So the rightybloggers who claim that the earth is actually cooling, because temperatures have been falling this decade? I suppose they’re right in a way — assuming that we ignore the majority of the countries in the world.
I know we’re America and all, and many of us don’t feel like we need to care about other countries. Maybe it’s just me, but when the topic is global warming, I can’t help but think we should probably take the whole globe into consideration.
[via Greg Laden]
Just wondering… Where did they get their data from?
Just wondering… Where did they get their data from?
It's obvious that money/power are at the heart of many decisions made in our world. If it were possible to have trustworthy science and investigations without the fear of ulterior motives, I think everyone would want to know the truth about global warming. But, I think some of the recent events show that there is a reason to doubt what we're being told. Is Al Gore and others getting rich (or potentially getting rich) off of this topic? Will I become poorer due to this? I don't have the answers to all the questions being posed by this. I do know that because a politician or ideologue says "trust me", that is not good enough. As the old saying goes, "follow the money".
So if the energy consortia continue to get rich and powerful because no one wants to limit their energy use, you're ok with that?
I'm not trying to convince you. That's not possible. And, no, I'm not OK with the "energy consortia" getting rich and powerful and polluting the earth. I'm saying, government has it's place in being a watch dog. But, you can't trust anyone in government anymore (left or right) to do what's in the best interests of everyone in our country or around the world. So, in a nut shell, I don't trust the current far left leaning administration. I don't think, as you do, that this is the best path for America.
Well, you could follow the reports of hundreds of independent scientific bodies from across the world who post vast bodies of data consistent with anthropogenic climate change theory. Or you could be a political minion who peddles doubts because you don't understand science and would rather hew to partisan small-mindedness. Your choice.
Funny, I think you're small minded. Let's face fact's. No one would ever change your mind unless North America were covered by glaciers. By the way, are you a political minion?
No, but I know enough of the science behind the theory to know that it's quite viable and reasonable and that it has been attacked from a political, not scientific, perspective.
Exact-a-mundo. Notice how CMan's posts meld politics and science together into the "left leaning administration".
It kills me that all these righties who probably never took a basic geology course in college (if they went to college), reject the consensus (by a very wide margin) of respected scientists world-wide on the subject.
Convinced irretrievably despite mountains of evidence by experts in the field? Isn't that the definition of paranoid schizophrenia?
Sorry Pete. If you want to compare IQs between the left and the right, YOU LOSE! I do understand what's happening. The only way to sell Socialism to people is make shit up. By the way, did you catch Obama's speech this morning? Didn't it just give you tingles? I know it did me! At least he admitted to the world he didn't deserve The Nobel Peace Prize. Probably would have made a real impact to the world just to turn it down. But, you and I both know he doesn't have that kind humility.
Once again we see why the left has horrible media messaging. You are trying to make an argument for global warming one day after a blizzard when it is -5 degrees outside. Smart.
You've got to be joking.
You really have no fucking idea what you're talking about, Jackoff.
"Once again we see why the left has horrible media messaging. You are trying to make an argument for global warming one day after a blizzard when it is -5 degrees outside. Smart. "
Speaking of "Smart", "Smart" would be knowing the rudimentary basics on the difference between climate and weather before commenting on either. Not knowing the difference and commenting on them anyway doesn't exactly fall under the category of "Smart", but it does seem consistent with "Conservative".
A long time ago, John Stuart Mill wrote "Not all conservatives are stupid people, but most stupid people are conservatives." We should also keep in mind that ignorance can be cured but stupid is forever.
This is a sure sign of a Jason Lewis devotee. Lewis regularly talks about the "hoax" of Global Cilmate Change and to prove his point talks about a particularily cold day somewhere. He never brings up polar ice caps or ocean levels or the FACT that average global temp has risen 0.7C in the last 100 years. This is almost half way to a tipping point that after we reach it, it will become monumentally difficult to fix. In fact, it will probably become impossible.
"'Smart' would be knowing the rudimentary basics on the difference between climate and weather ."
True. And I'm sure you were similarly incensed when Al Gore cited a 60 degree day and guys wearing flip-flops in front of Rockefeller Center in November as proof that global warming must be real, right?
"'Smart' would be knowing the rudimentary basics on the difference between climate and weather ."
True. And I'm sure you were similarly incensed when Al Gore cited a 60 degree day and guys wearing flip-flops in front of Rockefeller Center in November as proof that global warming must be real, right?
The people who have studied this issue — and arrived at any conclusion — know the difference between weather and climate. Perhaps Jack's point is that the portion of the general public who really are disengaged from the issues and need to be on board for a groundswell of support may not. Sad, but true.
I lean conservative, but think we are far better off spending our time decreasing our carbon footprint than digging up data suggesting climate change doesn't exist. Sure, there were a few emails found that suggested certain data be covered up. Let's say those scientists who wrote the email and all their evidence is thrown out of the dialogue. The evidence is still overwhelming.
Confusing weather and climate aren't you Jack?
Once again we see why its a waste of breath to try and discuss science or anything that requires a depth of intellectuality with people who explain their positions by looking out of their window or feeling their pockets.
"And I'm sure you were similarly incensed when Al Gore cited a 60 degree day and guys wearing flip-flops in front of Rockefeller Center in November as proof that global warming must be real, right?"____I wasn't, because he didn't.
Exact quote from Al Gore on SNL pushing his new book:
"Have you been outside today? It's 60 degrees in late November. I mean there's a Christmas tree in front of this building and guys are wearing flip-flops. You can't say this isn't real."
So based on your definition of "smart", Al Gore doesn't qualifiy, right? Listen, I know that an unseasonably warm/cold day can't logically be cited as evidence that global warming/cooling is/isn't happening; but both sides do it. The question is, does it bother you as much when someone who supports your worldview does it? Are you as apt to correct him or her, or point out the logical flaw?
Let us see… one is a joke presented on a program historically known for topical humor and the other is a an ignorant rant from a Republican Senator. I just don't think I'll spend a lot of time pointing out logical flaws in jokes… too many jokes and Republican Senators to waste the time.
Honestly, where did the data come from? Is it based on the CRU data or not? Do you even care if you're being lied to or do a few lies here and there just not matter as long as it fits your political agenda?
If it works for greenpeace, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC7bE9jopXE
Let's all read this:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understand...
and perhaps watch:
"Apocalypse. NO!"
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/apocalypseno-dv...
and then talk again.
At least then you believers could speak to skeptics a bit more credibly. The science is not settled. No robust public debate has taken place.
Hi,
Thanks for article. Everytime like to read you.
Thanks
Socco
The problem with the argument for and against global warming is people try to ready too much into things. Just because one year is cooler and hotter than average doesn't mean anything, and it doesn't mean that global warming is real or isn't. A very small couple degrees shift over time can make a massive difference on many things within our ecosystem - that's the issue with global warming.
Most people who are arguing for or against it, read a couple articles and think they're experts. The truth is, the subject is far more complicated than what can be deciphered from the info generally open to the public.
You're making up your mind — or, to be fair, staking out a position — based on politics. If a right-leaning administration stated that it believed in anthropogenic global warming, that would not make the science behind it any more or less right.
You're making up your mind — or, to be fair, staking out a position — based on politics. If a right-leaning administration stated that it believed in anthropogenic global warming, that would not make the science behind it any more or less right.
What the proposal is about in increasing the ability to foresee the impact of climate change on "climate-sensitive" regions (for example, low-lying coastlines) in order to have sufficient information to predict and respond to specific problems worldwide. As such, it would be far less costly in both money and human lives than following the GOP / Hurricane Katrina method of not being prepared in the first place. Further, it would have much broader applications than solely to climate change theory, being in a sense similar to the human genome project (apologies if you've never heard of that, there's only so remedial I can go without running out of space) for the climate, biology, botany, etc.
I would suggest reading more about the report from a source other than FOX News, since its article reads like an Op-Ed (I was surprised to find it in what FOX suggest is its "news" section). I'm sure, however, it dovetails nicely with your preconceived bias and in no way challenges what you have already concluded, which is why you sought refuge in it in the first place.
Good news! The UN has proposed that we do a study to get to the bottom of the science of global warming with data that we can all trust. All for only 2.1 billion a year for 5 years and up to 60 billion total. Awesome!!
theoko — The link is the outline of the study that I'm sure a person of such scientific understanding will appreciate.
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/121009_draftr...
You realize he was talking about people like you when he wrote that, right?
"one is a joke presented on a program historically known for topical humor and the other is a an ignorant rant from a Republican Senator"
Exactly: it takes a lot of spin and dishonesty to equate the two. Nice game, akremer.
I've posted his exact quote above. If that was a joke, I guess I missed the punch line. The "bit" in which the statement was made might have been lighthearted, but the overall context wasn't. He was obviously serious. Was he engaging in a little bit of hyperbole? Of course - I'm sure Al Gore knows the difference between climate and weather. The question is: why do you give Al Gore a pass for conflating the two, but jump down Jack Handy's throat for the same thing? Where's your objectivity? Which one of us is being dishonest?
"question is: why do you give Al Gore a pass for conflating the two, but jump down Jack Handy's throat for the same thing? Where's your objectivity? Which one of us is being dishonest? "
You're still the one being dishonest, regardless of how long you wish to belabor the point. Gore was on Saturday Night Live. He wasn't talking serious policy or science, any more than Jesse Jackson was when he read "Green Eggs and Ham". I'll make a deal with you: if you seriously believe I also need to explain why Jesse Jackson believes that Sam I Am won't eat Green Eggs and Ham, I'll see your questioning Gore on what he said on SNL as remotely honest.
If you believe that the world's scientists are "making shit up", then you're crazier than ever. No, you don't understand (or you do but refuse to accept it). I used to be that way. Of course, I was 12 at the time, not a grown man.