’t. I don’t understand why I should go look up a number which I’m sure you have at your fingertips (or could find more quickly and easily than I), and could have typed right now.
If you were truly serious about this issue, you’d be presenting some irrefutable evidence, and not playing word games with a crusty conservative curmudgeon, who you think chooses not to believe in global warming, or, worse, is completely incapable of understanding really, really deep subjects like weather.
Here you go, Frank. Enjoy.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20060925/
will you change your mind now?
Hansen was the guy who claimed he was being silenced by the government, right?
The guy who has his remarks published on NASA’a website i the same guy that claims he was censored?
Onward and upward: The censored Dr. Hansen asserts:
I enjoyed that — especially that scientific certitude we all remember with such fondness.
sigh. Forget it. There’s no use arguing with you, Frank.
You were never arguing with me. You were waiting for me to agree with you.
You might not know the difference, but it is important for you and your “chicken little” buddies to understand.
Nothing is going to happen until people are persuaded that it is a good idea.
Telling people they are idiots, and they are ignorant of science is not persuasion. It is browbeating.
It leads people to believe that you have some hidden agenda.
Sigh all you want to. I’m not the one you have to convince.
Frank,
You are ignorant of science.
You are an idiot.
I’m done caring whether you agree with me or not. You’re just a crotchety old man who gets his jollies from being disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable.
From now on, I fully intend to merely browbeat you, rather than try and persuade you. It’ll be just as productive, and easily more fun for me.
Idiot.
Jesus God, Oliver — smarter trolls. PLEASE.
I work for the company that owns the Weather Channel (though I do not speak for it). In my 20 years of experience with the company I have found it slow to rouse but, once roused, fearsome. Having no public investors to answer to will make you that way.
I will predict that the smackdown that is coming for Morano is going to be such that we’d have to resurrect Tex Avery to do it visual justice.
Memo to all the scientifically illiterate: Not your turn to run the country anymore. Buh-bye.
hey,mambochicken: fuck you and the horse that rode in on you…
Browbeat THIS, shithead!
Now sigh, child!