May 31, 2011

Newsweek's Global Warming Fearmongering Isn't Science, It's Science-Fiction
— Gabriel Malor

Starting in about 2008, the global warming hoax slowly started to come apart. Scientists started to recant as none of their models accurately predicted current temperatures or sea levels. Then came ClimateGate. Just a few months ago polls showed that just 35% of Americans -- a new low -- believe in anthropogenic global warming. Just last week the G8 nations finished abandoning the Kyoto Protocol.

Faced with the widespread decline in their pet theory, what are global warming believers to do? Hit the panic button:

That is Newsweek's latest cover and it comes with a hysterical fantasy from the so-called science editor. The article is one of those piece of media paranoia that is so wrong it is hard to know where to start. Since I haven't got time to fisk the whole piece, here are five obvious errors.

First, remember when global warming believers said that single-year activity (for example, the annual lows in the 2000s) didn't equate to a climate trend? She doesn't:

Even those who deny the existence of global climate change are having trouble dismissing the evidence of the last year. In the U.S. alone, nearly 1,000 tornadoes have ripped across the heartland, killing more than 500 people and inflicting $9 billion in damage.

Is the "nearly 1,000" line, which is supposed to sound like a lot, even out of the ordinary? A glance at the NOAA's annual tornado statistics suggests that it's not.

And, as I wrote last week when Oklahoma and Missouri got hit, do not under any circumstances believe that graph demonstrates a trend. As the NOAA itself admits, tornado-detection is a much more advanced science modernly than in the past. Merely comparing numbers of tornadoes, is not a meaningful comparison. Contra Newsweek's panicked editor, the IPCC concludes "There is insufficient evidence to determine whether trends exist in.....small-scale phenomena such as tornadoes, hail, lightning and dust-storms."

Second, she overlooks the obvious:

The Midwest suffered the wettest April in 116 years, forcing the Mississippi to flood thousands of square miles, even as drought-plagued Texas suffered the driest month in a century. Worldwide, the litany of weather’s extremes has reached biblical proportions.

If the Midwest was wetter 116 years ago, you've got to wonder whether phenomena other than global warming are responsible. Say, a coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon, perhaps.

Note the personification of the Mississippi. Ordinarily we would say that a wet spring caused the Mississippi to flood, not that the Mississippi "was forced" to flood, as if it would have resisted were it not for the cruddy humans causing global warming.

Third, she exaggerates or, well, lies about measured temperature increases.

And the temperature keeps rising: 2010 was the hottest year on earth since weather records began. . . . there is wide consensus that the 2 degrees Fahrenheit of global warming of the last century is behind the rise in sea levels, more intense hurricanes, more heat waves, and more droughts and deluges.

Note the curious circumlocution "hottest year on earth since weather records began." NewsBuster's Noel Sheppard correctly points out that the Newsweek panic editor overstated the amount of warming by almost 50%.

Fourth, she exaggerates or, well, lies about the weather of the past to imply that the weather of the future will be different.

From these and other extreme-weather events, one lesson is sinking in with terrifying certainty. The stable climate of the last 12,000 years is gone.

What "stable climate" of the last 12,000 years? Little Ice Age ring any bells, "Science Editor"?

Oh, on a lighter note, I believe that she's terrified. I just don't believe she's terrified of global warming. She's afraid that people aren't buying it anymore. And, since she has to resort to such obvious lies and exaggerations even to gin up some good-old-fashioned mob panic, you'd have to be a mental defective to fall for it.

And that's the fifth obvious problem with her article: the title -- "The Reality of Climate Change is Upon Us." Of course, rather than discuss reality, a good chunk of her article is made up of paragraphs that start "Picture [dystopian future not based on science, but on fear]." That's not reality. It's fantasy.

Moreover, it is not Newsweek's first panicked fantasy about the weather. Remember this?

Another Newsweek article cited “the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded”, killing “more than 300 people”, as among “the ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically”. But that article was published on April 28, 1975, when Newsweek listed the US tornado disaster of 1974 as one of the harbingers of disastrous global cooling, heralding the approach of a new ice age.

Pathetic, as is anyone who would fall for this bullshit.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:37 AM | Comments (320)
Post contains 793 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Even those supporters of Barack Obama are having trouble dismissing the evidence of the last year. In the U.S. alone, nearly 1,000 tornadoes have ripped across the heartland, killing more than 500 people and inflicting $9 billion in damage.  It's obviously the work of Barack Obama.

Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at May 31, 2011 02:40 AM (PrXnz)

2 Climate Change is a prank. Weather happens. Move on.

Posted by: Rocks at May 31, 2011 02:41 AM (th0op)

3 LOL, isn't this the $1.00 magazine? We knew this was coming with all the tornadoes. A couple of weeks ago I posted a comment about a local news weather-tard (remember all of our news in SC is owned by a couple of Democrat organizations) who said that April and May had the highest temperatures on record for the past several decades and that was what was causing the tornado outbreaks.

At that time I posted that the April high temp monthly average, as tracked by me, had actually decreased by 4°F from last year. Since it was the middle of the month I could say about May but it was running at that time lower. Well we are at the end of the month now and the average high temp for May has decreased from last year by 3°F.

These people are liars. Besides that, temperatures of the land mass do not have a whole lot to do with the frequency of tornadoes. (some but not all)

Posted by: Vic at May 31, 2011 02:49 AM (M9Ie6)

4 I knew I should have traded in my Yukon for a Prius two years ago.. Joplin could still be standing today.

Posted by: Dave C at May 31, 2011 02:50 AM (QIvCY)

5 James Lewis @ american thinker has a great peace up about the lefts desperation.

http://tinyurl.com/3l2gmzs


Maybe a little rozy in a few of his predictions but most of them are hard to argue with.

Posted by: Shiggz at May 31, 2011 02:50 AM (mLAWK)

6

The stable climate of the last 12,000 years is gone.

*cough*

Posted by: Medieval Warm Period at May 31, 2011 02:51 AM (Txl/u)

7 A repost on my thoughts about "climate clingers"


38 Were the "clingers?"  I have always been open to "global warming"

*They refuse or get antsy to even acknowledge the suns possible role, makes me skeptical.

*That when you show them that huge statist authoritarian multi-billion dollar boondoggles wont budge things even .01% using their own models and they don't care, that makes me skeptical.

*That they personally fly/travel/large homes/central air in such a way to say they don't care one bit about their own carbon output, makes me skeptical.

*they get antsy if you point out that
- CO2 is .04-% of atmosphere
-Argon is .9+% "
-Oxygen 20.7% "

*That CO2 levels waxed and waned much much higher lower long before humans were around they get antsy.

*They have pets but complain about your midsized car, which makes a fraction of the carbon?

Even after all that being repeated over and over I am still open to Global Warming being a threat, but I do wonder if they still believe?

Posted by: Shiggz at May 13, 2011

Posted by: Shiggz at May 31, 2011 02:52 AM (mLAWK)

8 Newsweek WEATHER PANIC This is the new normal (and we're hopelessly unprepared)
FIFY

Posted by: Least at May 31, 2011 02:53 AM (0MXru)

9 There has NEVER been a "stable climate" era. Weather by its very definition changes constantly and this causes climate to change.

And CO2 accounts for such a minute portion of any climate change that it is not even measurable, even with the huge changes that happened millions of years ago. The idea that the minute changes in a minute effect is causing temperature changes in the past 100 years is ludicrous.

That is besides the FACT that we are actually in a cooling trend and have been so for the past 10 - 15 years despite the fraudulent data that tries to hide that.

Posted by: Vic at May 31, 2011 02:56 AM (M9Ie6)

10 Hey, relax.

Their readers, the few of them left, expect that.  It confirms their beliefs.

In other news, I just signed up for a Twitter account.  What could go wrong?

Posted by: I'm in a New York state of mind at May 31, 2011 02:56 AM (4sQwu)

11 You people just can't accept science.

Posted by: Millions of climate refugees by 2010 at May 31, 2011 02:56 AM (FkKjr)

12 I'll buy that for a dollar!

Posted by: Zombie Sidney Harman at May 31, 2011 02:59 AM (GTbGH)

13 The warmistas know they have lost the argument, so their tactics are getting increasingly desperate. Chicken Little has about run its course though.
 
Besides, Newsweak knows that DISASTER sells copies much better than honest analysis for their targeted demographic (i.e dummies).

Posted by: GnuBreed at May 31, 2011 03:01 AM (ENKCw)

14

Heh heh.  In the past, when a hurricane/tornado/flood came it was "SINNERS REPENT!  THE END IS NEAR!"

Nowadays it's the same, but instead of overly excited religious zealots it's overly greedy (and also excited) enviro-nuts.  Green traitors.  I hope that this healthy skepticism toward AGW continues to soak ever deeper into the American mind.  We must never get lax - we need to continue to drive home the point that those people are lying liars and enemies of progress.  My thanks to Mr. Malor and those like him who carry on this great work.

Posted by: Reactionary at May 31, 2011 03:01 AM (xUM1Q)

15 I love science, I am a big fan of separation of religious "science" and state.

http://postimage.org/image/ziievhes/

Posted by: Shiggz at May 31, 2011 03:01 AM (mLAWK)

16 I remember when 2007 summer was so hot and dry, and everyone was sure it was Global Warming!!!11 upon us finally...then each summer got wetter and colder.  Pity my poor stepson, who got into wildland firefighting about that time.   Hope Cali can come up with a (a little) work for him this season.

Posted by: Jeanne of the North at May 31, 2011 03:01 AM (gJGr/)

17

My pink thing ice cream seemed to melt faster at Six Flags over Texas this weekend then I remember it doing back in the late 70s - think I should send this bit of info up to newsweek for thier records?  Of course I remenber my pink thing in the 70s being a lot bigger and more dense back then but what does that have to do with melting fast?

Posted by: Mac Gootbone at May 31, 2011 03:02 AM (9KBWp)

18 At 2:54pm yesterday at 8th Avenue and 41st St. in Manhattan, I had the temerity to argue climate change with a polar bear handing out materials at a table.  When I mentioned the lack of warming over the past eight years or so with "large" increases in CO2 (not really large, but supposedly measurable, according to "them"); the medleval warm period, farming in on Greenland, and Hide the Decline; the bear said he had never heard of any such things.  And then he said I should not be debating with someone 1/2 his age.

We need to kill this climate change thing before the youngins are brainwashed and stupid enough to believe it.  And vote.

Posted by: ParisParamusWhoReallyLivesInBrooklyn, NY at May 31, 2011 03:02 AM (tUIG0)

19

I wish the weather were nearly as predictable as this Newseek cover.

Posted by: Optimizer at May 31, 2011 03:03 AM (F56VB)

20 Newsweak's future viability and climate change are equally speculative.

Posted by: ParisParamusWhoReallyLivesInBrooklyn, NY at May 31, 2011 03:04 AM (tUIG0)

21 All of Newsweek's assets sold for One Dollar, US. No "news" magazines...that's the new normal.

Posted by: Pecos Bill at May 31, 2011 03:12 AM (j84s0)

22 That is besides the FACT that we are actually in a cooling trend and have been so for the past 10 - 15 years despite the fraudulent data that tries to hide that.

Posted by: Vic at May 31, 2011 07:56 AM (M9Ie6)

Well of course it's cooling *now.* Cheryl Crow has stopping using more than one square of toilet paper!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at May 31, 2011 03:13 AM (LH6ir)

23 My wife who is totally not gay, with Hillary Clinton for the last half decade, were at home. SOPMOB (sittin on porch mindin own business) when some dude came and hacked my camera and took a picture of my wiener and sent it to my girlfriend.

Screw Bin Laden I Bin hacked and am in a Climate of Crisis!  The best you can help is please don't ask any questions or look into anything.

Posted by: Rep Weiner at May 31, 2011 03:15 AM (mLAWK)

24

Newsweek...............damn, I thought that it closed shop and went out of business.

Not that anyone would notice. Doctor's lobbys would be hardest hit.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at May 31, 2011 03:18 AM (OWjjx)

25

Though I may pick this week's edition up. Not for the GW stuff - the last article on the top "Building the Perfect Republican"

I mean, political advice from Newsweek - what can go wrong?

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at May 31, 2011 03:20 AM (OWjjx)

26 My wife has an old friend from college who makes her money on the global warming bandwagon. She hasn't don't real science in years, but claims the mantle of science for everything she says.

She does a lot of work for the Chinese government. Amazing that she cares so little about the behavior of the largest totalitarian country on the planet when it comes to murdering its citizens, but is gung-ho and rarin' to go when they talk about carbon credit and sequestration (and they write her checks).

Oh, she also came to my house and lectured me about the evils of Israel, and how the Palis are downtrodden.

Global Warming is just another technique in the left's playbook. Alinsky would be proud.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at May 31, 2011 03:21 AM (LH6ir)

27 don't = done

I need a drink.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at May 31, 2011 03:22 AM (LH6ir)

28 .. but that was then, this is now ..

Posted by: mark x at May 31, 2011 03:28 AM (plLN9)

29 A nuclear physicist/engineer I know has puzzled over how sea levels could rise if the polar ice caps melted. (ignoring the fact that as the northern cap shrinks, Antarctica gets larger.) His puzzlement comes from the fact that the mass of ice decreases as it melts. Just put water in a cup, freeze it, melt it ... Water's mass expands when frozen. If the ice caps melt oceans should actually recede.

Posted by: Alisa at May 31, 2011 03:28 AM (GC5kU)

30 His puzzlement comes from the fact that the mass of ice decreases as it melts.

Ice floats.  (And I think you mean volume.)

Posted by: Y-not at May 31, 2011 03:31 AM (pW2o8)

31 OT, so Romney says he would give Obama an F..

Considering Mitt would probably get a Pappa Bush level C- from conservatives and burn in hell if it existed from leftists... im not sure Mitt wants to bring up the "grades."

I think most conservatives would give Obama (affirmative action curved ) D for 4$ gas instead of 7$ gas.

Leftists would give Obama a (fellow alynski marxist+affirmative action curved) "C" for simply not being named Bush or Palin.

Posted by: Shiggz at May 31, 2011 03:31 AM (mLAWK)

32 Actually ice melting that is floating on the water will not cause the level to change at all. The overall temperature of the water changes causes the level to change.

Put some ice in a glass and fill with water. Allow it to melt, the level will not change.

Posted by: Vic at May 31, 2011 03:32 AM (M9Ie6)

33 This scare-mongering reminds me of that Weather Channel series, "It Could Happen Tomorrow". What if a major tornado strikes downtown Dallas?! Or Washington, DC?! (Complete with cheap special effects to show the "devestation'). Yes, it could happen tomorrow. But, guess what? It could have happened 150 years ago, as well.

Posted by: Book Geek at May 31, 2011 03:36 AM (1+OO5)

34 Whether or not the actual sea level has changed in the last 100 years is highly debatable. It is almost impossible to determine whether the minute differences in measure level have come from the sea level changing or the land level changing.

Only recently have they been able to measure this using satellites and there is not enough info yet to determine a trend.

In addition, for both sea level and temperature, even using NASA and NOAA fraudulent numbers, there have been no changes that are not within the measurement uncertainty of the systems measuring it. 

Posted by: Vic at May 31, 2011 03:36 AM (M9Ie6)

35 It's a good thing no one reads Newsweak any more or people might start to panic.

Posted by: GGE stands for Green Gas Emissions (I cause global warming!) at May 31, 2011 03:37 AM (f4gk9)

36 Posted by: Vic at May 31, 2011 08:32 AM (M9Ie6)

A portion of the polar caps are on land, so if it does melt the sea level will rise. Unless the antarctic caps grow. Or glaciers in other parts of the world grow. Or there is more snow. Or rain.

Wow. It's almost as if this is a complex system that can't be described with one variable! Who knew?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at May 31, 2011 03:39 AM (LH6ir)

37 Apparently I am not the only one who thinks the carbon cultists are getting desperate. They are becoming shriller and the claims more outlandish.

Posted by: real joe at May 31, 2011 03:39 AM (w7Lv+)

38 Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at May 31, 2011 08:39 AM (LH6ir)

Well I did say floating ice. If I am not mistaken the North pole is all floating ice (except for Greenland) and the South is on a land mass.

Posted by: Vic at May 31, 2011 03:41 AM (M9Ie6)

39 33 This scare-mongering reminds me of that Weather Channel series, "It Could Happen Tomorrow". What if a major tornado strikes downtown Dallas?! Or Washington, DC?! (Complete with cheap special effects to show the "devestation'). Yes, it could happen tomorrow. But, guess what? It could have happened 150 years ago, as well.


You got my hopes up for a minute there

Posted by: Dastardly Dan at May 31, 2011 03:42 AM (56hk3)

40

Looks like Ace finally stopped twitter prankpranking on twitter about 2 am.

Posted by: dagny at May 31, 2011 03:43 AM (Z2Al/)

41 And if this scare-mongering wasn't good enough, look at the other topics Newsweak is addressing:

Is Lady Gaga the new Oprah?

Building the perfect Republican. 

/btw that tornado is pretty dark.  Racist much, Newsweek? 

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at May 31, 2011 03:44 AM (9hSKh)

42 Hey now!  Don't call me pathetic!

Posted by: Constitutional Law Perfesser Jugears McFuckstick at May 31, 2011 03:44 AM (qEac9)

43 The thing that gets me on the AGW scam is that it didn't take me more than a few hours of research using commonly available material to determine that the temperatures increased before CO2 throughout history and that this alone disproved the entire POS.

This was long before we had the climate fraud E-mails and the first, second, and third discovery of NOAA bad temperature data and errors.

So any politician who jumped hard into the AGW scam and pushed from crap and tax is automatically either an agenda driven commie or dumber than a back of cheap Chinese hammers.
.

Posted by: Vic at May 31, 2011 03:47 AM (M9Ie6)

44 Newsweek's head editor Tina Brown is so fearful, she even considered giving up her limo service for a few seconds. Why even Zsa Zsa Huffington thought of flying commercial for a second it scared her so much ..

Posted by: kbdabear at May 31, 2011 03:49 AM (vdfwz)

45 Brilliantly put, Gabe.

Posted by: NotA at May 31, 2011 03:49 AM (wnMoI)

46 How much would the morons like to bet on if this chick is a graduate of "environmental science" from a liberal arts college?

Posted by: Vic at May 31, 2011 03:49 AM (M9Ie6)

47 Hey guys at Newsweek, do you ever pine for the days when if you read something in news week it meant something? I remember when Newsweek was a respected news magazine with it's finger on the pulse of the world. Now it's nothing but a propaganda sheet with it's head stuck up the liberal agenda's a**!

Posted by: Emil at May 31, 2011 03:49 AM (kiLx5)

48 So any politician who jumped hard into the AGW scam and pushed from crap and tax is automatically either an agenda driven commie or dumber than a back of cheap Chinese hammers. . You called?

Posted by: Tim Pawlenty at May 31, 2011 03:49 AM (NtTkA)

49 oops back = bag

Posted by: Vic at May 31, 2011 03:50 AM (M9Ie6)

Posted by: kbdabear at May 31, 2011 03:51 AM (vdfwz)

51 ELEVENTY!!!!111!!11!1

Posted by: Reality-Based Community at May 31, 2011 03:51 AM (1fanL)

52 The fraud kicked in high gear when the number of weather stations decreased substantially. Leaving stations in warmer areas, while shutting down the ones in cooler areas. Lets say you are camping in a valley near water. The temp will be 15 to 20 degrees cooler come nightfall as opposed to pitching your tent at a slightly higher altitude on a hill near some rocks. The rocks absorb heat during the day and radiate it during the night.

Posted by: political correctness czar at May 31, 2011 03:53 AM (VNi/L)

53 49 How much would the morons like to bet on if this chick is a graduate of "environmental science" from a liberal arts college?
Posted by: Vic at May 31, 2011 08:49 AM

Sharon Begley. Perhaps the wife of Hollywood environut Ed Begley? You know, Hollywood wives like Laurie David are meteorological EXPERTS

Posted by: kbdabear at May 31, 2011 03:53 AM (vdfwz)

54 Posted by: Vic at May 31, 2011 08:41 AM (M9Ie6)

I was pointing out that yes, it is possible -- although unlikely.
Mostly I was making fun of the idea that this is a simple issue with a simple solution.

The ice in a glass question is actually an excellent one. It requires some basic logic that most people have a difficult time with.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at May 31, 2011 03:53 AM (LH6ir)

55

Pathetic, as is anyone who would fall for this bullshit.

 

"...one-fourth of Americans are retards."

Posted by: Kyle Broflovski at May 31, 2011 03:54 AM (cqZXM)

56 Thank you, Gabriel, for taking the time and trouble to eviscerate this scifi article. I have always been an AWG skeptic from simple "order-of-magnitude" problem alone. When I requested a clarification -- because I was willing, at the time, to change my mind if good science could do so -- I did not get a clarification but an accusation.

That is when it dawned on me this was a religion and not science -- a left-leaning, redistributionist religion. Time has proven us skeptics right and that is the way of science.

What troubles me now, even with the AWG crumbling around Al Gore's ears, is that if it had not been for ClimateGate, some of those now questioning the assumptions of AWG would still be silent.

To me, this is one of the most shameful episodes in science history, ranking up there with the Scopes' trial and the silencing of Galileo. Every scientist who participated in this sham should be ashamed.

The "science AHAHAHA editor" of Newsweak has good company and it is unlikely volumes of refuting evidence will shake her religious fervor -- look at the recent editorial in the Washington Post calling for "leadership" on climate change (in this sense, for rejecting Kyoto). I'm sure it was meant as wry humor but the editorialist did raise "jobs" way down in the article. That was for the shmucks who muddy up his planet.

Some of these idiot newspapers are not going out of business fast enough.

Posted by: Full Moon at May 31, 2011 03:54 AM (m75CK)

57 I fell off my bicycle because there was sand where there has never been before. It's PROOF,  you denialists wingnuts!!

Posted by: Dr Charles Johnson, Scienceologist at May 31, 2011 03:54 AM (vdfwz)

58 One other thing that struck me back when this AGW scam first reared its commie head. I was debating it with one of the green guys and we were discussing the proposed solutions (i.e. crap and tax and wealth transfers to 3rd world shitholes.)

I asked him why the solution was always a tax. If we were releasing too much CO2 why not simply give every man woman and child in the words a CO2 ration card. Every factory gets a ration card. Then everyone is limited to that. No taxes, no redistribution of wealth.

From the green-tard - no answer.

Posted by: Vic at May 31, 2011 03:55 AM (M9Ie6)

59 The hysteria is settled!

Posted by: Rosana Dana Begley, Sharon's smarter Siamese twin at May 31, 2011 03:55 AM (n3S/Z)

60

@56

"Yeah, at least one-fourth."

Posted by: Stan Marsh at May 31, 2011 03:55 AM (Mv/2X)

61 I offered to buy Newsweek for $20.  If they had accepted that offer you wouldn't be seeing this lame gorebull worming BS now.

Posted by: Bob Saget did not send you that picture of his weiner at May 31, 2011 03:58 AM (F/4zf)

62 You can always tell what the real problem is by what the solution being proposed is. In this case the problem is not increasing temperature.

The real problem is that people are not taxed enough and government doesn't have enough power.

Posted by: Vic at May 31, 2011 03:58 AM (M9Ie6)

63 Putting aside the ridiculous premise MAN can materially affect climate, wouldn't the logical "solution" be to adapt to the particular?  Or dosen't that make sense?

Posted by: irongrampa at May 31, 2011 03:58 AM (ud5dN)

64 Sharon Begley. Perhaps the wife of Hollywood environut Ed Begley? You know, Hollywood wives like Laurie David are meteorological EXPERTS

Posted by: kbdabear at May 31, 2011 08:53 AM (vdfwz)

Have you seen Sharon Begley's picture?  I'm not even sure if she's the same species.

Posted by: FUBAR at May 31, 2011 03:58 AM (1fanL)

65 I don't agree with Ed Bagly on shit. However, I respect him because he is one of very few libtards that actually walks his talk. Boy will he be pissed when he figures out it's all a lie and he could have been drivibg a big block chevelle.

Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at May 31, 2011 04:02 AM (NtTkA)

66 No, she's just a crazy Aussie import, as known for her PDS, as the AGW promotion,

Posted by: Randolph Duke at May 31, 2011 04:02 AM (YGNmh)

67 Phineas Taylor Barnum could have been the first "Climate Scientist".  If he had realized how much money could be diverted to his coffers in the endeavour, he would have put Algore and his like to shame.  He knew how to do it right, and made each of us thank him as we left his latest scam/show.  These new-fangled hucksters have nothing but greed.

Posted by: dfbaskwill at May 31, 2011 04:02 AM (71LDo)

68 O/T, Iowahawks, so you have a college diploma article is one of the funniest pieces of writing I have seen in awhile. The Drag Racing references are priceless.

Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at May 31, 2011 04:05 AM (NtTkA)

69 One of the things that is so irksome about all this is the degree of certainty which its proponets held. They could have said, "Well this is a theory we're looking at. One of several. The facts about the science are still coming in. We'll make a judgment when we have better data.". The response has been instead, "The debate is over! The science is settled! Global climate change is established fact!" It amazed me when I would be reading a book on a totally unrelated subject, and if the author was a global warming fanatic, he/she would somehow find a way to insert their "faith" into the middle of the text.

Posted by: Book Geek at May 31, 2011 04:05 AM (1+OO5)

70 If the fact that Algore bought an ELEVENTY!11! thousand sq. ft. mansion on the beach doesn't make lefties wonder, then they're gone.

Posted by: FUBAR at May 31, 2011 04:05 AM (1fanL)

71 71 If the fact that Algore bought an ELEVENTY!11! thousand sq. ft. mansion on the beach doesn't make lefties wonder, then they're gone.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 31, 2011 09:05 AM

One of Glenn Reynolds signature lines is; "I'll start worrying about it when it looks like they're personally worried about it"

Posted by: kbdabear at May 31, 2011 04:09 AM (vdfwz)

72 Just as when a president never recovers once his approval ratings fall to 42%, so the public will never again take man-made global warming junk science seriously again.

Do I believe in climate change?  Of course.  It it caused by manmade carbon emissions?  Ridiculous.  There is not even any proof that increased carbon in the atmosphere causes warming.  However there is quite a bit of fossil evidence that warming causes the oceans to release more carbon.

In the case of global warming the chicken did come before the egg.

Posted by: Bill Mitchell at May 31, 2011 04:09 AM (Er/am)

73 If the fact that Algore bought an ELEVENTY!11! thousand sq. ft. mansion on the beach doesn't make lefties wonder, then they're gone.

Posted by: FUBAR at May 31, 2011 09:05 AM (1fanL)

Or the fact that he shows up to his "eco-rallys" in carbon belching SUV's or Limos, this after jumping off of his more horrific private jet.  The 'tards truly are lost with most never to be found again.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at May 31, 2011 04:09 AM (yQWNf)

74 The real problem is that people are not taxed enough and government doesn't have enough power. Posted by: Vic at May 31, 2011 08:58 AM

Damn right! Those Climate Conferences in Bangkok cost money when you've got to find 5 star hotels with running cocaine and ladyboy hookers and landing space for a few hundred private jets

Posted by: kbdabear at May 31, 2011 04:11 AM (vdfwz)

75

Or the fact that he shows up to his "eco-rallys" in carbon belching SUV's or Limos, this after jumping off of his more horrific private jet.  The 'tards truly are lost with most never to be found again.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at May 31, 2011 09:09 AM

The fat phony even has the limos running to keep the a/c on so that Algore doesn't get all sweaty on the ride back to his private jet

Posted by: kbdabear at May 31, 2011 04:13 AM (vdfwz)

76 Don't you people see the PROOF? What about the 10,000 people killed in that Kansas tornado OUR President told us about?

You're lying about global warming because we have a black president

Posted by: Judy the Civil Intellectual at May 31, 2011 04:16 AM (vdfwz)

77

Gabe

This is a KICK ASS post. Well done.

Posted by: maddogg at May 31, 2011 04:17 AM (OlN4e)

78 Why isn't the Weiner weiner on the cover?

Posted by: torabora at May 31, 2011 04:18 AM (XL2DT)

79 One of Glenn Reynolds signature lines is; "I'll start worrying about it when it looks like they're personally worried about it"

Posted by: kbdabear at May 31, 2011 09:09 AM (vdfwz)

Only because I love that line so much: "I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who keep telling me it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis."

Posted by: FUBAR at May 31, 2011 04:19 AM (1fanL)

80
The only reason this Newsweek article was written is because these tornadoes hit places with names like "Joplin" and "Tuscaloosa".

Had they hit nameless, faceless farm fields in Oklahoma, Kansas or Iowa, the article would not have been written.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at May 31, 2011 04:20 AM (BDH94)

81 Newsweek is my go-to choice in jag rags.

Posted by: Trimming Aubrey's Beardsley at May 31, 2011 04:24 AM (PET8M)

82 Color me surprised that she didn't reference the old story and twist it to say: "look how quickly things have changed!!"

Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 04:25 AM (WkuV6)

83 They aren't just getting desperate at Newsweek - the WaPo shit some skittles last week as well; for complete coverage hop over to WUWT

Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 04:29 AM (WkuV6)

84 The funniest thing about these climate nuts is the dismissive looks they give you when you state that you're not a member of their cult.  The stupid cocksuckers have no understanding of science, just like their fat fuck hero ManBearPig, yet they pathetically cling to their dogma that THEY'RE THE SMART ONES!!111!!

In reality they're the stupid characters in old cartoons walking around with a sign saying "THE END IS NEAR".

Posted by: Captain Hate at May 31, 2011 04:32 AM (CAI0v)

85 It was cold and rainy for the first three weeks of May. Now it is like summer, still in May. Global warming, duh!

Posted by: fluffy at May 31, 2011 04:32 AM (4Kl5M)

86

"We must never get lax - we need to continue to drive home the point that those people are lying liars and enemies of progress." 

This, +1000.  We can't let up on these charlatans because they sure as hell won't. 

They're leftists, and leftists - no matter how many times their philosophies, ideologies, hairbrained schemes and just flat out dumb fucking ideas have been proven failures - just keep their herd moving mindlessly in the downward spiral they arrogantly call "progress".

Debunk and ridicule until their hallowed institutions (The Daily Show and SNL) start making fun of them too.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at May 31, 2011 04:32 AM (A/oSU)

87 Sigh. Nobody understands us...

Posted by: Sunspots at May 31, 2011 04:35 AM (wOaLi)

88 Ace, I love your site, and your policy skepticism on this stuff is admirable-- we shouldn't trust the left's policy prescriptions on warming. and when we should absolutely point out their double standards and hypocrisy-- but you sound like an idiot when you discuss the science, and when you suggest the scientific community is engaged in a massive fraud.  You've blown up ridiculous issues like "Climate-gate" far beyond their importance and you post stuff (you did this with another skpetics article you liked a couple of weeks ago) that has been pretty easily and conclusively debunked.

Posted by: bleh at May 31, 2011 04:37 AM (I/JRK)

89 Why the dramatic increase in tornados since 1990? Because in 1990 the National Weather Service installed a network of 158 doppler radars around the country to detect them. Duh!

Posted by: Trapperguy at May 31, 2011 04:38 AM (QfLaw)

90 Uhhhhh, bleh (89), Gabe wrote this.  Not Ace.  Pay attention.  Oh shit, I forgot, you're a libtard.

Posted by: Sukie Tawdry at May 31, 2011 04:39 AM (MPtFW)

91 Wow, an Ace brand compassionate conservative -- Did jumping on the weiner earn us a spot Axelrod's starting rotation?

Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 04:39 AM (WkuV6)

92 You've blown up ridiculous issues like "Climate-gate" far beyond their importance and you post stuff (you did this with another skpetics article you liked a couple of weeks ago) that has been pretty easily and conclusively debunked.

Actually, it's a Gabe post, but that's neither here nor there.  The fact is that the Earth has been warmer, on average, in historical times, and the results are known:  greater health and prosperity.

I say:  Pray for Warming.

Posted by: toby928 at May 31, 2011 04:41 AM (GTbGH)

93

Liberals (and their crazy leftwinger big sisters  expect life to be perfect JUST FOR THEM.

 

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at May 31, 2011 04:41 AM (0fzsA)

94 bleh - gabe sounds like a lawyer when he discusses global warming - which is where it is heading. Think false claims act, stock manipulation, undisclosed fiduciary relationships, fraud, lots of disclosure --- fun times.

Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 04:43 AM (WkuV6)

95 Nothing says Eat Hearty better than extending the wheat belt an extra 100 miles north across the whole of Eurasia.

Posted by: toby928 at May 31, 2011 04:43 AM (GTbGH)

96 This blog has been brought to you by the letter... W

Posted by: EricPWJohnson at May 31, 2011 04:43 AM (LFKqv)

97 You've blown up ridiculous issues like "Climate-gate" far beyond their importance Incandescent light bulbs are no longer manufactured in this country. We are burning food to power automobiles to make lefty suckers of cock feel good. I get lower gas mileage when I burn food in my engine. Warmists are using this junk science as an excuse to regulate me back to the Stone Age. My lawn, get off of it.

Posted by: fluffy at May 31, 2011 04:43 AM (4Kl5M)

98

whoah - ho did that emoticon get there?

Liberals want free health care and 70 degrees all the time.

 

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at May 31, 2011 04:44 AM (0fzsA)

99 "conclusively " -- liberals like their science settled, it makes running the command economy easier.

Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 04:44 AM (WkuV6)

100 Liberals want free health care and 70 degrees all the time.

and skittles.

Posted by: toby928 at May 31, 2011 04:44 AM (GTbGH)

101

Morning, all!  In place of Monty's DOOM threads, I recommend a thread like this every morning until he returns.  One in which the tissue-thin beliefs of the left are ripped to shreds by our M&Ms.

...

Actually, I suppose that could easily describe every thread here at the HQ, DOOM or no DOOM.  So never mind.

And just as a side note, who the hell put together that Newsweek cover, and are they old enough to use the computer without supervision?  A half-blind fruit bat with a hangover and an immobilized left wing could do a better cover than that.  What did they use, MS Paint?

Posted by: MWR at May 31, 2011 04:45 AM (4df7R)

102

The NEW science is that ALL weather is proof of global warming.

Science!

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at May 31, 2011 04:45 AM (0fzsA)

103 in historical times, and the results are known: greater health and prosperity. I say: Pray for Warming. I'm a mostly in-active member of a hiking board. It's chock full o' warming zealotry. My signature there is: "My ancestors lost weight during the Maunder Minimum. Ask me how!"

Posted by: fluffy at May 31, 2011 04:46 AM (4Kl5M)

104 Liberals want free health care and 70 degrees all the time. Eloi, yumm

Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 04:46 AM (WkuV6)

105 I learned something very important from this piece.

Newsweek is still in publication!
I mean, who knew right?

Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at May 31, 2011 04:48 AM (s71zk)

106 A half-blind fruit bat with a hangover and an immobilized left wing could do a better cover than that. What did they use, MS Paint? Dude, you get what you pay for ...

Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 04:48 AM (WkuV6)

107 You've blown up ridiculous issues like "Climate-gate" far beyond their importance and you post stuff (you did this with another skpetics article you liked a couple of weeks ago) that has been pretty easily and conclusively debunked.

Posted by: bleh at May 31, 2011 09:37 AM (I/JRK)

Please, provide links were it was 'easily and conclusively debunked.'  My guess is any links you come up with will be tepid responses with lots of invective and motive questioning toward skeptics.

It is obvious to anyone with a scientific background that climatology is based upon really terrible assertions.  Seriously, one fucking tornado season proves something?  Science in every other field needs multiple entries and evidence.  In climatology, however, 'models' trump actual data, and the fucking scientists involved state that

And Climate-gate was a huge deal.  Science is supposed to be about objective search for the truth, not hiding information or threatening scientific journals if they peer-review and publish opposing viewpoints.

One final question:  Remember those "millions of climate refugees" your brilliant scientist buddies predicted in 2005?  Where the fuck are they?

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at May 31, 2011 04:49 AM (FkKjr)

108 108 A half-blind fruit bat with a hangover and an immobilized left wing could do a better cover than that. What did they use, MS Paint?

Dude, you get what you pay for ...

Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 09:48 AM (WkuV6)

 

This is true.  And last I checked, a half-blind fruit bat with a hangover and a bad wing charges at LEAST $2 an hour.  That's a bit too rich for Newsweek's "we sold for $1!" blood.

Posted by: MWR at May 31, 2011 04:49 AM (4df7R)

109 A half-blind fruit bat with a hangover and an immobilized left wing could do a better cover than that. What did they use, MS Paint? Hey, Fidget was one of my best roles

Posted by: Canday Candido at May 31, 2011 04:50 AM (WkuV6)

110 Global Climate change is real and happening. I do not use any oil products and we should all do are part to help cleanup the environment. I ride a bicycle everywhere, heat my house with wood, and use very little electricity (What I use is from Renewables). Time for all of us to do something and support our "honestly elected" Presadent Obama on this initiative for are children and grandchildren. DONO'T BE OIL HOGS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Mary Clogginstein from Brattleboro, VT at May 31, 2011 04:51 AM (48wze)

111

Liberals want free health care and 70 degrees all the time.

and skittles.

and soaring speeches filled with silly promises about lowering the sea.

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at May 31, 2011 04:51 AM (0fzsA)

112 My lawn, get off of it.

Posted by: fluffy at May 31, 2011 09:43 AM (4Kl5M)

Chuckle.

Posted by: FUBAR at May 31, 2011 04:51 AM (1fanL)

113

Please, provide links were it was 'easily and conclusively debunked.'  My guess is any links you come up with will be tepid responses with lots of invective and motive questioning toward skeptics.

Cue links to Daily Kos and DU in 5...4...3...2...

Posted by: MWR at May 31, 2011 04:52 AM (4df7R)

114 Posted by: bleh at May 31, 2011 09:37 AM (I/JRK)

Nice try though.  I like the way you started praising Ace and the site before trying to proselytize us.

Posted by: FUBAR at May 31, 2011 04:53 AM (1fanL)

115 Where the fuck are they? Sending in their absentee voter forms for that WV election, I believe.

Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 04:53 AM (WkuV6)

116

Liberals want free health care and 70 degrees all the time.

and skittles.

and soaring speeches filled with silly promises about lowering the sea.

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at May 31, 2011 09:51 AM (0fzsA)

And unicorns.  Flying unicorns.  With rainbow hooves.

Posted by: MWR at May 31, 2011 04:53 AM (4df7R)

117 Mornin' morons. It's my birthday and I'm sitting at the MVA waiting to renew my license. God I am an idiot.

Posted by: Hedgehog at May 31, 2011 04:54 AM (Nt7rO)

118 Mary Clogginstein == Mrs Charles Johnson?

Posted by: Captain Hate at May 31, 2011 04:54 AM (CAI0v)

119 Posted by: bleh at May 31, 2011 09:37 AM (I/JRK)

If you are really pushing AGW which category do you fall in:

1. eco-tard GAEA worshiping cultist who knows nothing about science. 
2. SCAM pushing crook who makes a living pushing AGW and should be in jail.
3. Watermelon commie (green on the outside red on inside) pushing AGW and other green scams as a way to push global communism and fascist control.
4. Just an average liberal idiot who is dumber than a bag of hammers

Or you really just a shit-weasel troll who came on here to stir up trouble?

Posted by: Vic at May 31, 2011 04:54 AM (M9Ie6)

120 That mysterious Pacific Ocean-Atmosphere coupling known as la nina brought much cooler than normal temps to the middle of the country. When that cooler air came into contact with the overheated air from the Gulf, very strong tornadoes resulted when the jet stream was also cooperative in adding its finger to the mix. (greater differences in temp and humidity of the colliding air masses gives rise to more instability and more explosive storm development. It's physics) The last time this occurred? The 70s when the last huge and deadly tornado outbreak occurred. These so called fucking journalists can't be bothered to do any research. Bastards, the lot of them.

Posted by: laddy at May 31, 2011 04:54 AM (49mGu)

121 @sukie and @toby-- sorry for the miss-- it's early A.M. over here and I'm minus one coffee-- but my point remains, because Ace has certainly done it too, and he's encouraged it on the site. @Sukie-- I'm about the farthest thing from a lib, but nice try anyway. I know a fair bit of climate science and a lot of climate scientists. And  I know that the right tends to sound like complete idiots when they critique this stuff-- they pick up on a few dissident voices and then amplify them beyond all reason ignoring the fact that even the best of the dissidents usually have a history of cranky behavior.  It has always been a mystery to me why we have chosen to attack this issue at the left's strongest point (the science) rather than at their weakest point (the hypocrisy and shoddy policy prescriptions behind the science.)

Posted by: bleh at May 31, 2011 04:54 AM (I/JRK)

122 and I'm sitting at the MVA waiting to renew my license.

That's a lot more tolerable if you are already drunk.

Posted by: toby928 at May 31, 2011 04:55 AM (GTbGH)

123 120, Happy Birthday!!! I hope you take a nice picture.

Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at May 31, 2011 04:55 AM (NtTkA)

124

You find out about all these horrible publications like TIME and Newsweek and Vanity Fair when you go to the doc or get your oil changed.

Shocka - they are magazines that prasie the all mightly Corruptocrat(D) and piss all over anything Republican. Media Matters approves.

 

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at May 31, 2011 04:55 AM (0fzsA)

125 I know a fair bit of climate science and a lot of climate scientists.

Bring the knowledge then.

Posted by: toby928 at May 31, 2011 04:55 AM (GTbGH)

126 Nice try though.  I like the way you started praising Ace and the site before trying to proselytize us.

Posted by: FUBAR at May 31, 2011 09:53 AM (1fanL)

Methinks bleh is one of those "seminar callers" who try to get onto Rush and Levin and Ingraham and whatnot.  Start off saying how much you like the show, how you usually agree with the host, then go completely off the reservation with the leftist BS. 

Posted by: MWR at May 31, 2011 04:55 AM (4df7R)

127 Newsweek is my go-to choice for wrapping the corpses of homeless hippies and overdosed progladyte hipsters.

Posted by: Trimming Aubrey's Beardsley at May 31, 2011 04:56 AM (PET8M)

128 Chuckle. Are you laughin' at me? ARE YOU LAUGHIN' AT ME?!?!?

Posted by: fluffy at May 31, 2011 04:56 AM (4Kl5M)

129 And  I know that the right tends to sound like complete idiots when they critique this stuff-- they pick up on a few dissident voices and then amplify them beyond all reason ignoring the fact that even the best of the dissidents usually have a history of cranky behavior.

Attacking people based upon their credentials, not their arguments.  Yep, you definitely are familiar with climate science and climate scientists.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at May 31, 2011 04:58 AM (FkKjr)

130 120 Mornin' morons. It's my birthday and I'm sitting at the MVA waiting to renew my license. God I am an idiot.

Posted by: Hedgehog at May 31, 2011 09:54 AM (Nt7rO)

Happy birthday!  And you have our sympathies.  Motor Vehicles is Teh Suck anyway, let alone on your birthday.

Posted by: MWR at May 31, 2011 04:58 AM (4df7R)

131 Anyone that believes in man made global warming sucks cock. You don't wanna be a cocksucker do you bleh? DO YOU?

Posted by: Mr Pink at May 31, 2011 04:58 AM (wJEIO)

132

Liberals want free health care and 70 degrees all the time.

and skittles.

and soaring speeches filled with silly promises about lowering the sea.

 

And unicorns.  Flying unicorns.  With rainbow hooves.

and stink-free unicorn flatulence ...that powers cars and stuff.

 

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at May 31, 2011 04:59 AM (0fzsA)

133 What is Climate Science anyway?  I know what physics is, and meteorology, and chemistry, and history, but what is the required course work to be a Climate Scientist?

Posted by: toby928 at May 31, 2011 04:59 AM (GTbGH)

134 I wish to apologize for my son's behavior on your fine site.

The useless piece of shit was supposed to be working the fry station this morning, but called in sick after he somehow found his way into my Oxycontin stash.

Posted by: bleh's mom at May 31, 2011 05:00 AM (PET8M)

135 130 Newsweek is my go-to choice for wrapping the corpses of homeless hippies and overdosed progladyte hipsters.

Posted by: Trimming Aubrey's Beardsley at May 31, 2011 09:56 AM (PET8M)

I'm assuming you eat your hobos after a hunt?  Or do you wrap them in Time? 

Posted by: MWR at May 31, 2011 05:01 AM (4df7R)

136 Thanks all for the birthday wishes. 38 minutes and counting. Beck on Xm and the morons here make this wait a lot easier.

Posted by: Hedgehog at May 31, 2011 05:02 AM (Nt7rO)

137 Belated happy Memorial Day, morons.  Hope no one was arrested or had their twitter accounts hacked.

I had a delightful conversation with a Bammy-lovin' guy friend yesterday.  His Barry love has been extremely diminished by all Barky's war-mongerin'.

Heh.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at May 31, 2011 05:02 AM (UOM48)

138 It has always been a mystery to me why we have chosen to attack this issue at the left's strongest point (the science) rather than at their weakest point (the hypocrisy and shoddy policy prescriptions behind the science.) What part of the AGW/Climate Change "science" could be in any way considered "strong"? The only thing I can see they are good at is publishing papers referencing each other. You do realize there are quite a few hard science guys here, who have to be polite at work, but really get to vent here -- so your about to get your ass kicked.

Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 05:02 AM (WkuV6)

139

I'm assuming you eat your hobos after a hunt?  

Posted by: MWR at May 31, 2011 10:01 AM (4df7R)

Oh, but of course. With some Grey Poupon.


Posted by: Trimming Aubrey's Beardsley at May 31, 2011 05:03 AM (PET8M)

140 This is an excellent post. It is very informative. Thank you so much. I'll be a regular viewer. wholesale lingerie Replica Handbags

Posted by: corsets at May 31, 2011 05:03 AM (8xXp5)

141 If the wheat belt moves 100 miles farther north doesn't it follow that the barley belt will also move farther north ?
More barley means cheaper and more plentiful beer and whiskey .
Perfect moron logic and irrefutable proof of Gods love .

Posted by: awkward davies at May 31, 2011 05:05 AM (YCW1b)

142 Does anyone that got past the 6th grade really read that rag?

Posted by: Ago Solvo at May 31, 2011 05:05 AM (k8JkR)

143

"State of Fear"...

Crichton... guy was scary smart....

Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2011 05:06 AM (NtXW4)

144 @bevel-- I can't find the piece quickly that Ace posted a couple of weeks ago from a skeptic--one of the things it talked about was the issue of where thermometers were placed affecting data-- and I've got to disappear to get the kids up, but if you can dig up the URL, I'll be happy to post a good critique.

You're right that good science requires several lines of evidence and climate change absolutely has that.  Critics tend to focus on problems with one or two lines while ignoring the other 97.  There is obviously an enormous amount of uncertainty and the models are very complex-- anyone who doesn't say there is a lot of uncertainty is just playing politics.  But there's a significant chance of serious warming with nasty consequences.  That's what the science says-- not just modeling, but observed  Whether that chance is 2% or 50% depends on who you believe.  Either way, I tend to believe in insurance is a wise thing to purchase.

Posted by: bleh at May 31, 2011 05:06 AM (I/JRK)

145 Jane - I have a relative who is so disenchanted over Libya that she went down and stood in line to change her voter registration to Independent. She's still vote for the One, but no more telephone trees and rallys.

Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 05:07 AM (WkuV6)

146

bleh,

There is no "science" involved in AGW.  You say you know "climate scientists" and "climate science" - well then you lie.

there is no such thing.  there is only a theory - which has absolutely no scientific proof behind it, and computer modeling, which is most decidedly not scientific in any way. 

don't claim that somthing has been easily debunked a thousand times.  that is pure lefitsm.  Saying something is 'debunked' is not the same as actually challenging teh arguments made.

You cite to your own authority "I know science" and "I' know scientists" - that is not an arument, nor is it believable or persuasive.  but it is typical leftists.  Just as we are supposed to believe in AGW b/c a "consensus" of scientists "believe" in it. 

You are right that AGW is most easily attacked through the "science", as there is no science.  citing to manipulated temperature records -  the unmanipulated raw data of which is now conveniently lost by CRU after they were found to have "hidden teh decline" is not science. 

At this point we are not so much interested in debunking AGW, it has been debunked and the rats are abandoning the ship every day.  We are more interested in making fun of the idiots who still claim a) that it exists and/or b) that there was ever any science behind it in the first instance.

Posted by: Monkeytoe at May 31, 2011 05:07 AM (wVhfO)

147

What part of the AGW/Climate Change "science" could be in any way considered "strong"? The only thing I can see they are good at is publishing flawed papers referencing each other's faked "science," while ignoring and blacklisting any dissenting viewpoints that are based on actual observational data and replicable experimental methods.   

FIFY!

Posted by: MWR at May 31, 2011 05:08 AM (4df7R)

148 Either way, I tend to believe in insurance is a wise thing to purchase. Oh no, the precautionary principle comes out early - this ins't going to end well.

Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 05:09 AM (WkuV6)

149 What part of the AGW/Climate Change "science" could be in any way considered "strong"? Tree rings, Jean. Good God, Man, it's all tree rings now-a-days!!

Posted by: Fletch at May 31, 2011 05:09 AM (4Kl5M)

150 149

bleh,

there is no such thing.  there is only a theory - which has absolutely no scientific proof behind it, and computer modeling, which is most decidedly not scientific in any way. .

Posted by: Monkeytoe at May 31, 2011 10:07 AM (wVhfO)



Ahem....I believe I was here first.

Posted by: That Dude Who Created Every-friggin Thing at May 31, 2011 05:10 AM (PET8M)

151 Fossil fuels are called that because they are the remains of ancient life. The carbon they possess is carbon that they took from the atmosphere eons ago and locked underground, greatly reducing the amount in the atmosphere by burning it and returning the carbon to the atmosphere we are simply undoing the envirocrimes of the dinosaurs

Posted by: errhead at May 31, 2011 05:10 AM (XtEQi)

152 145 Does anyone that got past the 6th grade really read that rag?

Posted by: Ago Solvo at May 31, 2011 10:05 AM (k8JkR)

Sadly, it is sometimes the only reading material in the waiting room at your average doctor's office.  Well, that and Sports Illustrated or Parenting, both of which are always already taken by the time I get there.  That's why I just bring a book with me.

Posted by: MWR at May 31, 2011 05:10 AM (4df7R)

153 Bleh is going to town on that tubesteak so hard he makes Brianna Banks look like a catholic nun with TMJ and a gag reflex.

Posted by: Mr Pink at May 31, 2011 05:11 AM (wJEIO)

154 Newsweek is "shovel ready"

Posted by: Shiggz at May 31, 2011 05:11 AM (mLAWK)

155 Newsweek just tweeted me a pic of Little Tony Wiener's penis.  Should I subscribe?

Posted by: Cherry π at May 31, 2011 05:12 AM (+sBB4)

156 I can't determine if bleh is saying science supports that there is man made gw or whether there is just gw. I believe that distinction is important. One is false and the other is arguable.

Posted by: polynikes-Romney supporter at May 31, 2011 05:12 AM (9zDBm)

157 @ various critics, I'm not going to sit around all morning and defend myself.  If you want to beclown yourselves by pretending I'm a liberal troll, rather than someone to the right of probably 90% of the people who read this site, there's nothing I can do about it. Like I said, there is a ton to crticize in liberal views of climate change, but the science, uncertain as it is, is the worst place to start.  You should focus on shoddy pieces of trash like the Stern Report, and dumb policy ideas like cap and trade.

Posted by: bleh at May 31, 2011 05:13 AM (I/JRK)

158 156 Bleh is going to town on that tubesteak so hard he makes Brianna Banks look like a catholic nun with TMJ and a gag reflex.

Posted by: Mr Pink at May 31, 2011 10:11 AM (wJEIO)

This is just another example of why I say the HQ should publish a book of witticisms entitled (Keep F*#!ing that) Chicken Soup for the (Hopelessly Inebriated) Soul.

Goldmine, I tell you.  GOLD. MINE.

Posted by: MWR at May 31, 2011 05:14 AM (4df7R)

159 You're right that good science requires several lines of evidence and climate change absolutely has that. Critics tend to focus on problems with one or two lines while ignoring the other 97. There is obviously an enormous amount of uncertainty and the models are very complex-- anyone who doesn't say there is a lot of uncertainty is just playing politics. But there's a significant chance of serious warming with nasty consequences. That's what the science says-- not just modeling, but observed Whether that chance is 2% or 50% depends on who you believe. Either way, I tend to believe in insurance is a wise thing to purchase.

Posted by: bleh at May 31, 2011 10:06 AM (I/JRK)

 

Everything above is completely untrue.  AGW "scientists" have offered nothing beyond computer modeling.  All of the alleged data supporting AGW stemmed from CRU, who "lost" the raw data leaving only their manipulated numbers.

Your claims to the contrary are hilarious.  What's most funny is that leftists like you claim to believe in science, yet absolutely disregard it when it comes to something that supports their political goals. 

You believe in "insurance" - that's your idiot argument?  you want us to destroy our ecomony (coincidentally in wet-dream sync with leftist socialist ideology) not based on any actual science, but on what? 

Someone came up with a theory that is completely unfounded by any facts or science, and now you think we need to act on that theory?  That is insane.

You leftists are doing more damage to science then anything in the last 1,000 years.  You are making it so that nobody is going to believe any science in the future because it is always going to be suspect as being manipulated for political purposes (which AGW is now). 

Posted by: Monkeytoe at May 31, 2011 05:15 AM (wVhfO)

160 Newsweek's Global Warming Fearmongering Isn't Science, It's Science-Fiction


Weather infidel.

Posted by: Weather Islamist at May 31, 2011 05:15 AM (8/JR7)

161 Has anyone ever seen bleh and Average Joe in the same room?

Posted by: Cicero at May 31, 2011 05:15 AM (p03Eu)

162 You're right that good science requires several lines of evidence and climate change absolutely has that.

No, it doesn't.  Every single aspect of climate change has serious questions associated with it, or else the data is hidden, or else declared irrelevant.  We also must take - in good faith - that people with a history of falsifying data for financial gain are providing us with good data.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  If you claim the world is approaching utter ruin in fifty years, you better have some great evidence to back it up (note: great evidence isn't a FORTRAN program that can't predict the weather tomorrow).

Whether that chance is 2% or 50% depends on who you believe.  Either way, I tend to believe in insurance is a wise thing to purchase.

You also believe it's wise to call people who skew toward the 2% side of risk idiots?  Sorry, you seem to be rapidly evolving your stance here.

Oh, by the way, what about those millions of climate refugees by 2010?

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at May 31, 2011 05:16 AM (FkKjr)

163 160 @ various critics, I'm not going to sit around all morning and defend myself.  If you want to beclown yourselves by pretending I'm a liberal troll, rather than someone to the right of probably 90% of the people who read this site,

lol

Posted by: Jane D'oh at May 31, 2011 05:16 AM (UOM48)

164 166 160 @ various critics, I'm not going to sit around all morning and defend myself.  If you want to beclown yourselves by pretending I'm a liberal troll, rather than someone to the right of probably 90% of the people who read this site,

lol

Posted by: Jane D'oh at May 31, 2011 10:16 AM (UOM4


What the FUCK?!?!?!?

Posted by: General of the Army George S. Patton at May 31, 2011 05:18 AM (PET8M)

165 Bullshit bleh; those simple fuckheads hide their data like members of a cult, which is what they are.  If they were honest they'd make it available to everybody so it can be rigorously tested but they don't.  That should trigger a massive red flag if you were being honest about this from a scientific standpoint.  But it doesn't because you believe those assholes and their "consensus".  Fuck that shit; in science consensus doesn't mean dick.  Either you're right or you're not.  And those shitheads are wrong.

Posted by: Captain Hate at May 31, 2011 05:18 AM (CAI0v)

166 It is stupid and wrong to challenge science.

Posted by: Cherry π at May 31, 2011 05:18 AM (+sBB4)

167

There is no science with regards to AGW.  Period.

160@ various critics, I'm not going to sit around all morning and defend myself. 

In other words - I tried to cite to my authority (i.e., "I know scientists" and "I know science") and that wasn't enough to persuade you I am correct.  I can't actually offer any arguments with cites to facts to support my argument, so I'm just going to say you are stupid and leave.

There is no remotely reliable evidence of global warming.  If there were, someone, somewhere would cite it.  The only evidence stems from manipulated data, the raw data of which was "lost" by CRU.  Again, that is not science.

Posted by: Monkeytoe at May 31, 2011 05:19 AM (wVhfO)

168 Actually, if you flip the Newsweek cover upside down....it's Weinergate!

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at May 31, 2011 05:19 AM (DPM1U)

169 One is false and the other is arguable.

I've never seen a cogent argument that either is bad. 

True story, I was in San Francisco on business back in '88 or so, when the watermelons were just starting to really latch on to this shady scheme, and I had to listen to another person fear mongering on AGW.  I asked them if there was anyone who would benefit from warming, if it existed.  They went blank.  I pointed out that no worldwide climate phenomenon is not going to have winners somewhere and that any movement that denied that was simply propaganda.

All Crisis, all the time, don't stop to think about it, action now.

Classic agi-prop.

Posted by: toby928 at May 31, 2011 05:19 AM (GTbGH)

170 I have never seen a Globull Warming Cultist explain why increased CO2 is bad when it is an undisputed fact that all plants alive today evolved during an age of near double today's CO2; that in the age of the dinosaurs the CO2 was quite a bit higher than today.
Never mind that every study that has subjected plants to increased CO2 has seen the plants grow bigger, grow faster, produce more fruit and use less water!

F' em; lying scum who see nothing wrong with unlimited government control.

Oh, and will Chuckles the Klown be by any time soon to denounce us deniers?


Posted by: Jimmuy at May 31, 2011 05:19 AM (FJeA9)

171 Posted by: Mr Pink at May 31, 2011 09:58 AM (wJEIO)

I Believe!

Posted by: Barney Frank at May 31, 2011 05:21 AM (LH6ir)

172 If you are bored two good pieces in Asia times today.

Spengler,  covering how this "Arab Spring" is like Carter and Iran multiplied many times over.  Yellowstone super volcano its so big no one inside of it realized it was encompassing for along time until airplanes and satellites let people get a look at it from high enough above.

http://tinyurl.com/3swwczh

Doug Noland, covering productive vs unproductive credit and the differences in its effects.

http://tinyurl.com/42bskve

Posted by: Shiggz at May 31, 2011 05:22 AM (mLAWK)

173 159 I can't determine if bleh is saying science supports that there is man made gw or whether there is just gw. I believe that distinction is important. One is false and the other is arguable.

Posted by: polynikes-Romney supporter at May 31, 2011 10:12 AM (9zDBm)

I agree.  There should be a clear distinction made.  I believe in global climate change, because it's happened in the past and will happen again.  The great warming at the beginning of the earth's life-sustaining period when plants flourished; the tropical heat that allowed the dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures to grow so large and thrive for so long;  the Ice Age, then the warming of the earth that shrank the great glaciers... 

Climate change happens.  It just DOES.

Now me, I don't like smokestacks.  I think they're ugly and they stink.  If I could, I'd get rid of them.  Same with tractor trailer exhaust.  But I'm not going to mandate that there can be no smokestacks and no burning of smelly fossil fuels, because we need those things.  I really don't think anybody anywhere on the political spectrum would argue against clean, efficient energy sources if they are affordable, effective, and workable.  That's the problem with so-called "green" energy solutions today; they are none of those things.  They cost too much with too little payoff, and getting them to work with our current energy infrastructure is an expensive undertaking all its own.  If we all had electric cars, where the hell are we supposed to plug them in when we're at work? 

Until all of these issues are addressed and solved, I'll stick with what we know and what we can use.

Posted by: MWR at May 31, 2011 05:24 AM (4df7R)

174

A cursory review of the Newsyweek discussion board shows 12 comments, 3 of which pertain to prolonged erections/XBoxes.  Real debate occurs in the blogosphere.

When I saw Sharon Begley's photo...wow, I thought I had a receding hairline. 

Be that as it may, the US climate in the near term (12 months) seems to be most influenced by the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) in the Pacific, yet the article makes no mention of that. 

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at May 31, 2011 05:25 AM (DPM1U)

175 Where can I buy a little windmill for the roof of my car?  I'm willing to do my part to save the earf.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at May 31, 2011 05:25 AM (UOM48)

176 @ various critics, I'm not going to sit around all morning and defend myself. If you want to beclown yourselves by pretending I'm a liberal troll, rather than someone to the right of probably 90% of the people who read this site, there's nothing I can do about it. Like I said, there is a ton to crticize in liberal views of climate change, but the science, uncertain as it is, is the worst place to start. You should focus on shoddy pieces of trash like the Stern Report, and dumb policy ideas like cap and trade. If you want to get laughed at politely drop by the WUWT tea shop, they will pillory your "science". However, if you drag your soapbox into this particular dimly lit Irish bar, expect to get slapped around a bit. If you really are "to the right of us", then pick a new nick, keep your pie-hole shut about how you wet your bed during a runaway greenhouse warming nightmare last night, and talk about something else. You do understand that "Cap n tax" is just a prop for the nuke guys who need a "price on carbon" to justify work-in-progress funding from regulated customers; it got out of control because various government vampires saw the opportunity to score some more cash. It is dead, might as well talk about the genetic implications of the Piltdown man.

Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 05:25 AM (WkuV6)

177

And, finally, even if AGW was real, the USA can do nothing about it.  Our emissions are nothing compared to China, India and South America.  Even if we adopted Kyoto and followed it starting tomorrow, it would do nothing.

That's what is the biggest tell about all of this, that the AGW cultists want america to voluntarily tank its economy but don't seem to care much about what China, India, et al does.

if they really believed their silly theory, they would be spending all of their time working on Chia, et al trying to get them to change their behavior, instead of focusing on the U.S.  Hell, you would be simply trying to get China, et al to get their environmental standards up to the U.S.'s current levels, let alone Kyoto or more drastic.  You don't, demonstrating the unseriousness of your beliefs.

And don't give me that silliness of "if the U.S. leads, everyone else will follow".  You know that is not true.  China is not going to adopt economy killing policies b/c the U.S does. 

Posted by: Monkeytoe at May 31, 2011 05:26 AM (wVhfO)

178 Did anyone take a peak at the "Building the Perfect Republican" article on that Newsweek cover? Are they trying to pick our candidate again; let me guess: Huntsman

Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 05:27 AM (WkuV6)

179 Well, that was fun.  Morons slice like fucking hammer.

Posted by: toby928 at May 31, 2011 05:27 AM (GTbGH)

180 Our reign has gone on too long.

Posted by: Warmists at May 31, 2011 05:29 AM (GTbGH)

181 Global Warming must have caused all the riotin' and other behavior at water parks and beaches this weekend.  Drudge has a ton of that crap up.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at May 31, 2011 05:29 AM (UOM48)

182 183 Well, that was fun.  Morons slice like fucking hammer.

Posted by: toby928™ at May 31, 2011 10:27 AM (GTbGH)


You damn straight, homes.

Posted by: I'm Dolemite, bitch at May 31, 2011 05:29 AM (PET8M)

183 Never mind that every study that has subjected plants to increased CO2 has seen the plants grow bigger, grow faster, produce more fruit and use less water! If you want the lefty's to pay attention to this point, you need to reference the High Times articles.

Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 05:31 AM (WkuV6)

184 Timely topic. I am reviewing a paper that is just awful. Trying to save money they have figures with skinny faint shades of gray that are near impossible to follow vs color. A statement that warmer SST increases evaporation by lowering the pressure over the ocean. WTF? and because its apparently usually a plus points item to increase odds of being accepted they throw out lots of warming crap statements--for a 5 year data set that does not even include the least 3 years. Its really pushing things to even discuss ENSO cycles with such a short data set IMO. Unfortunately I feel obligated to point out some specific crap rather than just saying REJECT to the editor.

Posted by: PaleRider at May 31, 2011 05:32 AM (cQZV0)

185 I'll be back.  And I've developed a taste for homo sapiens. 

Posted by: Pterry the Pterodactyl at May 31, 2011 05:32 AM (DPM1U)

186 I recently listed to a BBC radio segment lamenting the lack of progress of slowing down CO2 production, and how big warming was inevitable.   They speak as if it's a done deal-  speak and it will be?

Posted by: GregInSeattle at May 31, 2011 05:35 AM (B5cM9)

187

And, finally, even if AGW was real, the USA can do nothing about it.  Our emissions are nothing compared to China, India and South America.  Even if we adopted Kyoto and followed it starting tomorrow, it would do nothing.

That's what is the biggest tell about all of this, that the AGW cultists want america to voluntarily tank its economy but don't seem to care much about what China, India, et al does.


 

Posted by: Monkeytoe at May 31, 2011 10:26 AM (wVhfO)

Kyoto was such a fucking political scam to hamstring the US economy while not doing a thing to resolve "the problem" that even the shitheads in the Clinton administration knew it was DOA.

Posted by: Captain Hate at May 31, 2011 05:36 AM (CAI0v)

188 Since tornadoes and AGW are all the rage now...
Years ago, tornadoes hit our area and did some damage. When the power came back on, I flipped to the news to see what was what, and was shocked when they said that we had been hit by 15 tornadoes. Before the power had gone out, I was talking to my friends mom, and she said there were only two. I was a little confused, so I did some research.
Here's how it works: When the funnel touches down, it's a tornado. If that tornado lifts off the ground, it becomes a twister. If that same funnel touches down again, it is once again a tornado, and is counted as a new tornado. So when the weather report said we were hit by 15 tornadoes, the image in my head was of 15 separate whirling death clouds ravaging my area. In truth, there were only two storm fronts, and only two reported funnels that kept pogo sticking up and down. Keep that in mind next time you see an official tornado count for an area.

Posted by: ScottBern at May 31, 2011 05:36 AM (JF/H+)

189 I guess a simple way to fuck with 'em is to say, "How come the greatest diversity and density of life on the planet is also in the hottest part of the planet, around the equator?"

Posted by: Jimmuy at May 31, 2011 05:37 AM (FJeA9)

190 Pale Rider - ask for data, SI, etc. first; then spank them. (While we're at it, I need a good reference for water column measurements over wide areas, any suggestions?)

Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 05:37 AM (WkuV6)

191 "It is dead, might as well talk about the genetic implications of the Piltdown man."

Hey, why you hatin'?

He HEEE!

Posted by: piltsbury dough boy at May 31, 2011 05:37 AM (XyjRQ)

192 I know that the Climate Change Cult has been referred to as a religion, and it really is when you get down to the brass tacks.  It's all about faith versus science.  What we're seeing now is a replay of the Gallilean heresy trials of the 17th century.  There, again, observational evidence was held in scorn by the ruling Church.  I wonder what the frequently atheist or agnostic leftists who preach and proseletyze on behalf of AGW would think if they ever took a moment to reflect that they are the modern world's Catholic Inquisition.  I imagine their heads would explode. 

Posted by: MWR at May 31, 2011 05:37 AM (4df7R)

193 191 I recently listed to a BBC radio segment lamenting the lack of progress of slowing down CO2 production, and how big warming was inevitable.   They speak as if it's a done deal-  speak and it will be?

Posted by: GregInSeattle at May 31, 2011 10:35 AM (B5cM9)


You'll have to pardon me. Seems I've taken to watching far too much OWN lately.

Posted by: GregInSeattle's coherent self at May 31, 2011 05:37 AM (PET8M)

194 Global warming aside, that's one ugly magazine cover.  I guess Newsweek can't afford decent fonts anymore?

Posted by: Ian S. at May 31, 2011 05:38 AM (tqwMN)

195

but what is the required course work to be a Climate Scientist?

'Computer Data Manipulation' is a freshman survey course.  Then you have the more advanced courses in 'Verifying False Assumptions From Tree Ring Data' and 'How to Email Colleagues and Hide The Decline Without Getting Caught'.  There's also a graduate seminar in 'Making Shit Up To Get Grant Money'.  When going for the Piled Higher and Deeper, 'Passing a Polygraph' is a must interactive lab.

Posted by: RickZ at May 31, 2011 05:40 AM (qEac9)

196 There is no way you are to the right of me my friend. Do you think women and people who receive government handouts should lose their right to vote? Do you believe that SS and Medicare should be abolished and the money used to fund a new arms race? If not fuck off you god damn hippy.

Posted by: Mr Pink at May 31, 2011 05:40 AM (wJEIO)

197 I'm tired of being stiffed by that rag! Let them use MS Paint and some paste-up for all I care!

Posted by: A half-blind fruit bat with a hangover and an immobilized left wing at May 31, 2011 05:42 AM (RD7QR)

198 MWR - There, again, observational evidence was held in scorn by the ruling Church The church wanted empirical, repeatable proof, not observation and some math - Galileo could not provide it. When it was produced, the church accepted it. Not sure the analogy works.

Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 05:43 AM (WkuV6)

199 200 Global warming aside, that's one ugly magazine cover.  I guess Newsweek can't afford decent fonts anymore?

Posted by: Ian S. at May 31, 2011 10:38 AM (tqwMN)

You got a problem with italicized, bolded Arial Black, homes?  Huh? HUH?

(I keed!)

And no.  No they can't.  Nor can they afford a decent graphics program (I think they're using a ghetto hybrid of Paint and Photoshop), and the chimp they hired to do their graphic design went on strike. 

Posted by: MWR at May 31, 2011 05:43 AM (4df7R)

200 This article has more eyes on it just from this AoSHQ post, than it gets from all  Newsweek subscriptions.

Posted by: Roy at May 31, 2011 05:43 AM (VndSC)

201

Are they trying to pick our candidate again; let me guess: Huntsman

Uh...yea, cause Newsweek's idea of a perfect Republican will impact all 6 Republican readers Newsweek has.

 

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at May 31, 2011 05:43 AM (OWjjx)

202 We just had our coldest March-April-May I have ever witnessed here in Oregon.  25 years ago I remember getting into the 70s and 80s regularity.  The past 15 years it seems that 52-59F is the new hot for this time of the year.

Posted by: Lemmiwinks at May 31, 2011 05:43 AM (pdRb1)

203 "I have never seen a Globull Warming Cultist explain why increased CO2 is bad when it is an undisputed fact that all plants alive today evolved during an age of near double today's CO2; that in the age of the dinosaurs the CO2 was quite a bit higher than today.

Funny- back when Greenpeace had the eejit beret and funny beard brigade out on Chicago streets getting signatures for their "fight the climate change, outlaw co2" crap, the favored conversation killer was always "Why do you hate trees so much? Why are you trying to starve them?"

Posted by: Chariots of Toast at May 31, 2011 05:44 AM (XyjRQ)

204 Oh there is plenty of evidence for global warming -- its been warming since the little ice age. Its just that human activity (the A in AGW) has had little or nothing to do with it. The commie hijacking of the study of climate and the many things which affect it which are still not all known is sad. I'd put the hijacking of the media and schools as worse though --this set things up to have a gullible public for crap like AGW.

Posted by: PaleRider at May 31, 2011 05:45 AM (cQZV0)

205 The church wanted empirical, repeatable proof, not observation and some math - Galileo could not provide it. When it was produced, the church accepted it. Not sure the analogy works.

Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 10:43 AM (WkuV6)

You make a good point.

(See, Gaia cultists?  This is called listening to an alternate POV.  It's actually really easy!  You should try!)

Posted by: MWR at May 31, 2011 05:45 AM (4df7R)

206 Bleh is just like my lib idiot brother:

The science!  The science!

Thirty years ago it was global cooling.  Seven years ago it was global warming.  2 years ago, back to global cooling.  Now? Global warming (now) and global climate change (beginning of the year)!!11!!!1!!1

Posted by: momma at May 31, 2011 05:46 AM (penCf)

207 Oh there is plenty of evidence for global warming -- its been warming since the little ice age.

But not too much since the space age.

Posted by: toby928 at May 31, 2011 05:46 AM (GTbGH)

208 So let me see if I understand:  you stupid science-hating troglodytes are unwilling to flush trillions of dollars and your childrens' futures down the toilet based on the meticulously exact physics of tree rings?  Even though you know it won't do any good?

HA!  Come join the reality-based community, retards!

Posted by: FUBAR at May 31, 2011 05:46 AM (1fanL)

209 I wonder what the frequently atheist or agnostic leftists who preach and proseletyze on behalf of AGW would think if they ever took a moment to reflect that they are the modern world's Catholic Inquisition.  I imagine their heads would explode. 

Posted by: MWR at May 31, 2011 10:37 AM (4df7R)

They'd never see it that way.  They have a view of themselves as representing the best intentions that prevents them from engaging in true self scrutiny.

Posted by: Captain Hate at May 31, 2011 05:46 AM (CAI0v)

210

The June issue of Buns and Ammo profiled shirtless hunks in bandoliers patrolling devastated communities.  So climate change is good for those of us in the gay NRA crowd.     

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at May 31, 2011 05:47 AM (DPM1U)

211 ...flush trillions of dollars and your childrens' futures down the toilet based on the meticulously exact physics of tree rings?

Psssshaw, heathen- anyone who knows anything about real science KNOWS tree rings are weak sauce- the analysis of sheep's bladders and badger entrails, that's where the real data exists.

Posted by: AGW Temple Shaman at May 31, 2011 05:49 AM (XyjRQ)

212 I know a fair bit of climate science and a lot of climate scientists.

Posted by: bleh at May 31, 2011 09:54 AM (I/JRK)

This statement all by itself is proof of terminal contamination.  Even if it is a true statement (questionable) it does more hurt to the arguement than help.

Scientists are every bit as human as anyone else, and their desire to face ugly truths is no stronger than that of any other group of men.  They have egos, and self interest.  They also have political agendas.  Given how often the "fringe nut" has proven the main stream of "scientists" wrong over the years, I'm not interested in a "consensus" based on crappy, unverifiable and unreplicatable data.

The solar-activity guys are mile and miles ahead in terms of their ability to back up their theory with facts.  I'll lean their way until I see real, non-faked evidence to the contrary.

Posted by: Reactionary at May 31, 2011 05:50 AM (xUM1Q)

213 Fuck consensus in science.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.


Michael Crichton
National Press Club Washington, DC January 25, 2005

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at May 31, 2011 05:50 AM (LH6ir)

214 OT

‘Malintent detection’ technology tested in the northeast United States by DHS

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has begun field testing new technology designed to identify people who intend to commit a terrorist act.

Nature reported that the DHS has been conducting tests of Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST) in the past few months at an undisclosed location in the northeast.

The technology uses remote sensors to measure physiological properties, such as heart rate and eye movement, which can be used to infer a person's current mindset.

According to a Privacy Impact Assessment  released by the DHS in 2008, the technology is intended to measure a person's malintent -- the intent to cause harm.


Posted by: momma at May 31, 2011 05:52 AM (penCf)

215 Anybody smell what the third Rock is cooking?

come on, anybody?

Posted by: Newsweak at May 31, 2011 05:52 AM (ldUCK)

216 How do you humans live in this cold weather?

Posted by: Dino Sore at May 31, 2011 05:52 AM (wOaLi)

217 Fuck consensus in science.

Like that guy in the UK who whined that climate-scientologists shouldn't have to show their work because people will just try to find faults with it.  I could've sworn "people trying to find faults with it" used to be known as "science".

Posted by: Ian S. at May 31, 2011 05:53 AM (tqwMN)

218 My oven was really hot last night, but when I awoke this morning it was cool again. I did cook a pizza, but that could not have anything to do with it. The end is near, warming and cooling ovens prove it. Oh and Barky I want my fucking skittles right now!!!!!!

Posted by: Killerdog at May 31, 2011 05:55 AM (jYAz0)

219 I could've sworn "people trying to find faults with it" used to be known as "science".

Posted by: Ian S. at May 31, 2011 10:53 AM (tqwMN)

You know, they're still trying to debunk my theories.  Fuckers!  I mean, can a Jooo get a consensus around here?

If my shit ain't consensusized, there ain't no consensus nohow.  Peace out!

Posted by: Albert Einstein at May 31, 2011 05:55 AM (1fanL)

220 213. Well I believe until 5-10 years ago the climate was on the rising temp part of the 60 year PDO oscillation. The big reason AGW is a fake is that they know that CO2 doesn't warm things that much. All the models put in more water vapor in response to a slight bit of CO2 warming which gives a 3 to 6 multiplier for the temperature increase because water VAPOR is a big greenhouse gas. AND because water vapor will NEVER condense, then freeze and lead to increased high altitude clouds which will be a cooling effect /sarc

Posted by: PaleRider at May 31, 2011 05:55 AM (cQZV0)

221 Reactionary, I'm leaning towards a mix of plate tectonics (ocean currents, based on continent structure) and relative inter-stellar positioning. So, for now, you can toss me in with the fringe nuts actually running experiments. (For as much that I care about climate, and weather is very important to my work.)

Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 05:56 AM (WkuV6)

222 113 Global Climate change is real and happening. I do not use any oil products and we should all do are part to help cleanup the environment. I ride a bicycle everywhere, heat my house with wood, and use very little electricity (What I use is from Renewables). Time for all of us to do something and support our "honestly elected" Presadent Obama on this initiative for are children and grandchildren. DONO'T BE OIL HOGS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Mary Clogginstein from Brattleboro, VT at May 31, 2011 09:51 AM (48wze) 

--------

Anyone want to bet that Mary uses plastic (i.e. made from oil) barrettes to hold her braided armpit hair in place? 


Posted by: Jim Sonweed at May 31, 2011 05:58 AM (FVhEi)

223 So what do you think global warming will do to the cobra population ... ???

Posted by: Totally Hawt Honey Badger ben DOOM that yells En Fuego! at May 31, 2011 05:58 AM (GvYeG)

224 196: Oh HELL NO, I am not interested in doing their job for them. I'll just say they have to present what they actually have in a readable manner (data from 4 sites near Borneo) and drop the warming crap. www.suominet.ucar.edu has some column water vapor and references on how its measured using specialized GPS data.

Posted by: PaleRider at May 31, 2011 05:59 AM (cQZV0)

225 Whenever I listen to Allen West speak, I get all warm down there.

I think he is the main cause of global warming. Or at least, local warming.

Posted by: momma at May 31, 2011 05:59 AM (penCf)

226 If global warming wasn't real, then Weiner's weiner could have been out and proud.

Posted by: Cherry π at May 31, 2011 06:00 AM (+sBB4)

227 I have seen Weird Science, Explorers, and Goonies. I know all about "science" so direct your questions here.

Posted by: Mr Pink at May 31, 2011 06:01 AM (wJEIO)

228 Reactionary, I'm leaning towards a mix of plate tectonics (ocean currents, based on continent structure) and relative inter-stellar positioning.

Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 10:56 AM (WkuV6)

Neat.  Nice to see somebody who isn't a liar and a scumbag working on the big ideas.  Good luck in your work.

Posted by: Reactionary at May 31, 2011 06:02 AM (xUM1Q)

229 Pale Rider -- Thanks - that is exactly what I was looking for, google wasn't kind this AM.

Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 06:04 AM (WkuV6)

230 Multi-hundred million dollar satellite to prove that the Earth drags space along with it.  After the phenomenon has already been detected and measured.

And climate scientists want to hide their data?  Warmist please!

Posted by: Albert Einstein at May 31, 2011 06:05 AM (1fanL)

231 Reactionary, I'm not working on it, just following it. I have to do practical stuff with weather data. I like that they are starting from a basic hypothesis and proving the core concepts using laboratory experimentation. Shocking, I know.

Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 06:06 AM (WkuV6)

232 >>But there's a significant chance of serious warming with nasty consequences. That's what the science says-- not just modeling, but observed Whether that chance is 2% or 50% depends on who you believe. Redonculous. 2% is not a serious chance of something happening. I have a 2% chance of having my bones jumped by one of the lovely young co-eds that parade before me daily. There's also a 98% chance I won't. I'm not putting on the fancy sheets just yet. Climate "scientists" have been engaged in a circle jerk of self-regulation by peer reviewing each others work and ignoring anyone who went against their preconceived results and hiding all of their relevant data. After fighting for years UVA is finally going to turn over Michael Mann's work this summer so we can all see what he has been up to on our nickel. On a happier note, Japan, Russia and Canada told the G-8 last week that they are no longer going to try and comply with Kyoto. That makes 4 (including the US) of the largest economies in the world. Kyoto is dead.

Posted by: JackStraw at May 31, 2011 06:11 AM (TMB3S)

233 OT: Douchebag Colby Hall is on the Joe Crummey show right now (77 WABC New York).

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at May 31, 2011 06:12 AM (zgZzy)

234 239 OT: Douchebag Colby Hall is on the Joe Crummey show right now (77 WABC New York).           He's a tool from Mediaite talking about Weinergate.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at May 31, 2011 06:13 AM (zgZzy)

235 To see graphical depictions as well as an explanation as to exactly how the "Hockey Stick" of global warming was fraudulently constructed, go to WattsUpWithThat:

http://tinyurl.com/43rplwu

You might find the analysis part a bit murky (I sure did), but wade through it to get the gist and then look at the second illustration, which link the individual data sets to their corresponding graphical displays.

You will see that only two data sets yield a hockey stick. Both rely on data that was either falsified ("Hide the Decline") or handled with utter incompetence (in the Tiljander set a number of values were actually INVERTED.)  

All the other sets (except the Speleotherms, which show cooling) yield no net slope and are thus useless to prove AGW.

It is also important to note that the use of Bristlecone pine temperature proxies to support a "hockey stick" have been widely derided by those who actually collect that data.   Yet that's what Mann relied on, and what the libtards continue to point to as their iconic symbol for their new religious movement.


IOW Bleh, you're full of crap.

Posted by: Jim Sonweed at May 31, 2011 06:13 AM (FVhEi)

236

OT, but this is just too ridiculous not to share.

Link to Weasel Zippers:

Belgium: Professor Sued for Linking Islam with Anti-Semitism

On May 12 the [De Morgen] newspaper published the results of a study ‘Jong in Brussel’ by the Youth Research Platform. In the article Mark Elchardus said that antisemitism among Muslim students was theologically inspired and that there is a direct link between being Muslim and harboring antisemitic feelings.

Vigilance musulmane say that this goes back to the idea that every Muslim is antisemitic. His statements incite the public opinion to hate all Muslim citizens on the basis of their religious conviction...

Soooo, he's being sued for, as WZ so aptly puts it, "stating the blatantly obvious."  Incredible. 

Farewell, Europe.  We hardly knew ye.

Posted by: MWR at May 31, 2011 06:15 AM (4df7R)

237 The best empirical measure of AGW was the 98-0 slap down of Al Gore and Kyoto by a Democratic US Senate. The whole charade should have ended right there in a flurry of subpoenas and SEC investigations.

Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 06:18 AM (WkuV6)

238

I wonder if Mary Cloggenstein and Judy the Intellectual have ever met? If not, maybe we should try to get the two of them together.

(So they can talk to each other and stop bothering everyone else...)

Posted by: Book Geek at May 31, 2011 06:19 AM (1+OO5)

239 227 Reactionary, I'm leaning towards a mix of plate tectonics  Teutonics (ocean currents, based on continent structure) and relative inter-stellar positioning.

FIFY

Posted by: Barky the Boy Geophysicist at May 31, 2011 06:19 AM (FVhEi)

240 This from the article referenced on #236.  How does this quote jibe with "the science is settled"

“It is popular lore that Einstein was right, but no such book is ever completely closed in science,” he said. “While the result in this case does support Einstein, it didn’t have to.”

Posted by: Hedgehog at May 31, 2011 06:26 AM (Rn2kl)

241 “While the result in this case does support Einstein, it didn’t have to.” Posted by: Hedgehog Actually, it supported Kepler, but thats splitting hairs.

Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 06:28 AM (WkuV6)

242

CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere. It doesnt take an Einstein to figure out it simply does not have the necessary MASS to transmit it's magically super kinetic energy level to raise the temperature of the surrounding 99.96% any noticeble amount. Like shooting a BB at a Kenworth.

Also, the 'science' models neglect clouds and sun, something which may be important when modeling climate.

Posted by: Schwalbe : The at May 31, 2011 06:28 AM (UU0OF)

243 Somebody throw up a Doom thread, or a Wiener thread, or a Doomed Wiener thread.

Posted by: toby928 at May 31, 2011 06:31 AM (GTbGH)

244 I found a pic of bleh at home.

Posted by: fluffy at May 31, 2011 06:31 AM (4Kl5M)

245 Also, the 'science' models neglect clouds and sun, something which may be important when modeling climate. and oceans, oops

Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 06:33 AM (WkuV6)

246
These tomatoes are devastating, though.

So many big tomatoes in such a short time span.


Posted by: Soothsayer at May 31, 2011 06:33 AM (gM4zK)

247 Wait a minute, Gabe has punked us. We are here talking about climate "science" - when there is a sidebar link to "empirical" virginity tests. Standards are slipping around here.

Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 06:34 AM (WkuV6)

248
Oh my god!! A DOUBLE TOMATO!!!

What does it meeeeeeeeaaaaan?!?!?!?

AAAaaaaaarrrgggghhh!!

What does it meeeeeeeeaaaaaaannnnnn???

Posted by: Double Tomato Soothsayer Guy at May 31, 2011 06:35 AM (gM4zK)

249
Excellent segment today on Laura Ingraham with Victor Charlie Foxtrot Delta Davis Hanson.

Posted by: Double Tomato Soothsayer Guy at May 31, 2011 06:36 AM (gM4zK)

250

When we have a month of below-average temperatures:  "Climate isn't weather!  Only long-term changes are meaningful!  Besides, global warming causes global cooling or something."

When we have a month of above-average temperatures and/or tornados that hit populated areas:  "See!  This proves you deniers are wrong!  Can't you see the proof of global warming right in front of you?"

Posted by: Hollowpoint at May 31, 2011 06:37 AM (SY2Kh)

251
VDH distilled the whole presidential race into a nice neat little package. I hope the candidates were taking heed.

Posted by: Double Tomato Soothsayer Guy at May 31, 2011 06:37 AM (gM4zK)

252

Give me your your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, your tired old post...

Posted by: Lady Liberty at May 31, 2011 06:38 AM (ihSHD)

253
oh, and Shelby Steel wrote a fine column last week about the icon known as Obama and how difficult it will to defeat said icon.

Posted by: Double Tomato Soothsayer Guy at May 31, 2011 06:38 AM (gM4zK)

254
nothing we didn't already say here from both VDH and Shelby Steel, but it's nice to hear that other people get it.

Posted by: Double Tomato Soothsayer Guy at May 31, 2011 06:40 AM (gM4zK)

255 Weiner updates?  Has he caught the culprit yet?  The nationwide weinerhunt is scaring people.

Posted by: Cherry π at May 31, 2011 06:41 AM (+sBB4)

256

We have had the coldest spring in the Northwest ever in the history of the world. We have a snow pack so large that they are having to shut down all the windmills they built so the hydroelectric plants can get rid of the water.

You don't hear about that on the news to much.

Sharon Begley was the one that came up with the idea that any scientist who didn't beleive in global warming should be decertified. She's an evil one.

Posted by: robtr at May 31, 2011 06:48 AM (MtwBb)

257

Ot:

Palin said she was against ethanol subs

Posted by: flapjackmaka at May 31, 2011 06:49 AM (uwljR)

258 Just checking this fine morning to tell everyone we are still very lame and useless. Have a nice day!

Posted by: GOP at May 31, 2011 06:49 AM (EL+OC)

259
soooo...

how bout that $2.5T increase in the debt ceiling?

it's currently at, what, $14+T?

so another 2.5T would be, what, a 18% increase?

Is that right? That's insane.

Posted by: Double Tomato Soothsayer Guy at May 31, 2011 06:50 AM (gM4zK)

260 My biggest beef is that IF the theory is true, it violates everything I know of human nature. Why? Because the adherents are clearly lying and misinformed.

First of all, for years the Global Cooling/Global Warming/Global Saming? camp pushed this idea that climate had been mostly static, until recent years where the Industrial Age caused our planet to cool/warm. Now, nervermind the fact that we have mountains of evidence that the Earth has endured warming and cooling trends in the past. The skeptical view was "Look, climate changes". What do they do? They change the topic to "Climate Change", call you an idiot if you still mention "Warming"...and proceed to take every change in climate as proof of climate change.

 Well, yeah. Everyone believes in Climate Change. The difference is, you believe it's happening now for the first time ever. Please, explain to me how you believe Climate was relatively static until the Modern Era?

I have no science credentials...but I have logic. There's no evidence.

Posted by: Crazee at May 31, 2011 06:52 AM (H3ujh)

261 The entire enviromental movment is based upon junk science and lies starting with DDT its all fruad and decite and HYPOCRACY

Posted by: Spurwing Plover at May 31, 2011 06:53 AM (vA9ld)

262 [located at bottom of masthead, in tiny-type]

Correction: She is our Science Fiction Editor.

Posted by: Newsweak at May 31, 2011 06:54 AM (eeGvE)

263 OT
What gives? I thought Drudge and I were buddies.

Posted by: Andy B. at May 31, 2011 06:55 AM (wOaLi)

264
weird story about that guy who died, eh?

Posted by: Double Tomato Soothsayer Guy at May 31, 2011 06:56 AM (gM4zK)

265
too vague?

Posted by: Double Tomato Soothsayer Guy at May 31, 2011 06:56 AM (gM4zK)

266
some idiot thought it'd be fun to let people punch him in the face for $5.


now he's dead

Posted by: Double Tomato Soothsayer Guy at May 31, 2011 06:57 AM (gM4zK)

267
hahahahhahahaha

Posted by: Double Tomato Soothsayer Guy at May 31, 2011 06:58 AM (gM4zK)

268

(Many) years ago I subscribed to this rag, now I read it right after Modern Bride and whatever other magazine I have no interest in while waiting for an  oil change for my gas guzzling truck.

Posted by: Boglee at May 31, 2011 06:59 AM (rIUhr)

269 The nationwide weinerhunt is scaring people.

Posted by: Cherry ð

We're grilling suspects as fast as we can.

Posted by: Ballpark hotdogs at May 31, 2011 06:59 AM (fPOY0)

270 Weiner updates?  Has he caught the culprit yet?

He's beating a confession out of him as we speak.

Posted by: toby928 at May 31, 2011 06:59 AM (GTbGH)

271

Okay, Louisiana M&Ms.  Which one of you did this?  Because I want to shake your hand.

Posted by: MWR at May 31, 2011 07:02 AM (4df7R)

272 And at long last we have a thread winner. (Afternoon open thread plz?)

Posted by: A half-blind fruit bat with a hangover and an immobilized left wing at May 31, 2011 07:02 AM (RD7QR)

273 "Also, the 'science' models neglect clouds and sun, something which may be important when modeling climate.

and oceans, oops"

Haaaaaa hem.

Posted by: daaaaaa Sun. at May 31, 2011 07:03 AM (XyjRQ)

274
Obama tells tomato victims of Joplin: “We are going to be here long after the cameras leave. We’re not going to stop till Joplin’s back on its feet.”

...and then he leaves

Posted by: Double Tomato Soothsayer Guy at May 31, 2011 07:04 AM (gM4zK)

275 276, LOL

Posted by: Cherry π at May 31, 2011 07:04 AM (+sBB4)

276 Hey Newsweek: Booga, booga, booga to you, too. I hope this helps.

Posted by: shivas Irons at May 31, 2011 07:06 AM (qu2SW)

277
Obama makes promise to tomato ravaged Joplin:
"We will be with you every step of the way. We're not going anywhere."

And then he quickly jetted away on Air Force One.

Posted by: Double Tomato Soothsayer Guy at May 31, 2011 07:06 AM (gM4zK)

278 Slow day?

Posted by: AoSHQ's *second* worst commenter, DarkLord at May 31, 2011 07:09 AM (GBXon)

279 285 Slow day? Posted by: AoSHQ's *second* worst commenter, DarkLord© at May 31, 2011 12:09 PM (GBXon) I think Ace burned himself out by keeping the Weiner balls up in the air over the weekend.

Posted by: joncelli at May 31, 2011 07:10 AM (RD7QR)

280 I don't get it. Did some member of the governmental-media elite call tornadoes tomatoes?

Posted by: Waterhouse at May 31, 2011 07:11 AM (jPPat)

281 Kurzweil forecasts huge solar revolution in 5-10 years so even if AGW is real, Julian Simon's "ultimate resource" will come through once again. Meanwhile, Malthusian libtards are busy jerking off to fantasies of liquidating huge portions of the global population.

Posted by: Blackford Oakes at May 31, 2011 07:12 AM (Klxrr)

282

I think they should drop climate change and simply state that weather of all nature is bad and caused by mankind.  Without mankind, there would be no weather.

Obviously, the history of the earth - up until the industrial age - was one of mild, uniform weather.  there were never any radical changes in weather and never an weather extremes.  In the zones of teh earth with seasonal weather, teh winters had the same mild winters with each day's low being the exact same as the previous years' low.  Same with each years' summer temperatures.

There were no hurricanes, tornados, or floods.  Teh wind patterns were teh exact same every single day.  There were no ice ages, warming periods, cooling periods or other weather changes of any sort.  You knew exactly what the weather would be each day.  The level of the seas never changed, land did not erode, icecaps remained exactly constant.

Once the industrial age happened, suddenly there were wild variations in the weather.  some days it was hot.  Other days it was cold.  There were winds and floods.  It was horrific.  Obvioulsy then, industry caused weather.  We must end industry.  Only by returning to our agrarian roots can we end the threat of weather.  If we do so, the never changing weather patterns of the past will return.

Posted by: monkeytoe at May 31, 2011 07:12 AM (sOx93)

283

Slow day?

Well, it was Memorial Day. Lotta BBQ, lotta relatives you really don't want to see, lotta beer to help you tolerate your relatives......

Oh, and a lotta twitters about great pranks in history.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at May 31, 2011 07:13 AM (OWjjx)

284 I don't get it. Did some member of the governmental-media elite call tornadoes tomatoes?

Tormato?

Posted by: AoSHQ's *second* worst commenter, DarkLord at May 31, 2011 07:14 AM (GBXon)

285 Shit, it's hot enough out there to make Weiner pull down his pants.

Posted by: Dirty Old Man at May 31, 2011 07:15 AM (VYb7j)

286
Oldsmobile Toronado vs Torquemada?

Posted by: Double Tomato Soothsayer Guy at May 31, 2011 07:16 AM (gM4zK)

287 completely OT, but Kloppie conceded the WI supreme court race.  No court challenge after the recount.

Posted by: GMan at May 31, 2011 07:16 AM (sxq57)

288 monkeytoe - sortalike Mars, without the annoying little robots messing up the smooth sand.

Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2011 07:16 AM (WkuV6)

289 completely OT, but Kloppie conceded the WI supreme court race. No court challenge after the recount. Posted by: GMan at May 31, 2011 12:16 PM (sxq57) Did she also concede that she is a butt ugly horse face?

Posted by: nevergiveup at May 31, 2011 07:17 AM (i6RpT)

290 [crawling across howling desert] New...thread....must....avoid...work... [Sand-laden gust of wind obscures crawling wretch]

Posted by: joncelli at May 31, 2011 07:17 AM (RD7QR)

291 I don't think she NEEDS to concede that...

Posted by: GMan at May 31, 2011 07:17 AM (sxq57)

292 Tight as a tourniquet.

Posted by: Waterhouse at May 31, 2011 07:18 AM (jPPat)

293 Did she also concede that she is a butt ugly horse face? Posted by: nevergiveup at May 31, 2011 12:17 PM (i6RpT) It was implied.

Posted by: joncelli at May 31, 2011 07:18 AM (RD7QR)

294

Posted by: monkeytoe at May 31, 2011 12:12 PM (sOx93)

Ah... thus... If a Tree falls in the Forest, and no one is there to hear it.. it does NOT make a sound in Liberal Think....

Thus, with no Human left to measure the Weather changes, it will not change!

Is this the Liberal Corrolary of the Heisenburg Uncertainty Theory?

However, If a Man Speaks in a Forest, and there is no woman there to hear him, is he still wrong?

Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2011 07:18 AM (NtXW4)

295 What effect will global warming have on the totally hawt IDF chicks?

Posted by: Totally Hawt Honey Badger ben DOOM that yells En Fuego! at May 31, 2011 07:18 AM (GvYeG)

296 sortalike Mars, without the annoying little robots messing up the smooth sand.

That's the next frontier of liberal Ludditism. Interplanetary colonization will be challenged on the basis of protecting native microbial life.

Posted by: Blackford Oakes at May 31, 2011 07:19 AM (Klxrr)

297 What effect will global warming have on the totally hawt IDF chicks?

Posted by: Totally Hawt Honey Badger ben DOOM that yells En Fuego! at May 31, 2011 12:18 PM (GvYeG)

 It'll make them take off their clothes.

Posted by: Crazee at May 31, 2011 07:20 AM (H3ujh)

298 304sortalike Mars, without the annoying little robots messing up the smooth sand.

That's the next frontier of liberal Ludditism. Interplanetary colonization will be challenged on the basis of protecting native microbial life.

Posted by: Blackford Oakes at May 31, 2011 12:19 PM (Klxrr)

That and keeping the Area a Pristine Wilderness, so our Descenents can enjoy it...

Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2011 07:20 AM (NtXW4)

299 Jim Hoft has offered a reward for the Hacker? It was weiner, where is my fucking money?

Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at May 31, 2011 07:27 AM (NtTkA)

300

The only "New Normal" is the level of stupidity of climate-change writers for Newsweak. One can only wonder what new false crisis they'll dream up next to foist the New World Order on us. They've gotten increasingly irrational as time has passed and we've gotten smarter about where we get our information from (hint, it ain't Newsweak).

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at May 31, 2011 07:28 AM (d0Tfm)

301
Laura Ingraham made an keen observation today while chatting with VDH. She said we have collective yawns when we hear any of the current GOP candidates and at the same time we have collective gasps at the thought of having no one to challenge Obama.

Then she said 'yasps, we have have yasps,' which was cute. But it't true. We're nervous nellies about not having anyone to challenge Obama in 2012 but at the same time we summarily dismiss all who have yet to offer their service for the task.

Posted by: Double Tomato Soothsayer Guy at May 31, 2011 07:28 AM (gM4zK)

302 305 What effect will global warming have on the totally hawt IDF chicks?

Posted by: Totally Hawt Honey Badger ben DOOM that yells En Fuego! at May 31, 2011 12:18 PM (GvYeG)

 It'll make them take off their clothes.

That's why they have beaches, silly.

More IDF women. 

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at May 31, 2011 07:29 AM (9hSKh)

303

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at May 31, 2011 12:28 PM (d0Tfm)

Ah.... next up.... Food and Fuel shortages.

They will use Ethanol to put more and more acreage out of actual food production, and use that as an excuse not to drill...

But because Ethanol does not really create a Net gain to worldwide energy resources (its takes about as much energy to produce and transport as you get out of it)... and more energy constantly being needed worldwide... we will hit a tipping point where we are out of Energy, so they produce more ethanol, which does not help.... and the cycle continues taking MORE acreage out of food production worldwide...

So.... Luddite Twofer... food and energy shortage...

Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2011 07:32 AM (NtXW4)

304 For anyone that believes in Bible prophecy, the Climate Change topic is sort of interesting.

 I've always wondered how, in the last days, you could have the kinds of judgements that are predicted without people knowing it's supernatural. Oh, sure, I could see them knowing it's God and rejecting Him. "No good God would ever hit us with these disasters!". But not believe it's supernatural? Please.

 However , it all makes sense now. Worldwide Earthquake? Climate Change. Blood falling from the sky? Birds were killed by Climate Change. etc. The thin veneer of science will provide a layer of rationalization.



 

Posted by: Crazee at May 31, 2011 07:38 AM (H3ujh)

305 Either way, I tend to believe in insurance is a wise thing to purchase. Posted by: bleh at May 31, 2011 10:06 AM (I/JRK) I believe in insurance as well. But when someone is trying to get me to insure my $200,000 house with a $400,000 yearly premium I tend to get a little... what's the word?... skeptical.

Posted by: Russtovich at May 31, 2011 07:38 AM (YwUmn)

306 Stable climate for 12,000 years huh?  Bullshit.

Posted by: The Anglo Saxon Chronicle at May 31, 2011 07:49 AM (agD4m)

307 Obama tells tomato victims of Joplin: “You We are going to be here long after the cameras leave. We’re expect you are not going to stop till Joplin’s back on its feet.”

...and then he leaves

Posted by: Double Tomato Soothsayer Guy at May 31, 2011 12:04 PM (gM4zK)

This version seems more in line with reality!

Posted by: Hrothgar at May 31, 2011 07:49 AM (yrGif)

308 "trying to get me to insure my $200,000 house with a $400,000 yearly premium I tend to get a little... what's the word?... skeptical." I've a feeling you're gonna hate the funding aspects of Obamacare.

Posted by: shivas Irons at May 31, 2011 07:51 AM (qu2SW)

309 Rule one of a serious/honest analytical modeling scientist:
"NEVER fuck with the original data!"
Tweak it all you want, annotate it as required, apply documented correction factors, but never violate rule one.

Posted by: Hrothgar at May 31, 2011 07:53 AM (yrGif)

310 276, LOL

Posted by: Cherry ð

 

I got a LOL from cherry pie. the day is complete.

Posted by: todler at May 31, 2011 07:56 AM (fPOY0)

311 29 A nuclear physicist/engineer I know has puzzled over how sea levels could rise if the polar ice caps melted. (ignoring the fact that as the northern cap shrinks, Antarctica gets larger.) His puzzlement comes from the fact that the mass of ice decreases as it melts. Just put water in a cup, freeze it, melt it ... Water's mass expands when frozen.
If the ice caps melt oceans should actually recede. Posted by: Alisa at May 31, 2011



Recede?!?  The oceans could will recede?!? Because of global warming ...er ... climate change ...er ... global warming  ... er... climate change ?!? ... er.. whatever 

Excellent. Receding oceans.  Sounds very scary.  I can work with that.

Posted by: Al Gore's investment fund at May 31, 2011 08:08 AM (Xv7f/)

312 136 What is Climate Science anyway?  I know what physics is, and meteorology, and chemistry, and history, but what is the required course work to be a Climate Scientist?

Posted by: toby928™ at May 31, 2011 09:59 AM (GTbGH)


Journalism. Preferably from Harvard.

Posted by: Al Gore's investment fund at May 31, 2011 08:11 AM (Xv7f/)

313

Thanks Kratos!

Posted by: Totally Hawt Honey Badger ben DOOM that yells En Fuego! at May 31, 2011 08:29 AM (GvYeG)

314 Bill Sussman blasted this Scientific Yellow Journalism last week.

Yo, tornadoes are the result of COLD weather, Newsweek asshats!

Posted by: logprof at May 31, 2011 08:34 AM (BP6Z1)

315

I suggest "News"week shut down the printing presses and servers to minimize their carbon footprint. 

Then again, they don't have much of an audience so it wouldn't be that big of a deal.

Posted by: california red at May 31, 2011 08:39 AM (7uWb8)

316

Don't hunt the whaaaaaaa--le

Dig it Dig it.

Posted by: tormato at May 31, 2011 08:49 AM (GTbGH)

317 Excellent. Receding oceans. Sounds very scary. I can work with that.

Posted by: Al Gore's investment fund at May 31, 2011 01:08 PM (Xv7f/)

Actualy, he's partly correct... but floating Ice displaces its own Mass in Water... ie... so for floating Ice, it becomes a wash...

Some of the Ice at the South pole however, is sitting on a land mass...that Ice melting would increase the depth of the ocean.... problem is that that particular chunk of Ice if EXPANDING, not getting smaller.

Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2011 09:08 AM (NtXW4)

318 It seems as the green energy investment money falls off, so will the hype. T Boone Pickens and others have called uncle and the only big investor left is Soros. He can't give up on this as his international socialism endeavor depends on it.

Posted by: MacGregor at May 31, 2011 11:35 AM (aZu84)

319

Isn't this the same Chicken Little outfit that trumpeted the coming Ice Age in the 70's?

d(^_^)b
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
"Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive"

Posted by: LibertyAtStake at May 31, 2011 02:36 PM (PmNi0)

320 OMG! Comments like these are whats wrong with climate change now, and why it has gotten as bad as it is. Its easy for you to sit back and say that the article is BS, your not the ones whose homes have been flooded or ripped from its foundation. Yes we have freak weather all the time, but it is increasingly getting worse and worse, and you sit there and type away at your computer doubtful and you’ll be the next one it gets. Just saying. You kinda deserve it. Your little brain cannot even begin to comprehend how frightful and terrifying this shit is. Let your family members die and perish in it, lets see how YOU feel. SMH!

Posted by: casey byrd at June 04, 2011 05:21 AM (eA7ni)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
255kb generated in CPU 0.29, elapsed 1.8012 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.5573 seconds, 556 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.