President Obama Explains Global Warming For Right Wing Dummies
Tweet
I’ll take a President who understands things over a reactionary or a moron any day. (via)
73 Responses to “President Obama Explains Global Warming For Right Wing Dummies”
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
Intelligence, common-sense, firm grasp of a complex issue? BURN HIM!!
“Exxon forever!”-con commenters
But he says “uh” too many times. He should have written some notes on his palm.
Teleprompter. Al Gore said he invented the Internet. Ronald Reagan. Democrats need to be more bipartisan.
/wingnut threadjacking
“BUT TEH BLIZZARDS!!!!!!!” -cons
ACORN ACORN ACORN! And Obama’s a MOOSLIM!
/more wingnut threadjacking
“I have always believed everything the President says.”
/Left wing hypocrisy
57 states. Joe Biden is boring. Dijon mustard!
“Sarah Palin’s gonna have sex with me”
/right wing fantasy
“I will always project my own slavish neuroses onto others.”
/right wing ideologues
What the hell did he say that you guys haven’t been saying the last couple of weeks, Wilbur? The only difference is he didn’t tell the audience to go to this website or that one where some scientist says something that backs him up.
And he wasn’t talking to right-wing dummies, he was talking to a left-wing audience, judging from the cheers. That’s who he felt it was necessary to explain it to; the ones he had to dumb it down for.
Okay, durablend, if you insist…..but just this one, ok?
Obama to ACORN
“You know what, you’ve got a friend in me.”
Top GOPers really take governing seriously, don’t they?
So if one Democrat believes 2 + 2 = 4, and then Obama says “2 + 2 = 4,” that’s proof positive that:
1) Democrats mindlessly follow Obama (in advance)
2) 2 + 2 = whatever the Republican talking point of the day says it is.
Is that about it?
So according to Obama,
Snow in Dallas: proof of Global Warming
No Snow in Vancouver: proof of Global Warming
Snow in DC: Proof that you’re a Traitorous Retard!
Where was he when Time and the NYT were saying the DC snow was proof of Global Warming? Did he call them out? Did he call out Gore and others when they claimed that summer heat waves and Katrina were proof of global warming? Of course not, because Obama is an idealogue of the highest order.
Also, did anyone else catch that global warming/climate change means “any single place might end up being warmer, another place might end up being a little cooler. More precipitation in some places … more drought in others”. In other words, if the weather ever changes ever even so slightly at all in either direction, it’s proof of Global Warming.
Nuance!!
I think you’ve pretty much nailed it, Mr. Toasters.
Right-wingers can’t seem to comprehend that if we’re pleased by what Obama says here it’s not because we hang on every word that drips from his honeyed lips, it’s because it’s just nice, for a change, to have a president who’s not a complete imbecile.
All evidence of global climate change, Farris, which is what the climate scientists have been saying all along. An increase in global temperatures will lead to climate change. Warmer air leads to more moisture, which leads to more precipitation … and in the winter when it’s cold that precipitation will be snow. Meanwhile, precipitation patterns are also changing. (There’s that word again.) Leading to excess precipitation in some regions and drought in others.
That’s not what I’m asking you, Wilbur. I’m asking, just WTF is it he said that you think is so awesomely awesome?
He wasn’t talking to right-wingers as this blog post told you to believe, but even still, there was nothing remarkable about the way he repeated exactly what all the left-wing blogs were putting out there.
The only logical answer is that yes indeed, you do hang on every word that drips from his honeyed lips.
Neither he nor anyone who knows what he’s talking about has said that any particular weather phenomenon is “proof” of global warming.
All he’s saying is that right-wingers are wrong when they claim that such things are proof _against_ global warming.
The evidence for global warming is not that there are hurricanes and blizzards, or even really hot days in July. The evidence for global warming is an unprecedented increase in aggregate global temperature measured over decades.
In the course of this unusual rise, one would expect greater than average instability in the atmosphere. This instability, one would expect, will lead to more intense weather phenomena, some of which will bring hotter weather than normal to certain parts of the world, others of which will bring cooler weather than normal.
Just as when you light a fire in the fireplace the first change you sense may be a strong draft of cold air as it is sucked past you into the chimney. That does not mean that the room you light the fire in is not on it’s way to getting warmer.
Now in light of the well established decades-long trend in aggregate temperatures, one can cite examples of intenser-than-average phenomena as evidence that is consistent with the trend. This is why when Al Gore says something “global warming means we’ll have more hurricanes like Katrina”, he has a leg to stand on, but when some dim bulb says “Snow in Dallas – ha! Global warming is a crock” he’s just being stupid.
Now SaveFerris, none of the above contains anything that I wouldn’t expect an 8-th grade earth science student to be able to follow, and I know you’ve been told stuff like this before, so why do you keep posting nonsense like the nonsense you posted above. Here are a few possible reasons that I can think of.
1) You disagree with the above analysis (on what basis? please tell?)
2) You have a problem with short term memory, which causes you to say things that have already been debunked time and time again.
3) You’re really, really stupid
4) You’re a partisan hack who doesn’t care about the science or the environment nearly as much as you do taking the piss out of your political adversaries.
Which is it? Or do you have another explanation?
It’s remarkable just how stupid you guys are. Save just doesn’t even try to hide it, he’s right out there.
Dennis, on the other hand, is one of those cagey stupid types. After weeks of regurgitating the same crap that Save just repeated here, Dennis retreats, “Who me? The president is talking about me? Oh, no, oh no. He’s talking about you!”
Could. Not. Be. Stupider.
I don’t think it’s awesomely awsome. I just think it’s plain common sense, which, as I said, is a relief to hear from the White House.
Then you’ll agree, there’s really nothing to this post save for the fact you guys find Obama’s words somewhat comforting.
No, fafaroo, it’s you the one who couldn’t be stupider. Oliver once again posts a headline bending the truth of what someone said, in this case the president. He was talking to a left-wing crowd and he was trying to console them from all the little jibes they’ve been getting lately from their friends about all the freaking snow and cold temperatures we’ve been getting. He’s not talking to me, he’s talking to you. And here’s you to come along once again and back Oliver and his headlines that tell you what to think. You know better than that, you just can’t overcome your far left ideology in order to know you’ve been duped.
and a footnote : The actual case for Global Warming ( “climate change” means that the climate changes – so what’s new? ) is crumbling.
As in falling apart.
As in slowly, but inexorably, heading towards falsehood.
You know better than that, you just can’t overcome your far left ideology in order to know you’ve been duped.
Duped by who, Dennis? Oliver? Really? You believe that heavy snow storms are evidence against global warming and you think I’m being duped by Oliver?
Dennis, scientists have tried to explain it to you, we’ve tried to explain it to you, now the president is trying to explain it to you.
But you clearly don’t want to hear the truth.
But let’s try something out here. Shall we?
Dennis, do you think heavy snow storms in D.C. prove the global warming isn’t occurring? yes or no.
Should be an easy one for you.
Duped by who, Dennis? Oliver? Really? You believe that heavy snow storms are evidence against global warming and you think I’m being duped by Oliver?
No, fafaroo, you were duped once again by the title of the blog post.
“President Obama Explains Global Warming For Right Wing Dummies”
He didn’t explain it either to or for right wing dummies; he explained it for the left-wing dummies. He dumbed it down for them, too. As I explained, there was nothing he said that you guys and the newspapers and MSNBC have all been saying lately to hide their embarrassment from all the global warming scandals and the fact we’ve had such a long, snowy, freezing cold winter.
Bad last sentence. Obama didn’t say anything new or revelatory. It’s just the same things you and the usual liberal outlets have been trying to get out there the last couple of weeks. Nothing special about what he said, but that doesn’t stop you guys from cheering him on just as expected.
Frank, Per your comment in a previous discussion, while I’m tickled pink that you think it’s crumbling, But you are neither employed by, nor are you are in any position to represent climate science, measured data, or even basic reasoning skills for that matter, nor to interpret their findings.
I swear to Christina Hendricks Awe-inspiring Bosom, do you ever get tired of embarrassing yourself like this? Do you ever put even the slightest thought into what you’re saying, and how it might mesh with what you’ve said moments ago?
Also, mothers cock. Choke. Please.
Dennis, Obama was addressing the ridiculous criticisms that you have engaged in on this issue. He was addressing you.
Trust me. No one here needs to be reassured by Obama or anyone else that you’re an idiot. I know you’re an idiot because you can’t bring yourself to answer yet another direct yes or no question.
It’s my opinion, based on your posts here, that you believe heavy snow falls are evidence against global warming.
The president just explained to you why they are, in fact, consistent with the scientific understanding of global warming. Indeed, severe weather, be it hot or cold, is a symptom of global warming.
Now, Dennis, do you believe heavy snow falls are evidence against global warming? Yes or no.
Do you believe heavy snow falls are evidence for global warming, fafaroo?
Yes or no.
Unlike Rep. Issa, however, Obama didn’t send govt money to ACORN, ooogabooogaooga.
Oh come on, you know how I love to dupe you fafaroo. I spend hours up every night thinking of ways to trick u.
Comforting, amusing, gratifying. Is there something wrong with that?
Holy heebie jeebies, Dennis, obsessive-compulsive much?
Yes.
Your turn.
Oh Bullshit, Frank.
Always to the MMFA website, Oliver.
Always.
I don’t believe heavy snow falls are evidence of global warming.
Wow, Dennis has really been taking hits from the dumb bong this morning.
Why? Dennis? Why do you believe that?
Oliver, what sentence was it that indicated to you Obama was explaining global warming for right wing dummies?
A bit more verbosely I would add that to describe any scientific proposal as heading “inexorably” toward rejection or vindication is to reveal that you’ve made up your mind about it in advance, which is the essence of anti-science.
Dennis, what brain cell did you lose to make you think that Oliver had be using “explains to right wing dummies” literally.
I might quote a passage from Aristotle saying “Aristotle explains logic to Dennis”. Only a fool would respond “nyah! Dennis wasn’t even born when Aristotle wrote that.”
• it actually hasn’t been warming (or so says Phil Jones) for the last few decades.
• and it’s not “unprecedented” either. We know the Middle Ages was warmer. And the tempature increases coming out of the Ice Ages were a much greater “change” in climate than we’ve experienced before.
I don’t have a problem with what Obama said in that video with regards to changing weather patterns, Wilbur, and I tend to agree more with what you said in the post above. Fafaroo disagrees with you, he says that the heavy snows are proof of global warming. I asked him a week or two ago that if such were the case, liberal MSM outlets would be trumpeting the snows as proof, that this would be their smoking gun. I’m not seeing that. Like you and Obama, they’re basically just saying these snows tend to support what some of the global warming predictions were; not that it’s proof of their theories.
Oh, headlines shouldn’t be taken seriously. Ok.
Hey, tell that to fafaroo, will ya.
So next time I say “DOW down 400 points…heckuva job, Bamster!” you’ll be the one not taking me literally, right?
First off you can’t assume that room was 100% left-wing…majority maybe but not 100%. On top of that, it was being broadcast live meaning the audience expands outside that room.
Also, this president doesn’t screen his town halls for dissenters, unlike his predecessor.
Oh, headlines shouldn’t be taken seriously. Ok.
Dennis, find yourself the nearest blackboard and write this out 100 times:
“I will not inflict my Aspergeric inability to process irony on others.”
So next time I say “DOW down 400 points…heckuva job, Bamster!” you’ll be the one not taking me literally, right?
The (obvious) difference being that your statement would make sense neither literally nor figuratively.
• it actually hasn’t been warming (or so says Phil Jones) for the last few decades.
Wrong.
• and it’s not “unprecedented” either. We know the Middle Ages was warmer.
Wrong.
If Fafaroo means by that anything other than “heavy snowfalls are consistent with what we would expect in a global warming scenario” then I would agree with you that he is wrong. But I doubt that he does mean anything other than that, since he’s not an idiot.
I asked him a direct question that he knew what he was answering, Wilbur.
He answered ‘Yes’. He said the snows were evidence of global warming.
And you just called him an idiot.
Of course it doesn’t makes sense to you neither literally or figuratively, Wilbur; you’re a far-left loon who can’t see the forest for the trees.
Why’s it always gotta be the geeky pocket protected scientists who are the megalomaniacal power grabbers?
Can’t it just be the wealthy corporate oligarchs for once?
This is exactly the reason why I cannot consider the GOP serious on anything scientific. The model describing greenhouse gasses and how they work is well documented in the literature. The analysis of scientists world wide shows that the global mean temperature is rising slowly. The Republicans, rather than backing plans to address a potentially harmful problem, have decided that the science is wrong and are trying to ignore it. We are at the point where the majority of scientists working in this field are begging for policy direction, and the response from conservatives is that they are dupes of hippies and can be written off.
How can I trust the GOP, when it’s clear they can’t treat reality for what it is? If Global Warming was just an abberation, that would be one thing, but I’ve seen it in the evolution battles, in historical revision and crazy economic schemes. Discarding what’s actually happening in favor of what they want to see. It’s frustrating and freakish that intelligent people would spend so much time fighting their own senses.
No I didn’t. I made my views clear, and fafaroo can speak for himself.
Fafaroo disagrees with you, he says that the heavy snows are proof of global warming.
Gosh, Dennis. You’re right. I’m wrong. Heavy snow storms are not “proof” of global warming. They are, as I already stated in this thread and elsewhere:
I’m glad we could clear that up. I’m also glad to hear that even though he wasn’t speaking to you, you heard Obama and changed your mind on the subject:
Isn’t it a relief to know that you won’t have to post another joke about “shoveling global warming from your drive way” or link to another Fedrosso article that denies changing weather patterns are consistent with global warming?
Wilbur, it’s pretty well established that Dennis has no idea what the words “literally” or “figuratively” actually mean.
FYI for the future: You’re going to need to seriously dumb it down for him.
That’s what the right-wingers don’t get. Yes, it’s COLD in the winter. Because the earth is PHYSICALLY FARTHER AWAY FROM THE SUN. But we’re not seeing record cold where it’s supposed to be cold, we’re seeing where it’s NOT supposed to be cold. And we’re seeing record precipitation where we AREN’T supposed to see it (it’s not supposed to snow more in DC than it does in Buffalo or Cleveland).
They just don’t get it that just because a weather pattern is in a single place, that that’s just part of the GLOBAL picture (Hence the term GLOBAL warming).
This past January was the warmest GLOBAL January in decades. But they won’t accept that BECAUSE IT WAS SNOWING A LOT IN DC!
Exactly! He actually WELCOMES dissenting views. Remember people wearing anything not pro-Bush at a rally being escorted out? And Bush only taking questions from people wearing “BUSH ROCKS!” t-shirts?
Because the
earthnorthern hemisphere isPHYSICALLY FARTHER AWAY FROM THE SUNtilted away from the sun, and thus receives less heat per square foot. The earth is actually a bit closer to the sun during the northern winter.Otherwise, no argument here.
/picking nits
The modern conservative movement sees everything in terms of “values.” Talk about moral relativism. Facts don’t matter, only political outcomes. So they really do believe that, as long as they can find at least one scientist with a dissenting opinion, the science isn’t “settled.” Never mind that the vast preponderance of evidence, theory, and consensus within the scientific community contradicts their assumptions. Science is relative – and only that science that supports your political beliefs is valid.
The issue with using single events to prove or disprove something is that it is the height of faulty inductive reasoning. It’s akin to saying “My grandfather smoked two packs a day and died in his sleep at 98. That means there is no evidence that smoking is bad for your health.”
Increased snow fall is to a large degree consistent with increased temperatures. Why? Because warm air can ‘hold’ more moisture than cold air and it is FRICKIN’ WINTER and still cold enough to snow, even if it is warmer. Not a hard concept to grasp.
Are the recent snow storms proof/disproof that global warming is happening? Of course not. But, they are consistent with what we would expect in a warmer world.
“and a footnote : The actual case for Global Warming ( “climate change” means that the climate changes – so what’s new? ) is crumbling.”
The case for current warming is as robust as ever and independent of ideology or politics. Melting glaciers, shrinking arctic sea ice, and flowers (which are flowering earlier due to warmer spring temperatures) don’t vote.
~TransientEddy (A Professionally Employed Academic Climatologist Since 2001)
Good. So you won’t have a problem when Mitt Romney takes over in ’12.
What the hell did he say that you guys haven’t been saying the last couple of weeks, Wilbur? The only difference is he didn’t tell the audience to go to this website or that one where some scientist says something that backs him up.
So you’re saying evidence is immoral or something?
Snow in DC: Proof that you’re a Traitorous Retard!
Nah, we have plenty of other evidence for that.
Hey Eddy, why would you want to confuse the issue with all that common sense and facts stuff?
Having established that you are a flaming asshole , Rex, do you really feel compelled to demonstrate it again and again?
As for why I didn’t present a lengthy proof of my statement, there was no need . The point was that there is mounting evidence aside from a warm Vancouver and a snowy Dallas, that global warming is a lie, or at best, an incredibly egregious error.
Whereas deciding we are doomed based on conflicting, indefinite, and “yet to even occur” evidence is real science?
The Media Matters items links, as they always do, to primary sources (in this case the Congressional record). But of course, that’s what wingnuts hate about MMFA.
Gee, Frank, I guess because my stepfather hasn’t gotten cancer yet I should encourage him to keep on smoking?
And the evidence is becoming insurmountable. Look at CO2 levels in the oceans. Look at the temperature of the middle atmosphere, which is where the effect is strongest. Only a fool or demagogue would still insist that there is some question as to what is going on. Hell, even your man Bush finally admitted that climate change was real, he just didn’t want to do anything about it.
The evidence is no more contradictory or indefinite than any experimental case involving such a mass of datapoints from disparate sources. Science is never completely definite. If definite is what you need then go off somewhere by yourself and cuddle your Bible.
As for “deciding we are doomed” bullshit, that’s bullshit.
Answer me this, Frank: suppose your side prevails in this fight and nothing is done to combat global warming, then later it turns out that all those science dweebs and hippie freaks were right: temperatures rise, ice caps melts, New York City drowns, Iowa is covered with sand dunes. The world your grandchildren live in is one of misery and suffering, war and famine. And we ould have prevented it if we’d taken some action back in 2010? How will you (or your immortal soul looking down from heaven) feel?
Now what if my side prevails and we reduce carbon and develop green energy technologies, and then it turns out that the whole global warming thing is a fraudulent crock? How will my immortal soul feel? Pretty good, because I’ll be looking up (through my periscope from hell) at a world that is greener, cleaner and (perhaps) more peaceful, and one in which my country is energy-independent. Because the things that doom-and-gloom globaly warming freaky wackoes want us to do are things we should be doing anyway.
Even if there’s only a 30% chance or a 20% chance that the global warming wackoes are right, isn’t it worth it?
Sorry.
The “consenus” is that there’s no consensus.
Thanks for posting that link, Save Farris. as usual it completely contradicts what you are trying to argue.
Where you’re probably getting confused is this statement by Dr. Jones:
This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
A wingnut reads this and thinks “aha, global warming is ‘not significant’”. Anyone who knows anything about science, however, realizes that what the prof. is saying is it makes little sense to measure significance in a long-range climate trend over the course of a decade: fluctuations in the general upward trend may obscure the upward trend over such a short period.
Throughout the rest of the interview there’s is plenty to make nonsense of the misuse you’re trying to put Prof. Jones’ words to. Such as…
Q: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
A: I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
And yet you don’t seem to be able to point to any of this evidence…