Video: Shep wonders, how can I convince the global warming denialists?

posted at 6:36 pm on August 1, 2007 by Allahpundit

I know you don’t recognize the other guy here, but you’ve probably read about him. It was a fait accompli that he’d turn up in Studio B.

Hear what Shep says about e-mails? He’s talkin’ ’bout you.

Thanks to our pal Ian Schwartz for the tip.

Update: Bryan offers this as a companion clip.

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Merovign:

I guess my problem is that I see this debate as whether or not to believe in science and the scientific method. I do not feel I need to defend the specific assertions of science; they are before you after a simple Google search for global warming. Better yet, use Google Scholar. We can agree to disagree if you, Kowboy, and co. will admit that your opinions are contrary nearly all scientific thought on the matter. (Don’t get hung up on the word nearly. 999 out of 1000 is still nearly to scientists and suchlike.)

starflyer on August 1, 2007 at 10:43 PM

Wow, I’m tempted to waste a night getting in to it with starflyer here, but I’ll leave you guys to it… I do have to point out one thing I find funny though:

I reiterate that it is as settled as evolution, a sun-centered solar system, and quantum physics.

starflyer on August 1, 2007 at 9:52 PM

I’m obviously not going to convince the closed of mind.

starflyer on August 1, 2007 at 10:15 PM

I’m not going to get in to evolution (which is completely ridiculous), but it’s funny that you say “it’s settled” and then call others “close minded”. Hilarious.

RightWinged on August 1, 2007 at 10:44 PM

Shep is such a moron.

Christoph on August 1, 2007 at 10:46 PM

Findings in scientific research are subjected to statistical analysis. I was referring to statistics present in empirical studies present in academic journals. The standard statistical level of significance that is met in such a study is most often 95% meaning the odds are 19:1 for this being true. Other common levels of statistical significance deemed as acceptable are 90% 9:1 or 99% 99:1, depending on whether it is an early study or a large study in final stages of validation.

starflyer on August 1, 2007 at 10:35 PM

The odds of it being true? Based on what presuppositions? Based on what standards? This is still a meaningless statement.

PRCalDude on August 1, 2007 at 10:49 PM

PRCalDude on August 1, 2007 at 10:49 PM

All this and more will be revealed to you in Statistics 10001 at your local University.

starflyer on August 1, 2007 at 10:52 PM

Starflyer -

If you think that 999 out of 1000 climatologists think that AGW is “settled science,” then you are living in a fantasy world that is not possible to penetrate with mere facts.

I believe in the scientific method. It is one of the most marvelous formulations EVAR.

But it’s real simple. I produce 17,000 signatures, and you produce 17 million.

Easy peasy.

Hell, produce 34,000. Everyone knows that the truth is established by majorities. Oops, there I go again.

You are demonstrably unwilling to debate the facts. You claim authority that does not exist, and will be unwilling to discuss that as well. You make extreme statements then accuse your opponents of being extreme. You make absolute statements then accuse your opponents of being closed-minded.

It’s amusing, but not very informative.

Merovign on August 1, 2007 at 10:56 PM

Rightwinged:

It is settled that babies are conceived by sperm and egg.

Tell me: Am I closed minded?

starflyer on August 1, 2007 at 10:57 PM

your opinions are contrary nearly all scientific thought on the matter. (Don’t get hung up on the word nearly. 999 out of 1000 is still nearly to scientists and suchlike.)
starflyer on August 1, 2007 at 10:43 PM

Some scientific method you got going on there.

Christoph on August 1, 2007 at 10:58 PM

Rightwinged:

It is settled that babies are conceived by sperm and egg.

Tell me: Am I closed minded?

starflyer on August 1, 2007 at 10:57 PM

You’re stupid.

Christoph on August 1, 2007 at 10:59 PM

Well, that proves it. The inability to distinguish between different things is emblematic of a particular philosophy, and we all know where THAT train goes.

Merovign on August 1, 2007 at 11:00 PM

Al Gore is raking in Millions. And he’s a rock star. He’s finally able to pull the honeys like o’l Bill! I’m not surprised that he never declared.
But I just see a lot of people conspiring to regulate Industry to death. They have dollar signs in their eyes… I’m not smart enough to know what it will do to Trade and the Markets, but I can’t imagine anything good. That’s what the Left has in store for us, in addition to Socialized Medicine and losing the War On Terror.

Dork B. on August 1, 2007 at 11:00 PM

I guess my problem is that I see this debate as whether or not to believe in science and the scientific method.
starflyer on August 1, 2007 at 10:43 PM

If a theory is in doubt the course of action is to question or modify the theory, not doubt or change the scientific method!

I agree it is accepted conventional wisdom that global warming is true. There could not be a more unscientific reason to accept it yourself.

Resolute on August 1, 2007 at 11:04 PM

“If a theory is in doubt the course of action is to question or modify the theory, not doubt or change the scientific method!”

Well put. Don’t try to explain this to liberal environmental religionists.

Christoph on August 1, 2007 at 11:05 PM

Merovign:

Is this consensus?

I encourage you to try other word combinations like: “anthropogenic climate change” and just plain old “global warming”.

At some point we make decisions. Defending a position is not being overly “absolute” or “extreme”.

And come on, seriously? That 17,000 signature letter was quickly discredited because of the content of the list. Most to all of those signatures were from people not involved in climate science like MDs and people with PhDs in other areas.

starflyer on August 1, 2007 at 11:07 PM

Rightwinged:

It is settled that babies are conceived by sperm and egg.

Tell me: Am I closed minded?

starflyer on August 1, 2007 at 10:57 PM

Lol… what? That makes absolutely no sense (at least as a response to my comment to you.

I say again… You say that “global warming” is “settled”, and then you say that everyone who’s not buying it is close minded. It’s hilarious, though not as hilarious as your nonsensical response.

Here it is again:

I reiterate that it is as settled as evolution, a sun-centered solar system, and quantum physics.

starflyer on August 1, 2007 at 9:52 PM

I’m obviously not going to convince the closed of mind.

starflyer on August 1, 2007 at 10:15 PM

You’re stating that your mind is closed when saying “it’s settled”, and then whining that you can’t convince others because their mind is closed. Quite funny.

RightWinged on August 1, 2007 at 11:14 PM

I’m not liberal. I eschew government regulation. I do think in limited cases it is necessary however. I don’t know if climate change is one of those. I just want us to be able to deal with the best information here. I apologize if I misunderstood that you only acted when you had a 100% certainty that things were a certain way. 99% is good enough for me. 95% is good enough for me.

And Rightwinged: I would happily change my mind if there were enough evidence in the other direction. There just isn’t.

starflyer on August 1, 2007 at 11:17 PM

And Rightwinged: I would happily change my mind if there were enough evidence in the other direction. There just isn’t.

starflyer on August 1, 2007 at 11:17 PM

Which is EXACTLY what we say! Proving my point at how silly it is for you to say:

I reiterate that it is as settled as evolution, a sun-centered solar system, and quantum physics.

starflyer on August 1, 2007 at 9:52 PM

I’m obviously not going to convince the closed of mind.

starflyer on August 1, 2007 at 10:15 PM

Just silly.

RightWinged on August 1, 2007 at 11:23 PM

Yeah, and since when, and by whom, has evolution been “settled”?

MrFreeman07 on August 1, 2007 at 11:23 PM

Show me evidence. I have shown you plenty is accessible via a simple internet search. At the crux of your understanding is one guy (Milloy at junk science) who has been widely discredited (and fired from CATO) and cites less than sparingly in his analyses.

starflyer on August 1, 2007 at 11:35 PM

I’m obviously talking past starflyer. I say consensus does not determine truth, and it tries to establish consensus – using a search engine.

As to OISM, 2000 climate scientists, 15000 other scientists with appropriate skills. Most of the (deserved) criticism came from the web entries, which were useless and inflated the numbers after the mailed petition.

But the problem is, you say there’s no evidence, but you won’t address it. I gave you starting points. You could go to number watch, climate audit, etc… you could look at the evidence, the discussion.

Instead you say it doesn’t exist.

The difference between you and me is I’ve spent a lot of time looking at your side of the argument. It exists. I think it (at least your typical AGW variant) is unpersuasive, and that observation is bolstered by the tactics involved.

I think that climate change, including changes far beyond what the fantasists tremble about, have happened and can happen and we have very little control over it.

So we need to be able to adapt.

And crippling economic and technological development by politicizing it even further verges on the suicidal.

Who is seeking to shut down debate? Who is trying to maintain it? Who is seeking power for control? Who is seeking to allow choice?

Hmmm…

Merovign on August 1, 2007 at 11:41 PM

Show me evidence. I have shown you plenty is accessible via a simple internet search. At the crux of your understanding is one guy (Milloy at junk science) who has been widely discredited (and fired from CATO) and cites less than sparingly in his analyses.

starflyer on August 1, 2007 at 11:35 PM

Was this directed at me?

RightWinged on August 1, 2007 at 11:44 PM

The debate should be about what we can do about it. This may mean acting to stop it’s advance or acting to cope with it. We get distracted with debate as to whether or not the scientific consensus on whether GW (and more recently AGW) exists. It doesn’t take a whole lot to throw up the unsubstantiated “evidence” that the deniers (for lack of a better word) use. It it takes a long time and a lot of work to refine the established science. If you (any of you) aren’t going to cite legitimate science.

Here is one legitimate article to get you started. Money quote:

the chances of either the anthropogenic or observed signals being produced by the PCM as a result of natural, internal forcing alone are less than 5%.

And perhaps more important is this.

In this Essay, Oreskes analyzes the existing scientific literature to show that there is a robust consensus that anthropogenic global climate change is occurring.

starflyer on August 2, 2007 at 12:10 AM

I can’t take any news story seriously when it’s delivered a la Shep.

Montana on August 2, 2007 at 12:13 AM

More from the second link:

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members’ expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies’ members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

starflyer on August 2, 2007 at 12:13 AM

Hmm when I grew up it was global cooling the nutjobs were worried about. They wanted to melt the polar ice caps.

http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

pjf626 on August 2, 2007 at 12:17 AM

Ample conclusive evidence exists in geologic records (read: scientific fact) that the planet has warmed and cooled in multi-thousand year cycles. Perhaps ten thousand years from now a Shepard Smith descendant will be spewing condescending alarmist agitprop (prompted by the barely coherent spoutings of the immortal Goracle) regarding global cooling!

If the Goracle and his cadre of (pseudo)intellectual elites really believed their own bladder bilge, that the planet is facing a CO2-based warming crisis and something must be done about it immediately, they’d have their minion sheeple hard at work capping volcanoes and corking cow’s asses. (Hey Shep! Get right on it!)

No. I believe I’m stating the obvious when I say Algore’s man-made global warming meme is driven entirely by the tree-hugging left’s “Hate America First”, American industry choking, wealth-redistribution intending, non-energy platform which includes absolutely no new nuclear plants, no ANWR/domestic oil exploration and no wind farming within a Kennedy sightline–while simultaneously slamming the right, incessantly, regarding our (unnecessary and avoidable) over-dependence on foreign oil.

Man-made global warming…Islamic kowtowing…refusal to seal our borders. Like mad cow disease, cognitive dissonance appears to have totally infected the left (genetic?) and sickened our country.

BJ Phisch on August 2, 2007 at 12:17 AM

Who give a crap about sea ice even if global warming wasn’t a total scam ?

Maxx on August 2, 2007 at 12:19 AM

This little starflyer guy is funnier than chit. This is one of the best alltime parody comments section.

Griz on August 2, 2007 at 12:48 AM

BJ Phisch on August 2, 2007 at 12:17 AM

Very well said.

Griz on August 2, 2007 at 12:50 AM

However global temperature measurements obtained from satellites of the Earth’s lower atmosphere reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. These satellite data are verified by in-situ measurements of the lower atmosphere made by balloon-borne observations around the world. —(NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center)

Shep… let me see if I can explain this to you. The reason you can’t convince us there is global warming is because there is NO GLOBAL WARMING. Let me try saying it another way. In order for there to be global warming…. the globe must actually warm… and that is not happening. OK… one more time because I know this is difficult. The globe is not warming, in fact the most sophisticated and expensive sensors ever developed by man are indicating that the globe is actually cooling… not warming. Got it now Shep ? You can do it… I know you can.

Maxx on August 2, 2007 at 12:52 AM

Re: the Crazy 928

Peiser

SPPI

I’m sure two more minutes could find the objections, questions, and varied opinions on your other link, but given your responses, what would be the point?

You will not respond with substance, you simply declare opposition to be illegitimate.

Well, in that case, you’re illegitimate. Game, set, match. Waste. Of. Time.

Are you ever going to deal with your problems, or are you going to stick your fingers in your ears and hum real loud?

Or are you just going to make another tendentious claim that no one disagrees with you? Oh, sorry, just no one legitimate.

Merovign on August 2, 2007 at 12:53 AM

C’mon gang, global warming HAS to be true! Why else would mother Russia have staked out her claim to the Arctic? Future beach front resort baby!

I would encourage all global warming “believers” to get a head start on the rest of us and snap up all that soon-to-be-valuable beach property hiding under those melting polar ice caps. Sell your house! Sell the car! Cash in your carbon credits and move North!

The exodus has already begun in fact, as an increasing number of Americans are emigrating to Canada. Don’t be left behind!

And don’t worry about us skeptics. If it gets too hot down here we’ll just douse ourselves with dihydrogen monoxide until we can afford to take a vacation up at your polar wonderland.

kjspeedial on August 2, 2007 at 1:04 AM

I think you jumped the Shark here buddy. Bye.

auspatriotman on August 2, 2007 at 1:46 AM

Okay, so the general consensus is global climate change (cooling? warming?) exists – just some are trying to blame human beings, which in my opinion is absurd. no matter what we do to this planet it will survive. It will thrive. we may make ourselves sick (usually by over-eating and not exercising and stressing about our negative impact on a million ton pile of rocks and earth) but the planet will continue to exist.

until the sun expands, burns the earth’s surface up and then collapses in on itself.

Even nuclear explosions will not kill the planet – it will continue, perhaps in a different form, probably with fewer humans and other life forms, but it will survive. the best we can do is adapt – to try to mold the earth into a hospitable terrain and strive to improve our own chances for survival. the whole psychology behind chicken-little syndrome has to be enormously intersting: self-loathing, fear of change, a bit of OCD and trying to make everything nice and tidy, trying to make sense of chaos…. But it’s late and I’m tired and rambling.

Blight on August 2, 2007 at 1:50 AM

I’m sorry, starflyer, is that the same Tim Lambert who defended, vehemently, the bogus Lancet study on Iraqi death rates? Why, of course it is. Take a peek at the rest of the site. That also goes for inkstain (which is just a link to Lambert), and of course, SPPI is a CONSERVATIVE organization, so they can’t be trusted.

Damn, could you drop a couple KOS and DU links in here?

Yeah, way to make my point that this is a political discussion, and not one based on science.

That’s not to say that quoting those sites makes you adhere to all their positions, nor that all their positions are invalid just because some of them are.

It’s just a significant data point. When someone exercises sloppy thinking in one area, they are likely to do so in others. Which is that part of the discussion you don’t want to have.

Merovign on August 2, 2007 at 1:50 AM

Ugh, I didn’t want to get in to this thing, I only dropped in to mock starflyer for complaining that “deniers” were too close minded for him to educate them, shortly after insisting the science is “settled” (essentially telling us just how close minded he is on the issue.). It was hilarious, and that’s all I wanted to say.. but I can’t help myself..

Let’s start with a list of scientists opposing mainstream global warming propaganda:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus

Do we need to talk about the state climatologists of Oregon and Delaware who’s jobs may be in jeopardy (perhaps they’ve lost them by now) simply because they don’t agree with their governors position on the issue (yeah, scientists could lose their titles in these states because non-scientist governors, POLITICIANS, don’t like what they’re saying)
To avoid spam filters, I’ll at this time not add links, but if you’re unfamiliar I can provide them.

FACT: Greenland’s glaciers have been receding for over 100 years…. NATURALLY!

FACT: Even if “global warming” were true, Kilimanjaro’s situation would be unrelated… so people need to stop using it as evidence.

FACT: It’s been MUCH hotter in the past, and dinosaurs didn’t drive SUVs my friends.

FACT: In the 1970s, there was “global cooling” hysteria… (I can give you the headlines from the nations top publications if you need ‘em, but it will take some diggin as I used to just copy and paste from my own blog, which isn’t up at the moment). You know why back then it was “global cooling”? Because that was the peak of a few decade long COOLING PERIOD!!! Which followed a warming period. Now we’re in a warming one again!

FACT: Sometimes WARMING leads NATURAL Co2 increases. Meaning the Co2 didn’t cause the warming, it’s the other way around.

Anyway, I’m sure all the “fossil fuels” we’re burning went back in time and caused the drastic changes necessary for beginning and ending ice ages… right?

FACT: Methane, Co2′s evil sidekick (according to global warmists), though much less present in the atmosphere, is UP TO 40 TIMES MORE POTENT A “GREENHOUSE GAS”. Who is putting it out? Well, up to 30% of it comes from plants. Have a giant house Al Gore? Plant a tree and call it an offset! Oh s**t, now you can’t get away with that one either!

etc. etc. ancient arctic was a tropical paradise, etc. etc. Atlantic was a hot tub etc. etc. a group of Russian scientists think we’re on the verge of the next cooling period (which wouldn’t be surprising, since the climate is constantly changing and all we’ve had is a VERY SLIGHT increase over 100 years, which doesn’t correlate with Co2, or it wouldn’t have warmed early in the last century, cooled in the middle, and then warmed again… IT WOULD HAVE CONTINUOUSLY WARMED!!!

etc. etc. we have very limited temperature records…

Oh, and here’s the best part… you know where they get these temperature readings to create their “sophisticated” analysis? From stations set up in a manner that creates unreliable data… sitting on hot rooftops that absorb and emit heat, in parking lots where they not only have cars within feet, but again the parking lot itself taking in and slowly releasing heat…. outside of brick buildings RIGHT NEXT TO air conditioning units… not on the inside of the building where it’s cool, but on the outside where heat is emitted from powering the units.

Start here for more information on this issue:
http://surfacestations.org/

Okay, I’m bored with this again and I barely scratched the surface

RightWinged on August 2, 2007 at 2:28 AM

Lol, the only closed minded one is this debate is Starflyer.
Rightwinged:

It is settled that babies are conceived by sperm and egg.

Tell me: Am I closed minded?

starflyer on August 1, 2007 at 10:57 PM

You’re answer is a resounding and definite ‘Yes!’. Redundant as it may be.

Aylios on August 2, 2007 at 5:10 AM

RightWinged on August 2, 2007 at 2:28 AM

You da man, RW! I engage in these debates frequently with people and their reaction is almost identical to Starflyer’s…if you don’t believe in AGW or GW, you are wrong and no amount of evidence or discussion will change that. They have their latest marching orders and they won’t let science and facts get in the way. Submission to a set of beliefs without question is what they are after. If you do not submit, you will feel the pain.

Sound familiar?

PBoilermaker on August 2, 2007 at 6:02 AM

One word disproves global warming:

Mars

Carry on….

Darksean on August 2, 2007 at 7:05 AM

Shep Smith is difficult to watch. He reminds me of Rex Reed, who was impossible too. Shep is an airhead liberal, but seems moderate compared to the other teleprompt riff raff on network and cable TV.

saved on August 2, 2007 at 7:06 AM

Something tells me that Shep Smith the idiot would have signed that petition in a minute. This guy is really pathetic. One of many reasons I do not tune into Fox News in the evening (unless MM is on O’Reilly’s show that is).

lynnv on August 2, 2007 at 8:19 AM

Having read through this thread I have to say:
I don’t believe in Global Warming, I’m a Methodist.

The arguments here are obviously between believers and non-believers.
As a child I knew it was futile to challenge the belief of Baptists, same now for the Algore crowd.

TunaTalon on August 2, 2007 at 9:03 AM

I only have one question for the guy that swam to the north pole: WHY?

mojo on August 2, 2007 at 10:50 AM

I only have one question for the guy that swam to the north pole: WHY?

mojo on August 2, 2007 at 10:50 AM

Answer: He thought it was the best way to win the “Biggest A-hole of the Year” award. He was right!

RightWinged on August 2, 2007 at 11:37 AM

PRCalDude on August 1, 2007 at 10:49 PM

All this and more will be revealed to you in Statistics 10001 at your local University.

starflyer on August 1, 2007 at 10:52 PM

Uh, I’m an electrical engineer. Though I’m probably not as good at it as you, I know a couple of things about statistics, because most of the field is based on statistics. So humor me.

PRCalDude on August 2, 2007 at 12:26 PM

Jeez global warming stuff is sure a hot topic round here. All I wanted to say is that I love those B***S*** clips. A little logical thinking always knocks those emotional nitwits down to size.

bigskinny on August 2, 2007 at 12:49 PM

It is scary to think that these lemmings might actually convince governments to institute some global policy changes without any scientific method of monitoring the effects of these policy changes.

We may be heading for the greatest environmental disaster of humankind, if this false science succeeds in instituting global climate control measures.

The scientific community, fueled by massive hysteria and the subsequent funding bonanza is already heading down this path.

At the Gas Technology Center, a cooperative research effort between the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) and SINTEF, Scandinavia’s largest independent research organization, researchers are hard at work on solving this very problem — capturing CO2 and getting rid of it.

It’s hardly the only company cashing in.

desertdweller on August 2, 2007 at 1:46 PM

Shepard ‘the A-hole’ Smith is always chuckling about the nasty e-mail he gets after he has unleashed some of his ignorant liberal tripe. So he thinks it is funny and we are a bunch of stupid jerks that he must convince that we are guilty of the crime of ‘global warming’.

Well Shep, old buddy, don’t waste your time. I plead not guilty. I can’t be guilty of a crime that has never happened. I hereby charge you with being a liberal, pompous jerk who doesn’t know anything about global warming except what the likes of Al Gore has told you. I can prove that you are a liberal, pompous jerk though. All one has to do is watch your silly outbursts of rage on Fox, our favorite cable network, and the case is closed.

Does anybody know how I can contact this schmuck by e-mail so I can tell him directly? I’m sure he would chuckle about getting another nasty e-mail from a fan!!

OBX Pete on August 2, 2007 at 1:48 PM

Ignoring the Sun when talking about Global Warming is like ignoring your thermostat when your house gets too warm and blaming it on the pilot light in your stove.

You know what’s going to drive me crazy? Now that the Sun is in it’s lesser-sun-spot phase, the Earth is going to start cooling (by about a degree or so, like the increase) and the same idiots and iceholes who are screaming about global warming are going to get all smugly-superior when talking about the coming ice age. And they’ll never, ever, ever admit they were wrong about global warming and will never, ever, admit that the Sun is the greatest cause of any temperature on the Earth.
It’s hubris to an extreme to declare that any climate change is caused by man even though the climate is always changing. Always.

As for Shep, I think he’s been hanging out with Geraldo too much lately. He has the same style as Geraldo.
Plus, Shep is about stupid. Every time I watch him he gets some simple fact wrong. He’s the poster boy for my phrase, “Remember, they’re not just biased, they’re lazy, stupid and ignorant.”

Veeshir on August 2, 2007 at 2:30 PM

Oh my God!
Shep is reporting from the bridge collapse doing an interview with a little black girl. Here we go again with a Katrina moment.

The big question is will he blame the collapse on George Bush or global warming.

OBX Pete on August 2, 2007 at 3:11 PM

It’s true that the Earth is warming, but it’s been warming for four hundred years. That means the current warming trend started when humans were working with muscle power for the first two hundred years of this trend, until the steam engine was invented in the 1800s. Mass industrialization didn’t take hold until the 1900s. So we are to believe that mass industrialization was responsible for a warming trend which began naturally three centuries before its birth? How exactly does that work? The global warming doomsday cultists don’t want to address that inconvenient fact. That’s why they cut off their graphs at 1900.

It is the sun which drives the Earth’s temperature, whose fluctuations neatly correspond with historical variations in Earth’s climate. It’s no accident that Mars is experiencing a warming trend just like the Earth. Perhaps the global warming cult would like to blame hot days on Mars on mass industrialization on Earth.

Tantor on August 2, 2007 at 4:50 PM

I ran out yesterday after my last post so I couldn’t respond to Ol Starflyer, so hear goes.

As my buddy Carlos Mencia would say “Ti tiri”. Just because you chose to be retarded doesn’t mean anyone has to respect your opinions.
Let’s see, to you some “thing” which is one fifth of the whole has the same effect on the whole as some “thing” which is one millinth of the whole. WOW. How enlightened of you.
Next, no one is talking about methane because it is an even smaller fraction of a percentage than CO2.
Well I stand corrected. Obviously, if you mistakenly drank a glass of water that was 21% Chlorine, it would have the same effect as if the water only had 1 millionth of 1% chlorine. How could I be so blind?
Last but not least, evolution and quantum physics are settled, only, to a closed mind. As the old saying goes, “the mind is like a parachute, when it’s not open it doesn’t work”. Try pulling the rip cord you “RETARD”
Pardon all the sarc everybody but I really dislike condescending scammers.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!
paratisi

paratisi on August 2, 2007 at 7:05 PM

Oh my God!
Shep is reporting from the bridge collapse doing an interview with a little black girl. Here we go again with a Katrina moment.

The big question is will he blame the collapse on George Bush or global warming.

OBX Pete on August 2, 2007 at 3:11 PM

I think the racial thinking in this case was yours.

Christoph on August 2, 2007 at 7:38 PM

Comment pages: 1 2