You were an idiot before (and a heck of a liar), but for saying something this stupid, just… shut up.
As for global warming, why assume that every affect will be negative? I grew up in Michigan and would have been grateful for some global warming as I waited in the dark for the school bus.
Really, Michael Barone. Shut up. Its embarrassing.
Wow. Just wow.
Yeh Michael, only liars and idiots use anecdotal evidence when they talk about global warming.
Dennis, you are an idiot and a liar.
I hope the wingnuts stay at it, with their anti-global warming stance. The more we can paint them as anti-science goobers who believe the earth is 6000 years old, and that evolution is ‘just a theory’, the better.
Interesting way to profess your bigotry, Burned. I didn’t know anyone had made a correlation between global warming and evolution.
Dennis the Bigot: “Yeh Michael, only liars and idiots use anecdotal evidence when they talk about global warming.”
Are you truly this stupid?
This isn’t about anecdotal evidence.
Barone wants some of that Discovery Institute $ Michael Medved gets
Strowbridge, weren’t you going to get back to me on the Obama administration projection that unemployment wasn’t going to go above 8% if we went through with the stimulus package? You said that was bullshit and I was confused with the stress tests, or something. I gave you the actual pdf. from Christine Romer, then you bailed.
Again.
Were you truly that stupid to call me stupid when you didn’t know what you were talking about, once again?
Dennis, the subsets of the population who are both global-warming deniers and evoluion deniers have a large overlap.
But correlation is what he implied, Bruce. And he said the strategy should be used to paint the whole of conservatism as belonging to both camps.
Straight up, Bruce. How is that not blatant stereotyping and bigotry?
Yeah, Michael, as long as you’ll be warm and dry, who cares about the coastal areas?
Republicanism in a nutshell. “I’m okay, fuck everyone else.”
I see JD Rhodes not only has a firm grasp of the nuances of climate and weather but also the minutia of political philosophy.
Actually, a.o., that pretty much is Republican political philosophy.
Sure it is Wilbur, and liberals are tolerant of dissenting views too.
AO, I’m tolerant of most things; I’m not tolerant, however, of scum like you who would cheerfully strangle my children for an extra nickel in the name of political power or the free market.
I’d like to thank “Amused Observer” for making the first factual statement I’ve read of his in a very, very long time: “liberals are tolerant of dissenting views too.”
Yes. Indeed they are.
However, tolerance ends at absurd arguments supporting disasters.
My biggest concern with global warming is in how potentially disastrous it will be to food production globally.
Mountaintop ice caps melting during the summer is where many farmers get the water to sustain their crops.
The change in weather patterns could severely damage crop production in America’s traditional ‘bread basket’ states (no rain, no crops).
Longer summers mean more insects eating food crops.
And the increase in ocean acidification as a result of industrial CO2 production could cripple the ocean’s food chains (which millions rely on for food).
The conservative value of the stewardship and conservation of God’s gift of creation has been almost exclusively a liberal value for decades.
[with scripts off I don't get the preview, sorry]
I’d like to thank “Amused Observer” for making the first factual statement I’ve read of his in a very, very long time: “liberals are tolerant of dissenting views too.”
Yes. Indeed they are.
However, tolerance ends at absurd arguments supporting disasters.
My biggest concern with global warming is in how potentially disastrous it will be to food production globally.
Mountaintop ice caps melting during the summer is where many farmers get the water to sustain their crops.
The change in weather patterns could severely damage crop production in America’s traditional ‘bread basket’ states (no rain, no crops).
Longer summers mean more insects eating food crops.
And the increase in ocean acidification as a result of industrial CO2 production could cripple the ocean’s food chains (which millions rely on for food).
The conservative value of the stewardship and conservation of God’s gift of creation has been almost exclusively a liberal value for decades.
Dennis the Bigot: “Strowbridge, weren’t you going to get back to me on the Obama administration projection that unemployment wasn’t going to go above 8% if we went through with the stimulus package?”
“… then you bailed.”
It’s called work. I’m employed, unlike you and J.G.Thayer (tee hee hee).
What thread was that in? I’m not seeing it. How many pages back do I have to go to find it?
Mike,
Take another hit dude, it’s hard to stay as delusional as you are without constant chemical help. And what is with the cheerful crap, strangling your spawn is just one more task left undone that I have to do because you won’t clean up after yourself.
Right wing eliminationist “Amused Observer”, talking about another persons’s children: “strangling your spawn is just one more task left undone that I have to do because you won’t clean up after yourself.”
For the record, I support “Amused Observer’s” children getting the best public [government run] education possible, I support “Amused Observer’s” children’s health care be covered by the government, I support “Amused Observer’s” grown up children being able to be protect their health through a government public option, and I support “Amused Observer’s” children’s children to have those same basic government services be available to them.
And I support all of that despite knowing that right winger “Amused Observer” is an abusive, murderous thug that laughs at killing children.
Global Warming and its farcical cousin Climate Change are both BS and worthy only of scorn.
There, I’ve said it, and I’m glad.
But, juuuuuuuuuuuuuuuust to be on the safe side, I live on the third floor, and I have towels under the door. (The sea is, after all, less than a mile away.)
I guarantee that by 2016, no on will be talking about global warming OR climate change.
Anti-science right winger “Frank DiSalle”: “Global Warming and its farcical cousin Climate Change are both BS and worthy only of scorn.”
Right winger “Frank DiSalle” also thinks the earth turns off 12 hours a day and he thinks he should be able to force his will on young girls and adult women.
Republicans: Anti-science, authoritarian, patriarchal, and dangerously ignorant.
Frank: “Global Warming and its farcical cousin Climate Change are both BS and worthy only of scorn.
There, I’ve said it, and I’m glad.”
I’m glad you’ve said it. Now I can point to this and show how stupid you are.
You realize scientists who study climate and related fields almost all disagree with you.
Why do you think that is?
“I guarantee that by 2016, no on will be talking about global warming OR climate change.”
On a side note, I’ve seen pictures of you. I doubt you will be talking about anything in 2016.
Frank,
I beg to differ, if we cripple our economy chasing the chimera of global warming plenty of people will be talking about it for a long long time.
AO: “I beg to differ, if we cripple our economy chasing the chimera of global warming plenty of people will be talking about it for a long long time.”
What evidence would you require to accept Global Warming as real?
Anti-scientific right winger (is there any other kind?) “Amused Observer” mocks the “chimera of global warming”.
To which “C.S.Strowbridge” hopefully asks, “What evidence would you require to accept Global Warming as real?”
Unfortunately “evidence” that supports or refutes right wingers beliefs is simply rejected by right wingers.
Right wingers are even capable of outright refuting observable facts.
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
I have no doubt that the climate changes, it is the link between man made carbon dioxide and warming that I find tenuous.
I have no doubt that the climate changes, it is the link between man made carbon dioxide and warming that I find tenuous.
Ah, a true scientist writing about Science.
Holy jumping fucking shitballs. Really guys. Seriously. There is no debate here. Man-made global climate change – the vast majority of the available evidence supports this as being true. What right do you have to say otherwise? How are you so fucking smart? Are you holding evidence from us? Are you guys leading climatologists?Speak up, then!
This is not a political question. This is a scientific question. This is a moral question. You don’t have to deny global warming just because you’re on the right side of the aisle. For fuck’s sake. This is ridiculous.
This is really ridiculous.
Merely six (6) percent (%) of scientists identify themselves as Republican:
http://instaputz.blogspot.com/2009/07/pew-poll-6-of-scientists-are.html
In Sarah Palin’s Party’s defense, Science does have a well-known liberal bias.
The poll itself (scroll down as necessary):
http://people-press.org/report/528/
Shocking!
Bigotry, Dennis? Ha ha, it’s not my fault the GOP set itself up as the anti-science, anti-knowledge party. I can ask 100 Democrats and 100 Republicans two simple questions, do you believe in evolution and do you think global warming is real.
More than half the Republicans will answer no on both, maybe even 2/3. The Democrats would probably say no one-tenth of the time, if that.
The GOP likes to champion nitwits like Jindal and Palin, both of whom should be slapped upside their heads for mocking science and research at a time when the US needs more of both. But the wingnuts love that anti-education shit. Palin mocks fruit fly research, and the mob goes wild. Meanwhile, actual scientists and anyone who took high school biology cringes. Didn’t anyone tell Diva Sarah about the importance of fruit fly research? Does she even care?
Of course not. She rants against actual science, and rather than being mocked as the fucking clueless idiot she is, her slobbering lapdogs get hard ons.
Burn wins. This thread, this blog, this internets. He wins. It’s all over, folks.
The greatest source of contempt I have for the right wing (in general) is in their full-on acceptance, and even celebration, of proud ignorance. This is especially true, and especially upsetting, when it comes to questions of science. GW Bush and Palin are but two great examples of this kind of smug stupidity.
Republicans don’t do facts.
And if you want to live your life in ignorance, that’s fine. But when you start trying to legislate your ignorance in the form of creationism and global warming denial, you’re trying to spread your poison onto others, and you should be stopped.
In 2006 and 2008, the Republicans were stopped, thankfully.
Amused Observer: I have no doubt that the climate changes, it is the link between man made carbon dioxide and warming that I find tenuous.
The observed increase in CO2 levels are undoubtedly the result of man burning fossil fuels. There’s two ways we know this.
The first is that we’ve carbon dated the air, and the results are what you would expect to see from burning fossilized plants. Of course, if you’ve rejected carbon dating because you think the universe is 6,000 years old, this isn’t going to sway you. Thankfully, there’s a second way:
If the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 were coming from something other than the burning of fossil fuels, we’d have to see evidence of it coming from somewhere else. CO2 from space doesn’t seem likely. The output from volcanic activity cannot account for the volume of the CO2 increase. It can’t be coming from the oceans, since their CO2 levels are rising as well. It can’t be coming from plants, because they absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere than they release. And it can’t come from animals, because the carbon they release as CO2 is ultimately from the plants. So, by process of elimination, the only source left is the burning of fossil fuels.
See this for more about the carbon dating method.
So there’s really no doubt that man is responsible for the increasing levels of atmospheric CO2. Which means the last resort of the contrarian is that the greenhouse effect of atmospheric CO2 will somehow be mitigated by some other variable. That’s certainly within the realm of possibility — the climate is a very complex system — but no climate scientist seems to think this likely and none of the models point in that direction. I hope they’re all wrong, of course, but they probably aren’t.
Frank DiSalle: Global Warming and its farcical cousin Climate Change are both BS and worthy only of scorn.
The term “global warming” is something of a media invention. Climate scientists say “climate change” instead of “global warming” because the former doesn’t presuppose an outcome. It also doesn’t lead people to believe that every point on the globe is predicted to warm equally, which is a common misconception about global warming.
I really don’t see how climate change could be a “cousin” of global warming. A mean increase in temperature is simply one of a multitude of ways climate can change.
Amused Observer: “I have no doubt that the climate changes, it is the link between man made carbon dioxide and warming that I find tenuous.”
So what evidence would it take to convince of the link between man made carbon dioxide and warming?
Am I going to get a real response this time? Or are you going to come up with another delaying tactic hoping I will drop the subject?
If it’s the latter, you are truly stupid.
where do I begin? First, Strowbridge, in the most personal of personal attacks, predicts I will be dead by 2016. Well, I will be 63 next week, 70 in 2016. So, fuck you and the horse that rode in on you.
If you all believe in “science by consensus”, then right now Global Warmians have the votes. But that is changing, almost daily. There is a debate, and the debate is amongst climatologists and meteorologists, not pharmacists and physicists and clinical psychologists.
Insulting people that disagree with you is futile, pointless, and witless. You have demonstrated nothing but your incivility and lack of substance. That’s why less and less people believe you each day.
end italics after and the debate is amongst
Sure it is Wilbur, and liberals are tolerant of dissenting views too.
Yes we are, a.o., thanks for admitting that. There are limits to everything, however.
I thought the funniest part of Barone’s elephant turd of an article was that he apparently thinks that global warming will mean more hours of sunlight.
Frank DiSalle: “where do I begin? First, Strowbridge, in the most personal of personal attacks, predicts I will be dead by 2016.”
How is that a personal attack? Making a prediction is not an attack.
“Well, I will be 63 next week…”
Really? The so you were 60 in the picture I saw of you?
See a doctor. Seriously. You look worse than my grandfather, and he’s in his mid 80s.
Maybe it was the picture, but you looked a lot older. I assumed you were 70 in that picture.
“70 in 2016.”
Should live another 18 years from now. At least according to the Actuarial table I have bookmarked.
“So, fuck you and the horse that rode in on you.”
I’ll take that advice under advisement.
“If you all believe in ’science by consensus’…”
No, I believe in “science by evidence”.
“…then right now Global Warmians have the votes. But that is changing, almost daily.”
No it’s not.
“There is a debate, and the debate is amongst climatologists and meteorologists, not pharmacists and physicists and clinical psychologists.”
No. There is no debate regarding man made global climate change.
There is a debate with some of the details, but not the big picture.
Quite frankly, you are wrong.
CSS is right. There’s no debate here.
And to speak more regarding the “science by consensus” tidbit you brought up… This is simply dumb. No one believes in “science by consensus”, Frank. No one. It’s just a bullshit claim pushed by the right-wing, in a bizarre, illogical move to try and deny manmade global climate change.
“Oh, a hundred years ago all scientists thought that disease spontaneously occurred in humans, and they were all wrong. Therefore, the consensus of scientists is wrong on all points, including global climate change.”
Such a weird thing, being so distrustful of science and researchers. In this thread alone, you simultaneously make the absolute claim that manmade global climate change is a farce and that it will be the stuff of myth in 7 years time, AND that right now “global warmians have the votes.” In other words, you make the claim that manmade global climate change isn’t real, while acknowledging that scientists as a group say that it IS real.
Why the distrust for scientists, Frank? Also, what makes you think that you’re a better authority on this topic than them?
Seriously, this is just so stupid that I can scarcely believe it.
Frank DiSalle: There is a debate, and the debate is amongst climatologists and meteorologists, not pharmacists and physicists and clinical psychologists.
Meteorologists often don’t have the expertise required to talk knowledgeably about climate change. There’s some overlap in these fields, but don’t expect a weatherman to be able to predict the climate 100 years from now, and likewise don’t expect a climate scientist to be able to tell you if it will be sunny tomorrow.
If you all believe in “science by consensus”, then right now Global Warmians have the votes.
It’s not just their opinion that counts. It’s the fact that they’ve followed the scientific method and the only hypotheses that survive testing are the ones that show a warming trend.
Upon waking, I take it all back. There is a debate about this after all. Very similar to the debate between creationism and evolution by natural selection, or the debate between young-earthers and rational people, or the debate about whether the Holocaust actually happened.
In other words, the debate is between those who can plainly see the facts, and those who cannot. Alternatively, it’s possible that the creationists, young-earthers, Holocaust-deniers, and global-warming “skeptics” have a vested interest in ignoring the evidence.
Republicans don’t do facts.
Facts have a well-known Liberal Bias.
Does Mr. Barone believe that global warming will affect daylight savings time?
I’m not tolerant, however, of scum like you who would cheerfully strangle my children for an extra nickel in the name of political power or the free market.
C’mon, man, that’s not fair. He wouldn’t do it cheerfully, he’d be deadly serious.
For the record, I support “Amused Observer’s” children….
emancipating themselves and getting the fuck outta there ASAP.
Does Mr. Barone believe that global warming will affect daylight savings time?
He probably figures that once we liberals start messing around with God’s Time (H/T Gerry Ford) anything can happen.
What evidence would you require to accept Global Warming as real?
His lawn spontaneously catching fire.
and the debate is amongst climatologists and meteorologists, not pharmacists and physicists and clinical psychologists.
Whew, well THAT’S a relief.
What does the whole “global warming is a hoax” school of belief, have to do with anything conservative?
I’d think a true conservative stance would be to accept the consensus, but be very wary of governmental power grabs and negative economic impacts such grabs might entail.
Where does that whole “hoax” belief come from, if it’s not FUD originating from oil and coal companies?
Me: “What evidence would you require to accept Global Warming as real?”
Duros62: “His lawn spontaneously catching fire.”
It’s not a hard question to answer. I can answer it for something I’m skeptical about, like religion.
I would be convinced religion were real if there were old-school miracles happening. Not statues crying, because that can easily be faked, but major miracles like you can read about in the Old Testament.
It seems when science method came about, the miracles stopped happening.
“freD” asks “What does the whole “global warming is a hoax” school of belief, have to do with anything conservative? “
Unfortunately “conservative” these days means serving the rich and powerful which in this case are the oil and coal corporations as well as the corporations that use the cheap carbon energy.
Liberals are the true “conservatives” in this case.
Liberals want to conserve the planet’s climate and conserve God’s myriad gift’s of Creation.
The neo-Orwellian-”conservatives” are radically and recklessly gambling all of it on short term profits which is radically-un-conservative.
So no right winger has an answer to my simple question? Do I need to add this to the list of questions they have run away from?
Still no answer?
It’s a really simple question that you should be able to ask and skeptic of any topic they are skeptical on.
I guess both AO and Frank have run away from yet another thread.