Bill McKibben, founder of the global climate campaign 350.org, is given a platform over at The Washington Post for this drivel:
If you can’t use the precise terminology, anthropogenic global warming, then you’re completely disingenuous to start with.
Caution: It is vitally important not to make connections. When you see pictures of rubble like this week’s shots from Joplin, Mo., you should not wonder: Is this somehow related to the tornado outbreak three weeks ago in Tuscaloosa, Ala., or the enormous outbreak a couple of weeks before that (which, together, comprised the most active April for tornadoes in U.S. history). No, that doesn’t mean a thing.
Because tornadoes never happened before Mankind learned to drive.
It is far better to think of these as isolated, unpredictable, discrete events. It is not advisable to try to connect them in your mind with, say, the fires burning across Texas — fires that have burned more of America at this point this year than any wildfires have in previous years. Texas, and adjoining parts of Oklahoma and New Mexico, are drier than they’ve ever been — the drought is worse than that of the Dust Bowl. But do not wonder if they’re somehow connected.
Droughts never happened, either. Nor wildfires.
If you did wonder, you see, you would also have to wonder about whether this year’s record snowfalls and rainfalls across the Midwest — resulting in record flooding along the Mississippi — could somehow be related. And then you might find your thoughts wandering to, oh, global warming, and to the fact that climatologists have been predicting for years that as we flood the atmosphere with carbon we will also start both drying and flooding the planet, since warm air holds more water vapor than cold air.
See? Greenhouse gases, cause snow. And floods. Drought. You name it. Because the climate is supposed to stay completely static. Weather is supposed to be as predictable as earthquakes…..oh, wait. Anyhow, the rest is simply the same tired old scareathon, thrown out by someone who doesn’t live the carbon neutral/globull warming friendly lifestyle he wants everyone else to live. So, let’s ask someone from, say, the National Weather Service’s National Severe Storm Laboratory
Are strong tornadoes a result of global warming?
Short Answer: Unknown. There is evidence that suggests both yes and no.
Carbin: “With respect to a connection to climate change … it’s an unanswered question, essentially. We know that there are ingredients that thunderstorms need that could increase in a warmer world, but we also know there are ingredients that may decrease, so the connections if any are very tenuous and the scientific discoveries on this have yet to be made.”
Greg Carbin is the lead forecaster for said NWSNSSL. He also says that while the death toll is above average, the average is that because there have been years when the death toll is very high, and that there aren’t more tornadoes, they are just hitting populated areas. But, we shouldn’t listen to him, because he’s a meteorologist, not a “climatologist”, or something.
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU
I think the world-wide standard is to refer to him as Bill “Crazy Eyes” McKibben.
Good point!
I knew it. If the world had ended on Saturday as predicted, they’d be claiming THAT was AGW.
Ridiculous.
No droughts. No wildfires. No tornadoes. No hurricanes. No snowstorms. Why, living on earth without manmade products, was a paradise. The whole planet was like living in the Bahamas. Right.
I would beg of him to at least watch some NatGeo or History channel specials on the horrible volatility of the world before man ever got here. And explain to us how it is that we are to blame for this recent round of activity? It’s cyclical, and we can’t stop it, cause it or change it!
u fucking morons… it will take a tree falling on your moms head through her house to wake you up huh?… Oh wait, that would just be a warning from your God to live right huh? I’m sorry, you are to stupid to understand how science works so please pray on, while continue to polute my children and grand childrens earth. Ignorant sheep…
you are to stupid to understand how science works
I’m sorry, but it is clear that you don’t understand that we do know how science works. That is why when the scientists fake data, we say “that isn’t science.”
When the data is massaged to fit conclusions, we know that isn’t science.
When executive summaries don’t match the adjoining paper, we say “that isn’t science.”
When someone comes on a blog and makes an ad hominem response such as you have done, we know that science is not your focus. It is not your background.
Enjoy your mudslinging.
Nice one gitar…another sheeple bites the dust.
Hey GC, maybe you can answer this for me since you are anti-science…..
Didn’t the indigenous populations in the plains of USA use fire to “control” the animals that they fed off of? And, wasn’t there a thought some years ago, that early man used fire to drive Mammoths to cliffs in order to kill them since man was too stupid to figure out how to do it without fire?
And, can you explain to me how fires were stopped back when there may have been a few thousand people across an area encompassing what is now known as Oklahoma?
And, while you think on that, can you explain how the Texas fires could have been put out sooner had the Feds allowed Texas to put more men and equipment on those fires thus reducing the damage and extent of those “largest ever in history of the earth” fires?
/sarc
Well at least you got one thing correct in the post gitar; I was slinging mud… Though if you believe anything you wrote then you deserved every piece of wet dirt that hit you between the eyes.
First, 98 percent of scientist say it is real, but you actually think the 2 percent that doesnt are correct? The same two percent that are on Fox’s payroll. You seem itelligent in your writing, but apparently so simple and gullable like a child all at the same time.
Second, while I am no scientist by trade, I studied science throughout my college days and totally understand how to read and comprehend finding and stats. But, with global warming all you really need is common sense(I know you never developed that gift as is evidenced by your post). To actually believe that all the stuff we put in the air will have no effect on the future is baffling to me. If you were making millions off of it like the people you vote for and blindly believe I could understand your pretend ignorance, but come on Dude, “you aint no millionaire.”
Third,again common sense… warmer air means more moisture in that air. More moisture in the air means the more volitile that air is. The more volitile that air becomes the stronger and longer storms become. How is that hard for you “fucking morons” to understand. Hell my 12 year old son understands it… Ultimatly you Sheep is ruining his future and his kids future. Think about someone other than yourselves for once in your miserable lives.
Listen Git, Beck’s paranoia and end of the world liberal theories have and are proven falce just like every other thing that comes out of a republicans mouth. For the love of God why would anyone making under 500K ever vote like that. It is amazing how you people follow utter ignorance so blindly.
Trish, not even close Babe. You can go back to watching Beck now. He needs the ratings!
Quote:
98 percent of scientist say it is real, but you actually think the 2 percent that doesnt are correct? The same two percent that are on Fox’s payroll.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAAAAA
Yep, after that, no one can take you serious any more. I hope you make lots of money in your sad comedies.
Though if you believe anything you wrote then you deserved every piece of wet dirt that hit you between the eyes.
Whew. That’s good to know since none hit me. All mudslinging does is dirty the thrower. Your “aim” is no better than your logic and writing skills.
First, 98 percent of scientist say it is real,
Factually false. Nice try though.
The same two percent that are on Fox’s payroll.
More mudslinging. Do you have anything of substance to say?
I studied science throughout my college days and totally understand how to read and comprehend finding and stats.
Well gosh, I should just bow down to you then. Tell me, do you think that you are the only one in this discussion that has taken science in college? Why is your training superior than anyone else here? Back up your statements with facts, and not hyperbole.
But, with global warming all you really need is common sense(I know you never developed that gift as is evidenced by your post).
Another attempt at slinging mud without any facts or logic. When are you going to dispute the actual assertions I raised in my previous post? Apparently never.
If you were making millions off of it like the people you vote for and blindly believe I could understand your pretend ignorance,
Ah. There we go. Class warfare. Anyone who disagrees with you must be on someone’s payroll and being paid to lie. How is it that you think that everyone else is a liar, but those who stand to make millions from research and billions from the transfer of money to “fight” something are always above board and honest?
Tell us, sir, when the IPCC was caught manipulating the data, did you consider them to be on the payroll of some company? When NASA “lost” data preventing people from actually examining it, what does that tell you? When simulations run by “researchers” were altered because they did not come to the expected and “required” conclusions, what does that tell you? When the IPCC has memos that confirm they are falsifying data, doesn’t that give you pause? You want common sense? Use it to answer THOSE questions.
More moisture in the air means the more volitile that air is.
Factually false. The temperature of the air is not the determining factor. The DIFFERENCE in temperature zones is the cause of volatility.
In fact, what we have seen this week with the tornadoes in the midwest is that the air is the air rising from the ground is not warmer than normal, but it is clashing with air that is COOLER coming off of the Pacific Ocean.
It is your contention that cooler air is caused by AGW?
Ultimatly you Sheep is ruining his future and his kids future.
Does his future include a father than understands noun and verb agreement? Or capitalization? Or grammar?
It just destroys your whole case when all you have is mudslinging, bad English, and cursing. All it shows is that you can’t make a cognitive argument.
Listen Git, Beck’s paranoia and end of the world liberal theories have and are proven falce just like every other thing that comes out of a republicans mouth.
This would be the part where you try “guilt by association,” right? I hate to tell you den, ol’ chap, but I don’t watch or listen to Beck. Limbaugh either. O’Reilly? Nope.
See what happens when you assume thing? It makes an…. Oh, never mind. It would be lost on you.
So let’s review, shall we?
Your argument for AGW is “everyone believes it,” and then you call the rest of us sheep.
You can’t write at the level of a college freshman, and then claim that your “scientific study throughout college” is superior to the rest of us that have Bachelor of Science degrees.
You eventually make a somewhat scientific argument that is so flawed it is laughable. It is also contrary to known scientific theories and data points.
Of course, that was right before showing a lack of ability to make a cognitive argument while resorting to name calling, false accusations and generally exposing yourself to be a fool.
That about covers it.
ROTFLMAO…. Still. I couldn’t breathe before your comment GC, but now… I’m having a heartattack. OMG. It’s like an old vaudevillian act or something. Not good cop/bad cop.. but stupid idiot\reasoned thinker.
98%… omg that still gets me. wow. Yeah, let’s see the names of the 98% of all the scientists in the whole world who believe that man is the sole cause of the minor and variable warming we have seen of recent. please. Till then, take your show on the road bud. It’s a laugh riot.
Its late Git, but I will write more n the morning… But in the mean time please do yourself a favor and google the “manipulating the data” that you claim and see exactly what was manipulated. Notjing of substance or anything that changes the data/findings. It is obvious that you did not even take five minutes to check your “facts” before spoting the ignorance…
and just to be clear before bed time 1) you brought up that apparently I didn’t know science so I was pointing out that yes I do, so dont try to blame me for saying I have a degree.
2) You say I didnt address the “actual assertions ” in your original post… Well sir, thats because there weren’t any.
3) If you think what I posted is contrary to known scientific theories then it is you that need to read something other than what Beck/Rush tell you to. (I dont care how often you say you dont watch or listen, it is obvious that you do.) Instead of spouting what you heard them say take 10 minutes and research it. Until you do, nothing you say holds any substance and is “laughable.”
Oh and if my writing upsets you then don’t read it. People like you have their minds so closed it wouldnt matter if I was God saying the truth. Now if I was Beck saying it was real then by God you would think it was real…. But I di-gress; if my writing bothers you then do not read it. I do not have to write perfect, or proff read, or even form a correct sentence for this forum as I am not getting paid to do so. However, you apparently got my meaning now didn’t ya ;)
Oh I am sorry, it was 85 percent of scientist in the field of study…. Only 5 percent dont believe humans have anything to do with it(those five percent know the area of study less). So laugh all you want to Fish, but lets see what you come up with. This was 30 seconds of looking.
http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html
wow.. another one?? This one is 98 percent… shall I go on?
The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/world/eco.globalwarmingsurvey_1_global-warming-climate-science-human-activity?_s=PM:WORLD
So lets see yours Fish… Yep, thats what I thought ;)
I ain’t showin you nuthin you freaky Dicky.
Why is it that whenever these believers call us out, it’s always with the line that their children and grandchildren will suffer due to our ignorance? Anyone got a guess how many of “us” have children and grandchildren too-and perhaps more of them? I surely have them; 4 of the first and 7 of the latter. And I do care deeply about what kind of world is being left to them, hence my desire not to allow false data, cyclical natural disasters and a heaping spoonful of heartfelt angst about manmade global warming- to destroy our nation in folly. I am environmentally aware, and care deeply for the earth. I love nature and care for my part of it best I can. I will always be a good steward of the earth; and so will most of us (deniers if you will) do so. And we’re probably a lot more honestly concerned than those who say one thing and do another, ie Gore, and all of the headliners who make commercials about global warming and fly off in their private jets to their multimillion dollar mansions.
This is for our new friend, the one who thinks only he is allowed an opinion and believes the hype and denies that science can be bought and sold nowadays, (but not by Fox News- anyone who truly believes that is a moron. Fox does not profess a stand on the subject) unlike in the past when NO ONE ever said “ the science is inâ€. That is a statement which in essence means that the scientists have stopped doing their jobs. Absolutely given up being scientists, if they can look at us and say that. Imagine the stagnated world we’d have lived in had scientists claimed the earth was flat, and never explored other options? Imagine the difference not having invented the combustion engine would have had on progress? Yes, we would not have created this horrible wasteful wanton world the way it exists today, but imagine how small and cramped Europe would be now!!!! But I digress, the science is not in, the science on a subject as vast and unpredictable as climate change can never be “inâ€; it is an ongoing process and if anyone says it’s in, they’re lying to you.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
Love this guy:
http://ezinearticles.com/?Do-You-Have-Faith-in-Global-Warming-Theory—Then-Its-a-Religion,-So-Be-Careful&id=6289871
And apparently, if you can’t GET an honest consensus, then just hide the facts and fake the consensus.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2422924/global_warming_emails_rock_scientific.html
http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/
This is for our new friend, the one who thinks only he is allowed an opinion and believes the hype and denies that science can be bought and sold nowadays, (but not by Fox News- anyone who truly believes that is a moron. Fox does not profess a stand on the subject) unlike in the past when NO ONE ever said “ the science is inâ€. That is a statement which in essence means that the scientists have stopped doing their jobs. Absolutely given up being scientists, if they can look at us and say that. Imagine the stagnated world we’d have lived in had scientists claimed the earth was flat, and never explored other options? Imagine the difference not having invented the combustion engine would have had on progress? Yes, we would not have created this horrible wasteful wanton world the way it exists today, but imagine how small and cramped Europe would be now!!!! But I digress, the science is not in, the science on a subject as vast and unpredictable as climate change can never be “inâ€; it is an ongoing process and if anyone says it’s in, they’re lying to you.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
Love this guy:
http://ezinearticles.com/?Do-You-Have-Faith-in-Global-Warming-Theory—Then-Its-a-Religion,-So-Be-Careful&id=6289871
And apparently, if you can’t GET an honest consensus, then just hide the facts and fake the consensus.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2422924/global_warming_emails_rock_scientific.html
http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/
Ok short and sweet because like I said before it doesnt matter how much evidence I post it wont change your ignorance. You are beyond help. Like they say “you just cant fix stupid.”
We bring the kids and grand kids up because those are the peoiple that will be paying for your stupid decisions. WOW, did you really have to ask that?
I give you respectable research institutions with credible and actual climate scientist, and you give me more opinion based right wing BS from people saying “because I said so.” I am sorry Trish but that stopped working in 6th grade. You do realize that 98 percent think we have something to do with global warming….. 98 percent. Believe it or not, at least half or those 98 percent would identify themselves as republican.
You morons have a nice head in the clouds life. I will help the victims(your kids and grand kids) pick up their lives and rebuild. Yes I would even help you. You cant help that you dont have the ability to comprehend simple data.
But please please please stop having more children and spreading your genes…
and regarding science being bought and sold that could be true, if it were one group… This is 98 percent for gods sake in all countries of the world!!!! Have you ever tried to keep a secrete between more then two or three people? How did that work out for you? What you say in regards to being bought/sold is hilarious…… WOW, the weak minded in this country is astounding.
The funny part is the US is the only advanced industrialized country that this issue is even being debated anymore… Could it be because our rich want to get richer so they plant doubts in the weaker minded to fight their fight for them? Dont answer that, I alreadyt know… Later, Dennis
1) you brought up that apparently I didn’t know science so I was pointing out that yes I do, so dont try to blame me for saying I have a degree.
Except that is not what you said, den. All you said is that you went to college. Taking some night courses at a local community college is not the same thing as a degree. Also, since you missed it or refused to answer, is your degree a Bachelor of Science?
see exactly what was manipulated.
You’re kidding, right? Whole data sets were manipulated to the point were people had to retract papers on the subject. Even the IPCC paper made a claim about snow cover that was not only not scientific, it was faked. How many times does a person have to lie to be a liar, den?
But I di-gress; if my writing bothers you then do not read it. I do not have to write perfect, or proff read, or even form a correct sentence for this forum as I am not getting paid to do so.
You? Paid to write? Don’t make me laugh. The point is den, and it is one that you apparently missed because you can’t understand anything outside of your little scope of understanding, is that you claimed that we were ignorant, couldn’t comprehend thoughts and were “sheep.” Yet it is you who cannot form sentences, spell, or do complete basic literary tasks. The point, den, is that you are a hypocrite.
Well sir, thats because there weren’t any.
Really?
Tell us, sir, when the IPCC was caught manipulating the data, did you consider them to be on the payroll of some company? When NASA “lost†data preventing people from actually examining it, what does that tell you? When simulations run by “researchers†were altered because they did not come to the expected and “required†conclusions, what does that tell you? When the IPCC has memos that confirm they are falsifying data, doesn’t that give you pause? You want common sense? Use it to answer THOSE questions.
I guess in your zeal to dismiss those who disagree with you, you missed those assertions. Now that you know they are there, get back to me on them, okay?
Instead of spouting what you heard them say take 10 minutes and research it. Until you do, nothing you say holds any substance and is “laughable.â€
There ya go. Refute science with…. ummmm…. nothing.
Somehow you think that a belief that people watch or listen to Beck or someone else is a good debating tactic. It isn’t. It is a pitiful attempt at guilt by association. As I said, I don’t watch those guys. You can believe it or not. As it doesn’t fit the narrative you want in your life – one where everyone who disagrees with you must be watching a single person – I suspect that you won’t care.
That is the definition of delusion, den. You believe what you want in spite of evidence and then make the paranoid claim that people are out to get you.
And anyone who believs that 98% of the scientists in the world believe global warming is man made, or even occurring, is insane. I doubt that 98% of scientists agree on ANYthing. Unless they are being paid, misquoted or misunderstood.
WOW! The arrogance, the extraordinary arrogance of this guy Den. I beg your pardon, but you’ve given us nothing that is entirely believable, and we’ve given you plenty of food for thought. You have given us refutable data, we’ve given you a different approach to reading it. You sir, are a petulant ass who has no interest in science, only in ramming your position (and the agendas of people who stand to make HUGE gains if the cap and tax bs goes through) down the throats of those of us who are going to be PAYING FOR this crap you call man made global warming. And as I mentioned, I have a huge stake in the future of the earth, and have ALWAYS taken care to watch out for her, and always will.
This is 98 percent for gods sake in all countries of the world!!!!
Isn’t it amazing that you keep repeating a number that your own citations refute?
If it is so difficult to keep a secret, why is it that you claim that companies and the scientists they “buy off” can do just that?
Here are some real scientific questions for you den. See if you can use your supposed “common sense” to answer them:
1) You agree that data has been manipulated to fit a preconceived outcome. If the date initially supports the outcome, why the need to manipulate it at all? (Here is an example of data not just being manipulated, but fabricated. The data was then used in a paper that people of your ilk to claim that the Antarctic was warming when in fact, it was not: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4332784/Despite-the-hot-air-the-Antarctic-is-not-warming-up.html
More data manipulation: http://www.theblogmocracy.com/2010/04/17/nasa-warmest-march-ever/
2) If CO2 emissions result in higher temperatures, why is it that CO2 levels lag behind temperature increases? If CO2 causes increased temperatures, why does data show the exact opposite?
3) One of the main points AGW believers point out is the increase in dramatic weather events such as hurricanes. In fact, papers have said that there are more hurricanes forming today than at any time in the past 200 years. Given that weather satellites have only been around since the late 1960’s, upon what data is a claim to any number of hurricanes prior to the 1930’s built? (the 1930’s was when the first “recording buoy” was developed – but not deployed – in deep waters. If a hurricane occurred in the mid-Atlantic and no ship reported it of experienced it, did the hurricane happen? (A take off of the ol’ if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it” conundrum.)
4) Why was Peter Mann’s work and papers only reviewed by a small group of people, who then reviewed their work. It has been described as a “reviewing clique” with no outside peer review and no access to data. If AGW is “common sense,” why is there a need to hide the data that supports the AGW conclusion?
5) If water vapor is far more of a warming “gas” to the earth as you said, why is it a good idea to pursue hydrogen fuel cell cars whose by-product is water vapor?
6) The government’s latest decree on new labels for cars (you can find an article on that subject on this site) lists the Nissan Leaf as having “zero” greenhouse gas effects. If that is the case, where is the electricity to power the car coming from? Is it not a tenant of the AGW faith that electric power plants are one of the greatest generators of harmful AGW gases? Wouldn’t this be a case of the government hiding the actual number to promote a hypothesis?
Answer those questions with “common sense” and get back to us.
Quote den:
This is 98 percent for gods sake in all countries of the world!!!!
You provided this link to support your initial statement. http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html And yet, the paid-for SURVEY of “scientists” was only for AMERICAN “climate scientists”. Also, this survey was conducted prior to the “climagegate” scandal that changed scientists minds about the validity of the data – Gitarcarver has brought this to your attention. And the survey was 97% of only 489 self-identified “scientists”. Nice try, that has no merit whatsoever. Try conducting the survey now.
The funny part is the US is the only advanced industrialized country that this issue is even being debated anymore
Yeah, Freedom of Expression and Thought is a very funny thing. Don’t like it? You are free to leave. Another great freedom of our unique country. CYA!
Quote:
I give you respectable research institutions with credible and actual climate scientist
Ummm… no. You lied again. You gave us a link to a survey website, and then to CNN – which 98% of concerned Americans know is a unabashed mouthpiece of the liberal left-wing of the Democrat party.
Even your CNN article cited this:
Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
Meaning, only 90% of those who responded, believe that the earth is warming at all. What does that do to your 98% theory? And, then, only 82% believe man has any impact whatsoever on our climate.
Well, color me pink. I too believe that man can and does have an impact upon our climate. MOST PEOPLE DO!! Most of those who are opposed to legislated Green Living believe that man has an impact upon this world. Teach believes we do. I don’t know, but I can imagine that GC also believes that man can and does impact our world.
The debate my misled friend is about how much and if man can actually do anything to OPPOSE what the earth is doing naturally? Will our minute changes, one way or another, but costing us trillions of dollars, do anything at all?
We true scientists doubt it.
Nice guys, you really know your stuff.
And this just in:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/26/chris-christie-strikes-major-blow-cap-trade/
AWESOME NEWS TRISH!!!!
It is time to kill anything that is stifling job creation and free enterprise. Let’s start with NMP.