Global Warming Deniers And Their Propaganda
Tweet
It was the television programme that set out to show that most of the world’s climate scientists are misleading us when they say humanity is heating up the Earth by emitting carbon dioxide. And The Great Global Warming Swindle, screened by Channel 4 on Thursday night, convinced many viewers that it is indeed untrue that the gas is to blame for global warming.
But now the programme – and the channel – is facing a serious challenge to its own credibility after one of the most distinguished scientists that it featured said his views had been “grossly distorted” by the film, and made it clear that he believed human pollution did warm the climate.
Professor Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said he had been “completely misrepresented” by the programme, and “totally misled” on its content. He added that he is considering making a formal complaint.
Sign these guys up with Fox News, stat!
108 Responses to “Global Warming Deniers And Their Propaganda”
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
Channel 4 should have known better.
One misinterpreted scientist is only a serious challenge in the world of GlobalWarmians.
Gore 3:16
The Book of GlobalWarmians
How appropriate. I’m sure fd10801 would have been right at home beating his Bible over the head of Galileo when he dared suggest that the Earth revolved around the sun.
Geocentricism was in the talking points.
One misinterpreted scientist is only a serious challenge in the world of GlobalWarmians.
…godsdamn it Frank the entire anti-GW argument is predicated on the hope that one scientist out of a hundred thousand is right where all the others are wrong, its the idea of the subjugated minority voice that gives them legitimacy in their own damn eyes. Thats why Dugger spends so much time pretending Prof. B. P. von Exxon is freaking Galileio. You cant claim “The minority opinion doesnt matter” when the anti-GW crowds entire argument is “The minority opinion is pivotally important.”
Frank, what do you gain by denying global warming? If you were wrong, would you be willing to sacrifice your own children so that those of us who did believe and tried to do something about it could live off the diminished earth?
z adura, you forget that if the scientists are wrong about global warming, then some people will lose some money.
MONEY, YOU HEAR ME???!!!
How can you equate the mere survival of the human race with the TRAGIC LOSS OF MONEY?! What are you, some kind of communist?
zadura: I have no plans to sacrifice my children. What would you suggest I do?
Drive less — I have no car
Heat my home with nuclear energy?
Maybe I should just set a bunch of towels outside my apartment door for when the floods come.
Oh, and Rex, I didn’t say the minority opinion doesn’t matter. What I said was that one scientist stating he was misinterpreted doesn’t negate the value of the documentary.
The way I see it, the whole Global Warming meme is that we are doomed. Hybrid vehicles, and windmills and such are too little, too late.
There’s no point asking Frank what he hopes to gain. He doesn’t know why he opposes Global Warming, it’s just in the talking points.
“The Global Warming meme” is not that we ARE doomed, but that without taking steps to deal with the problem, we WILL be doomed.
fd10801 (or Frank, as I guess everybody is calling him) deciding that the “meme” means we “are” doomed is nothing more than laziness on his part.
“Oh well, we’re all gonna die anyway, might as well do nothing but what I’ve always done.”
Laziness is one thing, cheerfully accepting the Apocalypse because it’s too much trouble not to prevent the end of the world is another.
Frank is his name, he just doesn’t post under it again.
[note: Frank is my name. Unlike the other "brave warriors" who post here, I see no reason to conceal my identity. I know that the nastiest, most disgusting, and classless and tasteless of posters are always anonymous.]
spider: You don’t know what you’re talking about — or you don’t know what the GlobalWarmians are talking about.
You can start by telling me what I can do about the imminent flooding of all the land from the Appalachians to the Atlantic, and all the land from the Rockies to the Pacific.
The GlobalWarmians say its less than thirty years away.
Any ideas?
zadura: I have no plans to sacrifice my children. What would you suggest I do?
I would suggest that you stop being a cheerleader for the anti-science, anti-humanity cabal.
Frank, vote for conservationist Republicans. They exist. We Californians have an outstanding governor who fits that very description.
I would suggest that you stop being a cheerleader for the anti-science, anti-humanity cabal.
I have never been too crazy about science, especially since the Holocaust gave it such a bad name.
But “anti -humanity”? Now that’s harsh.
zadura: If I could find a conservationist republican that wasn’t a liberal, and anti – corporate, pro – big government to boot, I might consider it.
Someone who’s far right and yet gives at least as much of a fuck about the world around him as himself and his shareholders? Tricky.
Now would be the time to get off your high horse Nimmers.
All of these bishops to religion of warming, the Gores and the hollywood crowd are some of the most profligate users of energy in the world. Owning 3 14 thousand sqft houses and then driving a prius and “giving a fuck” won’t actually lower CO2 levels.
All of these “shareholders” allow a huge percentage of the world to work and eat…something you Marxist-Leninist always forget
It’s a good thing Galileo didn’t believe in Scientific Consensus.
I have never been too crazy about science
That’s painfully obvious, Frank.
Owning 3 14 thousand sqft houses and then driving a prius and “giving a fuck” won’t actually lower CO2 levels.
No, but powering your homes with green energy, purchasing carbon offsets, giving a fuck, and being a world leader in encouraging green energy policies actually might … something you Fascist-Racists always forget.
It’s a good thing Galileo didn’t believe in Scientific Consensus.
I think what you mean is that it’s a good thing that Galileo didn’t believe that those put more stock in their bibles and their bottom lines than what they could see with their own lyin’ eyes were scientists.
Want reduced pollution? Believe in science? Want to live in a world with glaciers, permafrost, and frozen ice caps?
You’re a fucking Socialist.
I don’t condone the level of Gore’s energy usage (although a good percentage is green energy, supposedly). But I am not so imbecilic to think that because he uses a lot of energy, that all the scientific data he has presented is false. You can say he’s a hypocrite if you like, righties. But his energy usage has nothing to do with the scientific data. Not one iota. So shut up. Oh, and fuck off, Pedro.
SaveFarris: Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ, do you understand that we’re smarter now? Science has exploded over the last couple centuries. In Galileo’s time, there WAS no scientific consensus… the consensus was religiously-based (e.g., NOT scientific). So you can fuck off too.
Oh, and fuck off, Pedro.
So you can fuck off too.
The last word on global warning.
Why don’t you all just admit that you are neo – Luddites.
Oh, here’s the civility police! Frank, welcome! You’ll never guess what some guy on this blog told me the other day… in response to an honest apology, he said something to the effect that I lacked testicles. I was expecting you to swoop down and lock him in your iron grip of reason and civility, but you were nowhere to be found!… oh, wait…
Frank, I am not sure I follow your logic at all. I certainly am not proposing that we stop driving, heating our homes, or using computers. I am suggesting we create the technology to do all of those things more efficiently and environmentally friendly. The technologies exist and will get out under a capitalist system. What is required is investment and the will to see it done.
yea, what a guy…buying carbon offsets…from his own company
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/gore-helped-found-company-that-deals-in-carbon-offsets
Sweeeet…..
Hey mambo, how much does human carbon usage contribute to global warming?
Why are the icecaps melting on Mars?
Why does the arctic ice data regarding the rise of CO2 not demonstrate that more CO2 equals warmer climate?
Why was “Greenland” named “Greenland” by the Vikings? Why don’t the vikings live there anymore?
I already said Gore’s use is excessive.
I don’t know exactly how much human carbon usage contributes to global warming, I trust the scientists when they say it’s a significant amount.
What does Mars have to do with Earth?
Your next question is a leading one, to say the least. Everything I’ve read indicates a fairly good correlation between the two.
Who gives a fuck? No one has EVER claimed that warming throughout Earth’s history was solely the fault of humans. So maybe Greenland really was green back in the day… just because that was so, doesn’t mean that CO2 emissions aren’t causing global warming right now.
Suck it.
Greenland was named by Erik the Red to attract settlers. It was only inhabitable for brief periods; his settlement died out after 400 years.
You should take the time to do at least some basic research, please…
Congratulations, Pedro, after years of trying you’ve finally managed to become stupider than George Bush on an issue.
That is no small feat.
I’m not a Marxist-Leninist, I’m a Bevanite. Even a lamb would know that.
Of course, in your world, “Socialism” equals “any political philosophy to the left of Mitt Romney” so whatever.
Recenit was clearly noted Mars is warming also. How can this be. Do we need to send AlGore to Mars to work some of that voodoo that he do so well? And the argument about global warming is not about whether we are in the midst of a current small spike, but whether that spike is permanent, man made entirely, man made partially, not hardly man made at all (as Mars warming suggests). A second debate point is how harmful, if at all, a small permanent global warming spike would be.
This debate has turned. The fascists at the Weather Channel who would end the careers of any who disagreed with them were wrong. The settled science ain’t and never was settled. Now maybe adults, without politcal axes to grind, will elbow the political extremists out of the way and we can start to see some real analsyis.
The fact that Mars is warming has nothing to do with the fact that the Earth is warming, Dugger. That’s akin to saying that because there’s life on Earth, there must also be life on Mars. It just doesn’t follow.
No one ever claimed that there were not other reasons besides man’s interference that a planet could warm. How many times do you have to hear it before you understand?
Enjoyed all the arguments – almost on an evangelical level.
How about this one on a more secular level
Researcher on climate change says – “It’s OK guys – there is some global warming but it is short term and happens every so often” – Research Funding – Zero
Researcher on climate change says – “Guys we got serious trouble- there is global warming and it is going to be devastating – but with more research we can minimise it” – Research Funding – Loads a money
Only bad news makes the news
How many times do WE have to tell YOU, that the amount of warming attributable to man is crucial to this discussion!
AlGore fleecing everyone to buy carbon indulgences from his company and making millions selling people on the religion of man-made global warming, won’t sound so impressive if it turns out that 10% of warming is due to people, and that if we compeletly stopped emitting greenhouse gases, warming would not change appreciably.
By the same token, I am an “environmentalist”. I sold my 8 cylinder and got a 4. I am looking into solar electricity for my house. I combine trips in the car as much as possible.
Preserving resources does not require a faith in AlGore.
Oh, and AlGore is no better than the TV evangelists who are caught in the back seat of the car with the choir-boy…a rank hypocrite.
I could refute all your points in turn but they’re not worth the effort. Shut up, Pedro.
yeah!
Nimmer’s takes all his toys and goes home….again….
I love the smell of burnt Nimrod in the morning…..it smells like…Victory
No, that’s your own shit you’re smelling.
Like I said, I could refute all your points, but I won’t, because you’re obviously just reading out the talking points like you usually do, so it would be a waste of energy.
Why are the icecaps melting on Mars?
Recenit was clearly noted Mars is warming also.
Mars is not Warming. The only reason it looks like it is from the melting of the ice cap because people are observing it on Earth’s time scale and not Mars’ own, which has a year equal to roughly three of our own. It is regional and seasonal, not due to global phenomenon or external possibilities, such as the sun getting much hotter. Please shut up about it now.
Why does the arctic ice data regarding the rise of CO2 not demonstrate that more CO2 equals warmer climate?
This graph shows the correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures on a global scale. Evidence of the link abounds. It is impossible therefore to answer the question of why this evidence doesnt exist, and more productive to ask why you think it doesnt.
Why was “Greenland” named “Greenland” by the Vikings? Why don’t the vikings live there anymore?
1650 had a small-scale ice-age, due to higher than average volcanic activity and lower than average sunspot activity. Neither volcano nor sunspot activity can be attributed significantly to the current increase in global temperature trends.
how much does human carbon usage contribute to global warming?
the amount of warming attributable to man is crucial to this discussion!
*sighs* …alright, apparently every time I’ve tried to give you an explanation its failed in ways you refuse to specify. I think the problem is that youre talking abut GW in the sense of trends of temperature on a global scale, which have historically gone up and down. Scientists use GW to refer to the temperature going above that trend, due predominantly to anthropogenic factors. In that definition, Carbon use is responsible for the bulk of it (my guess is around 70%) but I dont know what the answer is in the other sense because the definition of warming is vague, implying that measuring temperature is quantitative (counting degrees as indivitual items) and not qualitative. If you would like to clarify that definition, then there is most definately an answer, and I’ll find it for you if you like.
I’ll refute them with four letters, IPCC.
I do enjoy the attempt to paint Global Warming as Al Gore’s profit machine, though. Much like the “invented the internet” fantasy, its a transparent attempt to discredit the message by attacking its most prominent messenger.
Mars may be warming for multiple reasons, some of which include solar activity, which also affects the Earth. However, the obvious implication that the Sun must be THE critical factor affecting current climate change has already been thoroughly debunked.
A touchdown is a touchdown whether you are one inch over the line or ten feet. The point being that it doesn’t matter if mankind is contributing 1% of the total greenhouse gases or 100%, we’re over the line and we need to do everything we can to reverse course. Honestly, if one person covers your mouth and another pinches your nose, do you waste time debating who will be ultimately responsible for suffocating you or do you bust your ass getting one to let you breathe?
Based on your breathing analogy, let me offer the following scenario:
You have a splinter (if mankind is contributing your bottom proposal of 1%) and you’re hemorrhaging from an artery (nature’s 99% contribution). If you don’t have any way to stop the hemorrhage, are you going to bother with the splinter?
In other words, if reversing mankind’s contribution will cost billions/trillions and have an insignificant impact, then it would make more sense to spend the money to alleviate the negative impact instead.
JWG, the “negative impact” is a diminished capacity of the earth to be used productively. If your goal is to “aleviate the negative impact,” why don’t you just offer your kid’s and grandkid’s lives so that mine, who behaved responsibly can make due with what people like you have made inevitable.
I didn’t realize your family didn’t use carbon spewing technologies. My bad.
JWG, it is not difficult to live a responsible life. In fact, it’s the Republican mantra. Unfortunately, the party’s been taken over by slobs like you.
I’m glad you’ve found a way not to be responsible for putting carbon into the environment. I’m not sure how your miracle technologies allow the “earth to be used productively” but I’m sure you’re on your way to the patent office. Good for you!
Your analogy is flawed. In your case, the splinter has no bearing on the health and well being of the individual regardless of any other injury. In the breathing scenario, only blocking both airways is fatal. Opening either will save your life.
As for the 1% assumption, that doesn’t address the critical nature of such a small contribution as you approach a critical threshold (or tipping point, as it were). Perhaps at some other point in history we might find our current contribution to the Earth’s climate insufficient to trigger a catastrophe. Today, however, that doesn’t appear to be the case and increasingly the evidence points toward a grim outcome if we fail to act.
Concerning the global cost of reversing course and trying to correct the damage, there is quite a disparity of opinion as to what the actual numbers will look like. Frequently such assumptions simply disregard the emergence of profitable new industries or the savings in reduced pollution and associated environmental and health costs. Even if you don’t look at it as an investment in our future, it seems difficult to reconcile people complaining about the tab when we are rapidly on our way to dumping 1-2 trillion into a failed Middle Eastern debacle with no discernible benefit to anyone but Halliburton and now Dubai (and that’s just the U.S.).
Ultimately, our efforts may be for naught, but that’s hardly an argument for not trying. It just seems ridiculous to risk literally ruining the planet because we’re too cheap.
The sky is falling!
Even if you don’t look at it as an investment in our future, it seems difficult to reconcile people complaining about the tab when we are rapidly on our way to dumping 1-2 trillion into a failed Middle Eastern debacle
Yet another insight into the impetus behind the GlobalWarmians: If only there were no war, think of all the grand things we could do!
[Translation: Let's do away with the DOD]
Do you even realise what you’re pointing and laughing at, JWG?
Between dugger and Pedro, I’ve got BINGO!
I’m pointing and laughing at the same thing I always do…the people running around crying about the end of the world, when the actual science about the subject is much more tempered.
[Translation: Let's do away with the DOD]
Yeah…that works for me.
The best argument against global warming is that there are still so many walls of frozen manure that show no sign of melting.
I refer to JWG, Pedro, Dugger, Frank, etc.
I appreciate the effort that my reality-based colleagues are putting toward softening those walls by the concerted application of cranial force, but I, for my part, am retiring from such activities.
Fortunately even His Manureness, president Bush, has agreed that there is a likely problem that we would be prudent to do something about. I think that means we can safely ignore these obfuscatory droids without fear that their moronic ideas will regain traction.
Call me a wishful thinker, but the good Lord only gave me one skullbone.
rex
Seriously, how old are you?
Why do those taking the Gore position on manmade global warming tell those who disagree with them to shut up? Is it because the science is settled and we need to get moving on the political things you guys think needed to be done? Things that would be good, anyway, say if in 20 years this scare was found out to be similar to the global cooling scare of 30 years ago?
Do the people who said this need to shut up also, nice guy?
According to a September 20 NASA news release, “for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars’ south pole have shrunk from the previous year’s size, suggesting a climate change in progress.” Because a Martian year is approximately twice as long as an Earth year, the shrinking of the Martian polar ice cap has been ongoing for at least six Earth years.
The shrinking is substantial. According to Michael Malin, principal investigator for the Mars Orbiter Camera, the polar ice cap is shrinking at “a prodigious rate.”
“The images, documenting changes from 1999 to 2005, suggest the climate on Mars is presently warmer, and perhaps getting warmer still, than it was several decades or centuries ago,” reported Yahoo News on September 20.”
Dugger, Global Cooling Denier
Bollocks to Mars. I don’t live on Mars, you probably don’t live on Mars, Mars has nothing to do with anything, shut up about Mars.
This just in:
Yes! Someone finally stepped up and quoted from the pathetic Bill Broad’s NYT article. Well done Frank.
Too bad it’s complete crap.
Bill L. What is too bad, is that you and so many other wannabe skeptics and cynics have no difficulty swallowing this Global Warming bilge hook, line and sinker.
Do the people who said this need to shut up also, nice guy?
According to a September 20 NASA news release, “for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars’ south pole have shrunk from the previous year’s size, suggesting a climate change in progress.” Because a Martian year is approximately twice as long as an Earth year, the shrinking of the Martian polar ice cap has been ongoing for at least six Earth years.
Dugger, Global Cooling Denier
Sighhhhh……………
“The shrinkage of the Martian South Polar Cap is almost certainly a regional climate change, and is not any indication of global warming trends in the Martian atmosphere.”
“the south polar climate is unstable due to the peculiar topography near the pole, and the current configuration is on the instability border; we therefore expect to see rapid changes in ice cover as the regional climate transits between the unstable states.”
“Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted. The observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing. There is a slight irony in people rushing to claim that the glacier changes on Mars are a sure sign of global warming, while not being swayed by the much more persuasive analogous phenomena here on Earth.”
Dugger, for everyone’s sake, please, shut your benighted, imbecilic, uninformed, cherrypicking, “ha, gotcha”-ing, unjustifiable-pretense-of-understanding, data-misrepresenting, deliberatly-misinforming, petro-cock-sucking ass up. You take a limited data set (small time frame over small region) and make the unwarranted extrapolation to a global phenomenon that ignores the myriad assembled data that shows your theory invalid at the starting post. You have nothing to contribute to this discussion, you never have, and barring for the possibility that you may come up with an even MORE comically pathetic way to equate petro-chem-scientists resistant to peer-review with Galileo Fucking Galilei, you never ever will. Dugger, I ask that you please, now and forever, shut the everlasting hell up.
Rex Mundane, Denier that Global Cooling Ever Had Dispassionate Scientific Consensus Behind It Thus Rendering It A Non Issue You Fucking Putz.
We can always count on people like Rex and Mambochicken to further intelligent discourse.
And I was banned for flaming.
*sigh*
You don’t have to be polite to be intelligent.
NG: You manage to be neither
I’m proud of Frank. He hasn’t published his home address or challenged anyone to a New Rochelle (NY, where he lives) smackdown in a fit of anger for, what, months now!!
Frank, you have contributed nothing to this thread. No new information, analysis, or legitimate theories that in any aids the discussion. Even Dugger has presented articles that at least provide one piece of (misconstrued) evidence. You, alternately, have only attacked everyone who thinks differently than you. If I’m guilty of not “Furthering Intelligent Discourse” when I get vulgar from exhaustion with a ridiculous and easily disproven argument at 1:30 in the AM, managing to provide factual rebuttal even at that time, then what, may I ask, are you guilty of?
The cease-fire is still in effect, so I suppose I have to wait for you to directly baselessly insult me instead of your typical passive aggresive sarcastic horseshit. Finger’s on the button though, and guess which one.
rex,
You honestly should be lecturing no one about insults. You do it gratuitously, frequently – particularly when confronted wiht evidence that doesn’t fit your own biases. Why are you so afraid of honest debate. Do you think you will ‘scare’ me or others away from the issue? Browbeat us into acquiesence? You won’t. True, you can get bad enough and personal enough with the insults, as a few have here, to be ignored.
You have to remember that a major contention of the political left is that the science is ‘settled’ and that majority-manmade-global-warming ‘heretics’ need to lose their careers. I only claim that the Martian data (and other indicators) clearly indicate major questions remain on predominant manmade global warming; that the science is clearly not settled. There are clearly different interpretations of the Martian data.
No new information, analysis, or legitimate theories that in any [way] aids the discussion
Will you be so kind as to direct me to the new information, analysis, or legitimate theories you have provided?
I will admit that calling Dugger a fucking putz was new…
Will you be so kind as to direct me to the new information, analysis, or legitimate theories you have provided?
In This Comment I link to and extensively quote an astronomical explanation as to why the martian ice cap is melting that clearly demonstrates how Mars is not undergoing any kind of “Global Warming” that is in any way analogous to our own that clearly, for him to make such a self-evidently bogus claim, he had not yet seen (most likely had not even sought) and was certainly new to the discussion. And in This Comment (where I erroneously claim a martian year equals three earth years when in fact it equals two) I provide a link to a graph that shows the very thing Pedro said did not exist at all, a correlative link between global CO2 levels and temperature, information which, while I’ll grant you is not new to the science community, is apparently new to him, since he was apparently unaware that it even existed. And in this very comment itself I’m showing you where I provided this new information that clearly is news to you since good lord, its not even that you cant be bothered to read the evidence in favor of GW, you cant even be bothered to read the fucking thread youre commenting on. And again you contribute nothing, hoping to criticize the people when you cannot refute the science. You’re a pathetic joke, Frank. Go away.
rex,
You honestly should be lecturing no one about insults. You do it gratuitously, frequently – particularly when confronted wiht evidence that doesn’t fit your own biases. Why are you so afraid of honest debate.
The hell makes you think I’m afraid of debate? Ive been providing facts, figures, explanations and the dreaded consensus of the scientific community. Alternately all You, Frank and Pedro have provided is anecdote and unwarrented extrapolation.
“Mars’ Ice cap is melting, therefore a localized phenomenon is happening all over the planet, and is also happening here even though our planets are so remarkably different,” is not debate.
“I reserve the right to insist that questions with terms so vague as to be indefinable are pivotally important, and reserve the right to gloat about how theres no answer for them, ignoring the provided answers to other more reasonable rephrasings,” is not debate.
“A small few scientists in the 70s were predicting Global Cooling and that turned out to be wrong so there haha,” is not debate!
“Peer-reviewed dispassionate scientific consensus means nothing because groups of people have been wrong before,” is not debate!
“Greenland wasn’t always covered in ice you know,” is NOT debate!
“Exxon scientists might be the next Galileio,” is NOT debate!
“Al Gore uses a lot of electricity,” IS NOT DEBATE!
“Global Warming is a religion,” IS NOT DEBATE!
“Why are you so afraid of honest debate,” IS NOT FUCKING DEBATE!
I am not afraid of debate Dugger, because I know that in an open and honest forum Global Warming will be shown to be true. Debate is happening (indeed has already happened, which is how the eeeeevil scientific consensus was reached in the first place) not because of people like you, Dugger, but in spite of people like you, like Pedro, and like Frank who bring not a damn thing to the table but anecdote which, even when so easily explained away, you can still smile quietly to yourself and say “major questions remain,” and “the science is clearly not settled,” because youve managed to waste everyone’s time. Maybe if you stopped googling for soundbites that “challenge” textbooks so you can play this pathetic GOTCHA! game and tried looking for the volumes of information that refute those soundbites, you might have already realized that.
For you,Rex, debate is about how right you are.
Here’s something for you to think about: (I wouldn’t dare call them debating points — you might disapprove (un – God forbid!)
Global Warming FAQ
You, in turn, may wish to consider this.
“For you,Rex, debate is about how right you are.” also is not debate, Frank.
And what the hell is “un-God forbid” supposed to mean?
More from the New York Times article (that some blogger said didn’t list the objections of scientists:
Once again, I fail to meet Rex’s high standards for debate. He has to have cartoon figures speak for him to make his point.
It is to laugh!
Rex: Before you burst a blood vessel, I think you should know something. We are not engaged in a debate, you lunatic!
This is a blog. You post a comment, I post a comment, other people post comments. Sometimes people agree, sometimes people disagree.
But THIS IS NOT A DEBATE!
Now take that librium and relax.
We are not engaged in a debate, you lunatic!
You have just admitted that you are not interested in engaging the issue of global warming on an intellectual level, and are only here presumably because you enjoy reading the sound of your own voice. You lose at internet, Frank.
I am now going to refute what Dr. Easterbrook, a Geologist and not a climatologist, claims. I fully expect you to pretend I never said this and continue to call me immature.
[Dr. Easterbrook] hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.
Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”
Global temperature trends have indeed gone up and down. Gore wasn’t talking about the Temperature being higher than ever, he’s talking about “environmental shift” which addresses the rate at which the change takes place, not what it changes to. The rate is ten times faster than it ever was. Indeed, as Gore says, we have never seen anything like that before.
“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog.
He doesnt indeed say its either natural or expected, because as I’ve just explained, the phenomenon of such a rapid change has never occurred before.
I know you wont actually read it because it challenges what you’ve been told to think, but David Roberts’ dissection (which Bill L linked to before you insulted him baselessly without addressing the point) does a good job of addressing the misleading claims in the article.
Having explained how your quote is a misleading one, I fully expect you to insult me again and quote from another random article or webpage pretending that youve managed to make a dent. I trust that you wont disappoint. Make us all proud, Frank.
I have an idea, Rex. Let’s make this as scientific and objective as possible.
I’ll just pretend there is no serious Global Warming problem, and you act like there is.
Let’s see what happens in 10 years or so.
Until then … Well, you know the rest.
Hm, breif, insubstantial, yet condescending and pretentious. A full 9.7 on the Frank-ter scale.
Better deal: You will only speak on this issue when you have anything of actual (or even percieved) substance to bring to the table, and I will speak only when addressing it, most likely by refuting it. This denys us both using OW threads to jus tbe smarmy at one another, and requires us both to provide substance. I grant that this will hinder your activities more than they do mine, but I still think its a fair deal. I await your decision with trepidation.
Until then … Well, you know what to eat.
Clearly, the Global Warming on Mars didn’t happen until we started putting landers and Mario Go-Karts on it.
Condescending and pretentious?
You’re losing your mind. This whole Global Warming thing has obviously upset you greatly.
Shouldn’t you be moving to higher ground or something?
Hunting down carbon burners?
Do something, Rex! Before the flood waters kill us all…
I was really hoping that ten years from now, in addition to verifying whether or not Global Warming is a real danger, you would be over thirty, and perhaps a tad wiser.
But I’m not sure that will ever be the case.
Incidentally, you broke the deal. It might interest you to know that I had completely forgotten about it.
“Condescending and pretentious?
You’re losing your mind. This whole Global Warming thing has obviously upset you greatly.
Shouldn’t you be moving to higher ground or something?
Hunting down carbon burners?
Do something, Rex! Before the flood waters kill us all…”
pre·ten·tious Adj. – Expressive of affected, unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth, or stature.
Example: Frank pretentiously presumes that his ability to quote easily disproven and yet excessively repeated claims is greater than Rex’s willingness to actually research, locate and explain the scientific evidence that refutes such claims, and says that Rex is crazy for even bothering to do so.
con·de·scend intr. V – To deal with people in a patronizingly superior manner.
Example: Since Frank has such a pretentious view of himself over the scientific community, which must be wrong, he condescendingly tells Rex to solve the problem himself, exaggerating both the nature of the problem as well as Rex’s ability to influence it in order to belittle both.
You have provided no evidence that bolsters your argument when prompted to repeatedly. Lacking anything else to go on, I am left to assume that, though you lack the ability to admit as much and resist such with hostility, mockery and condescention, you are forced to concede the point that Global Warming exists. I have nothing left to say, unless you have any argument left to present. Since I’m fairly positive that you dont, and that your next post will, again, insult me for being younger than you and thusly stupider than you can ever imagine, and call me hysterical for being able to cite sources and formulate argument, I probably wont be saying anything else in this thread.
Also, the deal was I would only ever say the phrase that pays after you lobbed baseless insults at me in place of argument. You broke the deal, and for the record, I have yet to acquiesce in kind.
I probably wont be saying anything else in this thread.
Thank God…
Rex: Only you could translate “I am really sick of you” into “I agree with you.”
That’s why I doubted you will ever gain in wisdom. You are too arrogant and self – absorbed to ever be wise.
And yet you have said nothing. You’ve just pointed and gone LOL at teh dum libruls and their envireements.
NG: Are you “s”‘s deranged twin brother?
Rex has countered every one of your arguments with reason, cites and exhaustive research. All you have left, Frank, is “it must be wrong ‘cuz liberals think it’s true.”
Good ol’ Rex simply classified everything posted by Dr P, dugger and myself as unacceptable. What’s the point in going on when whatever you say is dismissed?
Rex in effect has said, “I must be right because Dr P, dugger and Frank disagree with me.” As for “exhaustive research,” I refer you to his comment of Mar 14, 2007 1:20:13 PM, where he cites
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/22147/335
as evidence that “The rate is ten times faster than it ever was.”
Yet the article says no such thing, and half of the related comments refute what he does say. Did I dismiss his comment as non – responsive? Not until now, when you have chosen to defend your bosom buddy.
But he is pedantic, overbearing, and arrogant. You want him, you can have him. I think he’s a baby with an attitude.
Besides, it no longer concerns me. Global Warming is nothing more than the latest ecofreaks’ scare tactic. I’m not falling for it.
Frank, I might remind you that the “ecofreaks” used to be Republicans back when Republicans still believed in personal responsibility. Those were the heady days when we were able to get SOx and NOx out of coal-fired plants, PCBs out of the water supply, lead out of paint and CFCs out of aerosol cans. I am very little concerned about your personal opinion of Rex, just as I am unconcerned that you think I am a limousine liberal. What does concern me is the complete abrogation of responsibility that has become mantra with Republicans.
Cleaning up pollution at reasonable rates (of time and money) is not the same as a trillion dollar effort to cripple the American economy.
And whether or not I thought you were a limousine liberal is irrelevant. If you don’t care what I think of the “King of the Ordinary,” then why bring him up? (Of course he, and others, have written many paragraphs attempting to analyze me with no objection from you, but that’s another story, isn’t it?)
I don’t speak for Republicans, even though the lefties in “Oliver’s Army” like to think so.
Frank, let me play arbiter for a moment. Rex is attempting to engage you and the other contrarians here in a discussion about global warming. Some critics have at least gone to the trouble to arm themselves with evidence from Easterbrook and Abdussamatov. Rex has done his level best to dispute those claims with counter-evidence.
You have added nothing. You don’t understand the arguments about global warming and don’t have much of a sense for what the solutions might be. In other words, you are ignorant of the situation entirely. And yet, thought not a “spokesperson” for the Republican party, you are an enabler of them. How is it in 59 years of life, you’ve turned out to pride yourself with this ignorance? How is it that you want to act as a mouthpiece for conservatives but promote this abrogation of personal responsibility? It truly saddens me and informs my own political philosophy.
Rex is attempting to engage you and the other contrarians here in a discussion about global warming.
By telling me to shut up, z?
There are clear indications that many see ‘long term’ evidence of warming on Mars. Why is the science on predominat manmade global warming settled. Why must scientific skeptics lose their jobs? Al Gore has already admitted somethings in ‘Earth’ were incorrect. Does he need to shut up? Lose his job? Wasn’t that science siupposed to be settled?
Just tell me why anybody who ‘says’ they welcome a debate tells people to shut up. Why skeptical scientists are threatened with career loss if the voice doubt?
Dugger, if you think there is clear indications of long term evidence of warming on Mars, you have immediately removed yourself from a serious discussion. He is working with a single data point in 2005.
I would love to engage the contrarians here in a serious discussion about global climate change, but none of you seem to understand the evidence you are using or the mounting evidence that contradicts you. If you were ambitious, you’d try to research more, to be better informed, to be personally responsible. I hope for your sake (and our country’s sake) you will some day make that effort.
Cleaning up pollution at reasonable rates (of time and money) is not the same as a trillion dollar effort to cripple the American economy.
What is a reasonable rate, then?
And just who, specifically, (please cite and/or quote) wants to cripple the American economy?
Does it smell like hay in here?
You want him, you can have him.
Woo hoo!!
Dugger, does it occur to you that maybe these dire predictions of cooling/warming on Mars (while having absolutely nothing to do with the subject of our own planet, which I personally care more about) may only seem that way because we can see Mars much better now than we have been able to previously? I mean, how long have we been studying the surface temperatures of Mars? How can we possibly know the warming and cooling cycles of another planet long term when we’ve only been able to see it with any real clarity for the last 20 or 30 years?
There used to be canals on Mars, too, until we could see it better.
From AlterNet:
Duros: I don’t smell hay, but I hear crickets…
goddamn, frank, you’re an idiot. please stop. please, I’m begging you.
mambochicken: Rememember what President supposedly told the City of New York?
et tu quoque
zadura: does it occur to you how eerily like a “born again Christian” you sound? “If you only knew the Truth, my son…”
I got so tired of you GlobalWarmians assuming that only a misinformed person could have a different opinion from you (i.e., be a “heretic” or a “denier”), that I rounded up some food for thought.
Take your time. You may even want to read it, before you call me an idiot or tell me shut up.
here
here
here
here
here
here
Comment #100 (looking out at my snow covered neighborhood, five days before the first day of Spring) Here’s the transcript of NPR’s Great Global Warming Debate:
http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/TranscriptContainer/GlobalWarming-edited%20version%20031407.pdf
“Dugger, does it occur to you that maybe these dire predictions of cooling/warming on Mars (while having absolutely nothing to do with the subject of our own planet, which I personally care more about) may only seem that way because we can see Mars much better now than we have been able to previously? I mean, how long have we been studying the surface temperatures of Mars? How can we possibly know the warming and cooling cycles of another planet long term when we’ve only been able to see it with any real clarity for the last 20 or 30 years”
Wilbur, We’re talking debate, right? We’re discusssing whether the ‘science is settled”.
I’m definitely not saying the Mars data answers anything. The Mars data does however pose questions. If the warming is internal to Mars, how is it happening? What is generating significant heat on Mars? Isn’t it maybe even more likely its the sun? And if so, the sun bypasses earth and just heats Mars? I mean we have a small warming spike on earth, a spike on Mars.
Here’s the key issues making me doubt:
1. There is clear evidence historically of significant long term climate change on earth that can’t have much at all to do with manmade phenomena – see ‘Green’land etc.
2. Within this last 100 year modest rise, there are both areas of greater rise and lesser rise and no rise. And there are mini-periods of cooling and warming. All of which indicates signifcant fluctuation. And all of these fluctuations are man-induced. If not, how many are/aren’t? And if some arent, hoew do we know the relatively small 100-year spike is not partially natural?
3. If the science were good, the sceptics of predeominat man-made global warming could be defeated with facts. Instead wre are debated with: (a) Shut up. (b) Trust we are correct, no matter what you think, or you will lose your job, (c) To deny predominant manmade global warming is on a level wiht denying the Holocaust.
4. The apocalyptic Hollywood-esque arguments made on behalf of PMM global warming: “the ocean’s edge will be at Atlanta, Georgia!!” “Greatest crisis in the history of man!!!”
5. The previous Global Cooling apocalypse.
6. The tendency of PMMGW’ers to argue by correlation. We have more C02,we have a small heat increase, ipso facto—-
7. The strong political bent of the PMMGWers. the chief WW spokesman is a hyper ppartisan left wing politician – with no science background. yet PMMGW doubters are constantly scolded to ‘listen to the scientists’ (meaning their scientists or AlGore).
Frank and Dugger, don’t you think that climatologists, oceanographers and scientists who are studying global climate change have incorporated the few ideosyncratic theories, namely Easterbrook and Abdussamatov, in their analysis? It’s like you guys think that from the comfortable armchairs, you are going to “sleuth” some miracle that invalidates the weight of mounting evidence.
As a means of giving a richer, fuller view of the evidence on climate change, I am including a link: http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/pub.htm. You can follow this to see not just a couple scientists, but the wealth of scientific consensus. Each of the technical papers includes not just a couple blog entries and a USA Today article, but literally thousands of papers that cite real research in the area.
z
That ‘consensus’ thing again. I listed six points. Your response is to tell me that there is this consensus that invalidates those concerns?
“There are many, many instances of where Scientific Consensus has been wrong – including very recently. Off the top of my head I can think of the newly discovered cause of diabetes, (see here), which totally surprised the researchers themselves.
Also, the consensus view of the cause of peptic ulcers was nervous tension – remember warnings against “TYPE A Behavior”? It was an uphill battle for the discoverers of the H. Pylori bacteria against the consensus view that the stomach is totally inhospitable to bacteria. Now there are successful bacteriological treatments.
“Continental Drift” was totally against consensus. Now it is accepted geological science.
Scientists accept that consensus views are at times overturned by new evidence and certainly are loath to limit the speech of even eccentric researchers since it is often these individuals who have historically discovered remarkable new truths.
Thus, scientific consensus means nothing until empirical facts are developed to support theories (or computer models) – clearly not the case with global warming,
Jerry Schmitt ”
consensus: general agreement, the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned
Zadura: The “IPCC represents consensus” is weak, at best. No one polled all its members, and not all of them have made statements of any kind with regard to Global Warming
From the WMO home page:
From the UNEP home page:
From the IPCC website:
Finally, from the IPCC website:
To the astonishment of one and all (are you reading this, Rex and mambochicken?) Frank Googles as well as anybody, if not better than most.
Frank: 6 links and an argument against “scientific consensus.”
Dugger: 6 debatable observations about the weakness of the Global Warming hypothesis.
zadura, mambochicken, Rex Mundane: zero, zip, nada,zilch, bupkus.
If only saying something made it true, eh Frank?
If only your comments made any sense, eh, NG?
Hmm. “If only saying something made it true…”
Nope, can’t see what’s so hard to understand about that.