Stupid Global Warming Tricks
posted at 9:51 am on June 23, 2006 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
ABC News wants you
ABC News “reporter” Leo DiCaprio
Media Blog * Protein Wisdom
EcoEnquirer -spoof!
YouTube: Global warming
Think of the Penguins * Baldios
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2]
First of all, your argument is based on nothing more than repeating what others say, i.e. “the scientific community”. The article itself doesn’t present any evidence, it just basically says that “all these other scientists believe it” with the obvious subtext of “ergo, you should believe it too.” But that is not how science works, you don’t believe in a theory simply because others do, you believe in it because there is incotrivertible evidence supporting it. This thread alone contains more than enough evidence to question the validity of the global-warming-is-a-man-made-phenomena theory. Simple examinations of geological history show that rapid warming cycles can occur when human activity is not a factor at all. Planetary astronomy is showing that the current rise in temperatures is not unique to our planet, but is occuring on others as well - strongly suggesting that variations in solar output have a significant affect on surface temperatures, be they here or Mars.
Second, your argument is rooted in the fallacy that the scientific community is monolithic on the issue, when it is anything but. There is a very wide divergence of opinion within the scientific community as to whether rising temperatures are a man-made phenomena or a natural phenomena. Tell me why I should choose to believe one side at the expense of another? What makes one side so intellectually pure that their beliefs cannot be challenged? If you felt as confident in their conclusions as your bluster here suggests, you would welcome challenges to the theory.
In the end, you are the only one that is hiding his head in the sand as you have attached a religious-like faith in some scientific “priests” without really examining or even understanding the underlying data in the first place, and even worse, without entertaining alternative theories - something done by any scientist who is at least worth the weight of an empty test tube.
thirteen28 on June 23, 2006 at 5:36 PM
Re the Science Magazine article link above, let me copy the germane bit, the footnotes reference the statements alluded to:
The article goes on to make the point that the scientific community does not claim any consensus on the specifics or how this is happening, and points out that science can be wrong. It also points out quite dramatically, and IMO eloquently, that to say that the scientific community is divided on this issue is pure horseshit (that being obviously my term).
Still not convinced–try it yourself, go to ISI and search their data base. Any and all journal articles, research papers, reports relative to the subject for the past decade are available. Happy hunting.
honora on June 23, 2006 at 5:39 PM
Ahh Mojave! You fell for the Rove plot too eh? Soler powered
Prof, I read all the reviews, I only wish they would post some more.
Honora, I am thinking more along the lines of Mutant asteriods. Half metal half biological. Perhaps with a methane core. I’ll have to start working on one of those…..
Wyrd on June 23, 2006 at 5:42 PM
thirteen28: Ok, provide some peer reviewed articles that support your POV. Not Heritage Foundation or corporate links or the like. I have to say I am taken aback by your cavalier dismissal of the data presented–I suggest you try it yourself by googling the ISI database.
honora on June 23, 2006 at 5:42 PM
You still here, coward? I thought you vamoosed a while back, as soon as you bumped into all that icky fact stuff?
;)
I actually read your link and followed a few footnotes. Assuming the article is accurate, I’m still not entirely sure why I’d believe those supporting global warming over those beleiving in global cooling.
And there’s something interesting in that article. Two things, in fact. The first was this line: “The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility…”
Interesting. Brings me back to wondering how exactly (some)scientists flipped 180 degrees in a quarter-century - and why liberals aren’t remotely curious about that? It isn’t as if they further refined a theory; they completely reversed themselves. Hmm.
The second interesting thing is what the article is missing; specifically it only addresses recent temperature trends. The last few decades or so.
Which sends me back to that graph you continue to refuse to talk about. Because as the graph makes clear - it sure is a little warmer today than it was 20,000 years ago! No argument there. But your article doesn’t even touch on the long-term trends … which is exactly what YOU argued was all that mattered.
You’re cute, kid. Once more I feel like I’m debating the retarded kid in class. I feel like a bully. ;) Almost.
Of course the funniest part of this thread has been your constant self-contradiction: when the science obviously makes you look foolish, it’s “inconclusive”; when scientists agree with your ideology, they have a “consensus.”
C’mon, admit it. That contradition in your statements is funny enough that even you are laughing, aren’t you?
For the record, I still think you should have opted for global cooling. That’s a good long-term investment. If you want to flip-flop back one more time, we’ll let is pass. But this is your last chance.
;)
Professor Blather on June 23, 2006 at 5:48 PM
Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha OHhhhhhhhh the irony of that statement is beyond funny.
Pot, say hello to kettle. Kettle, meet pot.
:)
Best. Line. Yet.
Now let’s go back to that “inconclusive” graph you refuse to comment on, mmm-kay?
http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/change.htm
Just priceless.
Professor Blather on June 23, 2006 at 5:50 PM
Gotta go finish making those fries, gang. Be gentle with our cowardly friend. Thanks to all for a fun (and informative) afternoon.
Professor Blather on June 23, 2006 at 5:53 PM
thirteen28:
Really?? Tell me, do you or any of your family take any Rx medications? Are you under the impression that there is “incontrovertible evidence” supporting ANY particular narcotic protocol? How about physics? Quantum theory. Widely accepted? Absolutely. Incontrovertible? Really??? How about the role of insulin in diabetes? General consensus on what it does, how it does it? Sure. Incontrovertible? Hardly.
Death and taxes 13/28, death and taxes.
honora on June 23, 2006 at 5:58 PM
Blather-boy:
So how did that work out for you? I’d give you at least an even shot.
honora on June 23, 2006 at 6:01 PM
Re the charts you reference: the first two charts contain actual measurements and proxy measurements based on a combination of inputs. The last chart relies on one input–the core sample from Antartica. Is this a reliable measure? It may well be, but I would expect to see several input sources. Given the source (Schlumberger) I am skeptical. The notes say the data from the core came from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration–when you look into that, the NOAA notes: ” Several depth/age interpretations for the Vostak core have been published ” What criteria did Schlumberger use to determine which of the several interpretations to use?
honora on June 23, 2006 at 6:18 PM
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94
Why did global cooling morph into global warming? Well it didn’t. (Michael Crithton???? Guy writes Jurassic Park and suddenly he’s an expert on these matters??? Sweet mother of God.)
honora on June 23, 2006 at 6:36 PM
You can question Michael Chricton’s knowledge of this particular issue, but he is a graduate of Harvard Medical School, so I’d say his scientific credentials should be good enough for even you. After all, if you are going to tout the credentials of those who support your position, you should at least acknowledge the same for those that oppose it.
As for the article from Science Magazine you presented above, here’s a nice little debunking of that one.
thirteen28 on June 23, 2006 at 6:41 PM
And as for your consensus, it certainly doesn’t include the signatories of this.
And while you’re at it, you might want to read this as well to find out what happens to scientists who oppose the orthodoxy.
thirteen28 on June 23, 2006 at 6:46 PM
All these papers you all reference are all papers paid for by grants. Grants that are paid for using taxpayer dollars. Any smart scientist who wants some moola for a grant knows enough to stick his or her finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing before trying for their grant.
Follow the money, people. This is why Savage got out of the scientific community, and why I contemplate the same often. The actual scientific method is not as important as how many self-important Piled Higher and Deeper(PhDs) you can get to back your cause.
Any sincere scientist would look at the entire picture from a universe-standpoint rather than the Gore-esque short-sighted USA is bad standpoint.
Why is it that those countries that signed the Kyoto Treaty are actually contributing MORE greenhouse gases after doing so???
Could it be that planting trees makes for a darker substrate that the sun’s rays can more effetively penetrate and insulate? We DO have more trees now than in the past, partially because of our playing God and not letting wildfires happen.
Now when we have a wildfire it is a big enough conflagration to spew massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Also, volcanoes-one volcano can spew more CO2, PM10, and other ash into the atmosphere than 20 LAs or 5 Santiagos in a year.
We haven’t even touched on China or the fact that the USA has more stringent guidelines on emissions than most countries in the entire world.
The playing God of liberals to save the earth from her natural evolution is a shady and not-so-secret way of trying to tie our hands economically so we are on a more even playing field with the countries who wish they had our GDP.
NTWR on June 23, 2006 at 6:52 PM
Retardo DiCrappio Sux!
NTWR on June 23, 2006 at 6:57 PM
I think there is something to this Global Warming thing. Whenever I put ice cubes on the outdoor picnic table nowadays I notice they ALWAYS melt. I don’t remember that happening before. Therefore I blame the ice cube melting on GLOBAL WARMING.
pjcomix on June 23, 2006 at 7:02 PM
The playing God of liberals to save the earth from her natural evolution is a shady and not-so-secret way of trying to tie our hands economically so we are on a more even playing field with the countries who wish they had our GDP.
NTWR on June 23, 2006 at 6:52 PM
BINGO!
Oh…and they want not only to tie our hand..but a change of regime.
If we have to force upon our citizen the Kyoto Accord, the price of gas would align with Europe…at around 5 buck a gallon to discourage consumption. Since we do not have mass transit in many cities, we are dead!
NG price will skyrocket! Electricity will cost much more!
With the economy going chaos, the liberal will blame everything on the GOP ( the MSM will make sure to make people forget it is the liberal that started the mess) and the democrats will take back the government.
Conveniently, they will surrender the sovereignty to the UN and we shall all be part of a world country.
We shall all be using Euro, by then it will be called World Dollar!
easy87us on June 23, 2006 at 7:04 PM
Yeah, there’s this creek by my house, and it’s usually dry by now. But THIS year, there’s still water in it!
I’ve NEVER seen that before. And I’ve lived near the creek for 4 YEARS! AAAAhhhhhhh! We’re all gonna die!
Hey, BTW, what would a nuclear attack by the Islamofascists due to the earth’s temperature? What about the seeeennnnnnsiiitive environments of the snail darter? I think the Islamofascists are mother earth’s greatest threat!
NTWR on June 23, 2006 at 7:08 PM
I meant “do” not due.
And easy: once we are under the UN’s power, we have this to look forward to! Happy 4th of July!
http://www.stopungunban.org/
NTWR on June 23, 2006 at 7:10 PM
thirteen28: Looks like that piece by Benny Peiser finally shut honora up. honora’s favorite mag “Science” exposed as the “NY Times” of the scientific world.
LeeSmith on June 23, 2006 at 7:28 PM
Darn it. I shall sin again come July 4 because I am gonna light up my grill with real charcoal for some real southern BBQ! Man…I am gonna really heat up the atmosphere!
I hope I have not turned some more them grassland in China into desert.
easy87us on June 23, 2006 at 7:38 PM
Absolutely hilarious!
freya4freedom on June 23, 2006 at 7:49 PM
@NTWR I think the Islamofascists are mother earth’s greatest threat!
Yup!
freya4freedom on June 23, 2006 at 7:50 PM
Hey, Blather, next time you fill up your tank, light a cigarette.
Vanya on June 23, 2006 at 8:03 PM
More then likely nothing would happen Vanya. The concentration of fumes in an outdoor envirement is not enough to ignite with just a ciggarette. Myth busters had a great show on that.
Wyrd on June 23, 2006 at 8:13 PM
Well then, why don’t you try it too, Wyrd. Report back to us on what happens, if you can. Better yet, drop a lit match in your gas tank.
Vanya on June 23, 2006 at 8:45 PM
I don’t smoke.
But I have observed people extinguishing ciggarettes in gasoline.
Dropping a match into a gas tank may explode, but since their is not much oxygine in the tank the match would probaly go out. For combustion to exist you need O2.
Why attack me on this? All I did was state a fact. You of course have to show your true colors.
Why don’t you really say what you mean?
“Wyrd and Professor, kill yourselves. Suck on the barrel of a shot gun. Kill yourselves now, because I can not live wth myself knowing I am so intellectually inferior”
Go ahead Vanya. Its what you want to say isn’t it? Your every post is like the past two. Here, I will even help you. Your next post to me is going to quote the following, out of context of course:
vanya’s next post-
“Wyrd- “I can not live wth myself knowing I am so intellectually inferior”
I am glad you admited it Wyrd”
Wyrd on June 23, 2006 at 8:59 PM
The loony environmentalists constantly amaze me in their disrespect for Nature’s feedback mechanisms. 110 Million more tons per year of CO2 were fixed (i.e. converted to food) by the plantlife in the oceans than happened a decade previously and the scientists were ‘puzzled’ as to why. Well, DUHHH!
The Kyoto treaty is the bigest scam on Earth; if it were enforced here, all it would do is cause the biggest polluter to move to China and India who don’t participate. The selling of CO2 tonnage is the funniest con job in a century.
Youl want to reduce greenhouse gases? Cork the volcanoes, feed the cattle Beano (to reduce methane) and LET US BUILD OUR FUDGING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS!
Mike O on June 23, 2006 at 9:17 PM
Richsamg
please don’t hold it in. (melting ice coming your way)LMAO.
HA! HA! HA!
I love it!
Just one more time please Everyone on the count of three please contribute your fart.
1:
2:
3:FART VERY LOUD
As for global warming! The freaky scientist has told us that it’s true , and in fact look at al gore’s fat ass.(he can’t run anymore)
Now look at clinton’s skinny ass.(he can’t screw anyone)
Which one is the cause for global warming..
GREAT VENT MICHELLE I NEEDED TO LAUGH::
YOU ALL ARE FUNNY….
alyce on June 23, 2006 at 9:17 PM
Honora –
I’ve judged countless rounds of debate … and I must say that the good professor has beat the retarded kid:) Good try — though your liberalism is really too much of a handicap to overcome:)
wytammic on June 23, 2006 at 9:19 PM
I really don’t want to be serious with these green house freaks because they refused to. But for the last time, in respect to science, I would do it one more time.
In past 160 years we have experienced 0.8 degree increase in average global temperature. While within this 160 years, Europe experience a small ice age and we experienced two real hot spells.
In 1882 to 1884, it was so hot in America that corns dried up on the stem. In 1930’s we experienced another dry hot spell which resulted in what we know as the “dust bowls”.
In the meantimes, we experienced a few cold spells. In 1975 to 1980 we were talking a potential small ice age coming! In 1977 to 1978 we have record snowfalls all over. I spent a winter in Chicago and that year they have 88 inches of snowfall with temperatures way below normal…
What am I trying to tell you guys here?
Well, you definitely cannot use a short period of data to predict a long term effect. The green house folks tried to use 100 years of data to predict the next 100 years by drawing a straight line to the data. This is mathematically and statistically invalid. The major flaw lies in the mathematical model one assumes for the prediction.
We cannot use a straight line projection method to project because we know that this is cyclic! The history from prehistoric core samples tell us that it was cyclic. So we must use a cyclic model to project! We can challenge the order of polynomial or the magnitude of coefficients, but very few disagree that the proper math model is probably a polynomials above the 3rd order. It definitely not a straight line!
And if you don’t understand what I am talking about, you are not qualified to even talk about green house effects.
easy87us on June 23, 2006 at 10:38 PM
my oh my. honora and blather have been quite busy tonight. do ya’ll have JOBS????? blather, how in the world do you know all this stuff?
pullingmyhairout on June 23, 2006 at 11:05 PM
Now let us focus on the cause.
Some of the green house effect papers I have read attributed the melting of the ice caps to elevated amospheric temperature. This is simply not true. There are two other major factors in play but most global warming proponents failed to address( intentional?)
The poles could be melting due to increase of input in the ultra violet spectrum of insolation. Remember the ozone layer is thinnest at the poles and there is a possible correlation between thinning of ozone at the poles to melting of the polar ice caps. Quite straight forward, isn’t it?
The other factor that very few address is the earth itself spill out hot lava under the ocean and green house gases through volcano eruptions. In fact, undersea lava/valcano eruption could be part of the reason that causes ocean warming and the ElNino effect.
With so many factors unknown to us, most scientists agree that it is premature, and also there is insufficient evidence, to attribute the temperature changes and melting of the poles to emmission of CO2.
On top of it, we have evidence that the poles have melted at least sveral times in the past 200 million years.
Global warming is so BS that it makes every serious scientist weep.
I think I’ll git myself another beer.
easy87us on June 23, 2006 at 11:07 PM
One more factor…water vapor molecules!!!!
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ozone.html
Look at the bottom chart that show the water vapor in atmosphere…does it correlate to temperature increases in past 20 years?
While there are serious research going on, Al gore got to be the clown of the house…sigh
easy87us on June 23, 2006 at 11:45 PM
Professor…Thanks for the bet..but looks like you and Vanya have a good thing going…
Keeping Vanya busy thinking is a very good thing.
easy87us on June 24, 2006 at 10:10 AM
And whadya know, CBS continues with the Global Warming meme on the David Letterman show on CBS (of course!) next Friday, June 30, with Tom Brokaw with subject talk “Global Warming: What You Need to Know”.
http://www.cbs.com/latenight/lateshow/show_info/
Maybe Al Gore will make a surprise appearance?
Michelle! Michelle! Did you get my message? Need more balloons to pop.
Kokonut on June 24, 2006 at 3:41 PM
NBC Brings Out Tom Brokaw to Tout Al Gore’s ‘Compelling’ Movie, Presidential Bid
http://newsbusters.org/node/5526
Maybe Tom Brokaw will just wax on about Al Gore instead on the David Letterman show.
Kokonut on June 24, 2006 at 3:51 PM
Thought I told you guys to go gentle on our cowardly, intellectually challenged friend yesterday?
I may have slapped the semi-retarded simian around a bit but some of you bullies took him out back and violated the poor bugger after I left. Not very nice of you.
Yup - Easy, Wyrd, 1328, and NTWR - I mean you. Nicely done. Wish I’d been around to watch the mopping up.
As for you, young honorless - it appears that you’ve finally realized the painfully obvious: if, in fact, that final graph is accurate … everything else you’ve claimed is pure bunk. In fact, global warming is pure bunk.
Thus, you have but one rhetorical tactic left to you: disprove the graph.
Here it is again for everyone. Scroll to the final graph. Note the repeating cycle. If it is accurate, the debate is over. Which poor honorless knew even as he was stammering and sputtering:
http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/change.htm
Honorless, I suspect you’ll spend a few hours trying to disprove the findings in that graph (actually you’ll probably spend days, won’t you?) and I’m sure you’ll post your findings. Unless you can’t disprove the graph, in which case you’ll skulk away and re-appear later, pretending you weren’t so soundly thrashed.
Fair enough. We can all pretend not to notice.
However, if you do indeed find further information us, post it in some other thread, since this will soon be consigned to the archive dustbin.
Professor Blather on June 24, 2006 at 8:52 PM
I think the planet is getting warmer. If it isn’t, then it’s getting cooler. The point is that the planet is always going through cycles, and there’s evidence that we are in a warming trend since the end of the ‘little ice age’ around the 1600’s.
Leaping from that simple observation to ‘CO2 is the cause and we should all go back to the stone age’ is where the politcal Left decides to abandon science in favor of the religion of socialism.
Jason on June 24, 2006 at 9:17 PM
Now let us forget all the high flying technical stuff..July 4 is coming…time to celebrate…for another year breathing and living in this great, great country we call home.
Light up you barbie and to hell with global warming…when worse come to worst we can always move the liberals to the moon…instantly reduction of 40% of the population could reverse all the negative effects.
easy87us on June 24, 2006 at 10:01 PM
Okay folks, I am sure I will draw fire for this one, but Oh Well…
Can we maybe tone down the insults just a bit? I am all for a good debate, and The Hot Air folks always provide us with good topics and a place to air our opinions, but do we really need to resort to name calling and petty insults? We are starting to sound like some of the wacko fringe sites we all have a good laugh at when they go out to the edge with a topic. Not naming any names here, you have a good idea who I mean, I am sure. If the trolls get to you, ignore them. The one thing a troll cannot tolerate is silence to their comments. They feed on conflict. If their comments are one sided, they grow bored, and then go bother someone else. If you want a debate, well the rule I always try to go by is pretend you are debating your grandmother, and keep a civil tounge. Not advocating censorship, but just rational discussion.
jcon96 on June 25, 2006 at 8:09 AM
Great vent, Michelle!
I like the guy at the end too. He sounded like he truely cared about goverment. I just wish he was real! They all say crap like that until the lose touch with reality, by taking bribes and nice free vacations. Then were all left in the dust like always….
JDAZE on June 25, 2006 at 4:04 PM
How long did it take for the liberals to get the theories of the spontaneous Big Bang and Evolution from a single-celled critter to a monkey to humans (note the capital E; lower-case evolution HAS been proven as a scientific fact) into the classrooms as accepted scientific fact? How long will it take until the same is true for human-caused massive Global Warming? I fear it is already too late.
I’ve yet read to read or hear any rational arguments from liberals explaining why the previous global heating and cooling cycles occured, and how those cycles are different from what Gore is spewing about. You know… the cycles that happened thousands of years before their Boogeyman Bush got into office.
Oh oh I know… Rove had all the textbooks and scientific journals altered and had those previous cycles inserted. They never really happened! Yeah, that’s the ticket!
Dave Shay on June 25, 2006 at 9:22 PM
jcon96 and pullingmyhairout: I apologize if I have been less than civil. I have been called a coward and “retarded”–nice touch that–by some of the folks on this site, think it’s pretty telling that folks have to resort to name calling. And yes pullingmyhairout, I have a job, have been recovering from surgery–get to go home tomorrow!!!–and thus have had too much time to blog. My forays into both the far left and far right blogs shows what one would suspect: an intolerance for opposing opinions and deep, deep anger and bitterness. Both sides are awash with what my mother used to call “injustice collectors”. There is no subject too arcane that the righties won’t invoke Teddy K or the lefties invoke McCarthy/Nixon. God help us.
honora on June 27, 2006 at 11:12 AM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]