Video: Shep wonders, how can I convince the global warming denialists?
posted at 6:36 pm on August 1, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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.
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 Next »
Damn the evidence, full dogma ahead!
Spirit of 1776 on August 1, 2007 at 6:39 PM
Screw you Shep and the screwy science behind carbon emissions.
Zach on August 1, 2007 at 6:41 PM
Youtube snowman: Hurry up, I’m melting!!!
terryannonline on August 1, 2007 at 6:43 PM
Can’t wait to reinforce his perceptions. Brainless dickhead.
Jaibones on August 1, 2007 at 6:45 PM
Where’s the evidence that there’s “Man Made Global Warming”?
There is nothing, nada, zilch.
Talk about Fair and
Unbalanced.Kini on August 1, 2007 at 6:47 PM
If this is the first time the poles have thawed out then how do they explain all the Wooly Mammoths?
Guardian on August 1, 2007 at 6:47 PM
Shep is Fox News’ afternoon/early evening village idiot. They employ him and Geraldo for the same reason. When criticized, they can always point to those two and say, “SEE… WE DO MAKE SURE IDIOTS AND TRAITORS ARE REPRESENTED AS WELL.”
Sugar Land on August 1, 2007 at 6:49 PM
And who better to ask than a guy who swims naked at the North Pole?
Gosh Shep, you’re so smart, you could do my son’s paper route.
When, oh when are you bringing back Anna Nicole?
Keith_Z on August 1, 2007 at 6:50 PM
The perfect example of Fox being fair and balanced. The libs have a “Fox Attacks the Environment” video in which they clip people who appear on FNC that disagree with the global warming hysteria. Yet, in the video they conveniently leave out shep and his rants on global warming.
Complete7 on August 1, 2007 at 6:51 PM
One must get dumber the more one gets plastic surgery.
benrand on August 1, 2007 at 6:53 PM
Hey Shep. Whatever happened to that Florida woman you ran over because she had the misfortune to be in your parking spot?
Is that the one you bought off and fixed it with the local police, when they found out how important you were?
Take your eye-liner and go home, or take your carbon footprint and see what’s available at CNN.
mustang1 on August 1, 2007 at 6:53 PM
How can anyone criticize Shep after this (Content Warning: Bawdy Language):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqQuqkTXarA
Funny like a clown. He amuses me.
trubble on August 1, 2007 at 6:57 PM
I’m sitting here at my computer because of the dangerous dihydrogen monoxide falling from the sky outside at the present time.
I’m so happy Penn and Teller are doing something about this most dangerous of chemical compounds.
As for Shep. Does he own a tinfoil hat?
Kowboy on August 1, 2007 at 6:57 PM
Went swimming at the North Pole. Big deal.
Kini on August 1, 2007 at 6:58 PM
We need to send Shep the H2O petition and have him sign it and get on that bandwagon as well. He is apparently stupid enough to buy in.
conservnut on August 1, 2007 at 6:59 PM
Speaking of eyes, I wonder who pees in Shep’s specimen jar.
Stephen M on August 1, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Heh, Shep is so ridiculous. He’s fun when he’s reporting dumb fluffy stuff, but when he starts getting political he’s annoying.
BTW, thanks for the linky!
Bad Candy on August 1, 2007 at 7:01 PM
If a network ever comes out that tilts totally conservative and employs NO liberals at all, I’ll watch that. But for now we have to put up with Sheepy Smith, Open Borders Rivera and Space Alien Colmes. Now, this fantasy network could have Liberals on the shows the network produces, just to yell at them Michael Savage style.
Now that’s entertainment.
NeoConSnakePlissken on August 1, 2007 at 7:03 PM
Wow, the Penn and Teller clip is absolutely Hilarious.
“When you wash your food with it, it doesn’t come off…. It causes urination, sweating.” I definitely will be passing this around.
mjgreco on August 1, 2007 at 7:05 PM
Here’s what you do, Shep:
1. You quit your job at Fox News. Go to work full time for the environmental interest that you feel best suits your ideals – that inner desire that you feel to think Globally, yet act Locally.
2. Go full-on Green, my man, with gusto. Make your life a testimony to the fufillment of Gaia-friendly living solutions.
3. Take a STAND against evil Bushitler and his bloddy War For Oil. KATRINA! KATRINA! KATRINAAAAAAAAH!
4. Carbon offsets: great stocking-stuffers. (Lumps of coal – un-uh, girlfriend!)
5. Drive a Hybrid. Already drive one? Ride a bike. But only exhale every other breath. It takes some practice.
I know that what I’m suggesting may seem a bit radical, but hey, Vietnam wasn’t lost in a day, maaan! Go slow, try some small changes, then work your way up to larger solutions. A good place to start, in my opinion, would be to quit Fox News. Then, you’ll have plenty of time to tackle some of the more serious threats to our future… after you leave Fox.
Definately.
Dork B. on August 1, 2007 at 7:10 PM
Wow,, I remember reading these stories growing up,, we have all read them,, stories of people believing the most incredible things,, witch doctors, powerful tribal priests,, belief systems holding a people in bondage,, parents giving up there virgin daughters or first born sons to be thrown into the volcanoes or whatever,, all to satisfy and appease “the gods” and bring about a good harvest. The sins of the people were always to blame for hurricanes, floods or droughts. Well,, who would have thought!? Here we are today and we are witnessing the same kind of foolishness! Instead of witch doctors we have global warming activists. Different name,, same game. How far have we really come?? The faces and titles all change,, but there really is nothing new under the sun. Parents were willing in countless civilizations and times in the past ,,,whether they wanted to or not,, they allowed their children to be thrown into the fires to stop the drought,, to stop the flood,, to appease some false god,,,, people allowed their children to die in hopes of a good harvest,,,, my question is,, what would this generation be capable of in order to “save the very planet and the human race from extinction?”
JellyToast on August 1, 2007 at 7:13 PM
We didnt listen!
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/220277/south_park_the_day_after_tomorrow/
Dash on August 1, 2007 at 7:13 PM
Posting the Penn and Teller clip as a rebuttal is a false premise and perhaps a straw man. The matter of global warming is established scientific fact. That’s in the talking points from liberals because it’s true. The global warming picture may not be as crystal clear as (say) evolution but it is scientific consensus that we are contributing to it. Further, no one but the “bomb mecca” equivalent of the left is calling for measures as radical as completely banning a highly useful substance. P and T had a point, but it was not called for in this particular environmental discussion. The matter Shep was dealing with was purely whether we can all accept facts as facts and go from there.
starflyer on August 1, 2007 at 7:21 PM
I always love the fall back position on this
Global Warming,that i don,t think exists.
That is (remember Hillarys book,It takes a village).
Well it is always,always is about THE CHILDREN.
You don,t care about global warming,then surely
you could care less about THE CHILDREN.
By the way China,s pumping out crap left,right and centre.
canopfor on August 1, 2007 at 7:23 PM
starflyer on August 1, 2007 at 7:21 PM
On what do you base that assertion?
Spirit of 1776 on August 1, 2007 at 7:28 PM
Hey … uhhh Shep??? You do know that while the North Pole is getting a bit warmer, the South Pole is getting Colder?
Ice in the South is getting thicker…
Hey… Shepster.. you do know that the way they decided the Earth is getting Warmer is that they measured and corelated the differences in all the measurment stations… but the VAST majority of stations are in the Northern Hemisphere???
Romeo13 on August 1, 2007 at 7:31 PM
Shep: What can we do to convince these people [that man causes global warming]?
Human Popsicle: Well Shep, that’s what my stunt was all about actually. I figure if we submerge them in a solution of dihydrogen monoxide at 29 degrees for several minutes, maybe they’ll get the point. It worked for me!
kjspeedial on August 1, 2007 at 7:37 PM
Shep: What can we do to convince these people that man causes global warming?
Human Popsicle: Well Shep, that’s what my stunt was all about actually. I figure if we submerge them in a solution of dihydrogen monoxide at 29 degrees for several minutes, maybe they’ll get the point. It worked for me!
kjspeedial on August 1, 2007 at 7:38 PM
Shep: What can we do to convince these people [that man causes global warming]?
Human Popsicle: Well Shep, that’s what my stunt was all about actually. I figure if we submerge them in a solution of dihydrogen monoxide at 29 degrees for several minutes, maybe they’ll get the point. It sure worked for me!
kjspeedial on August 1, 2007 at 7:39 PM
Maybe, if he becomes an astronaut, that same Brit could become the first human to swim in Mars’ north pole, since it too is melting. Stupid inconvenient solar system. Some alert Shepherd Smith, maybe he can blubber about it like he did whilst reporting on Katrina. Girlyman.
wordwarp on August 1, 2007 at 7:44 PM
I’m not a “denialist.” I’m a rationalist.
I like looking at, you know, evidence. And asking a few questions. And analyzing the data with an eye towards benefits and costs.
Like most thinking people.
The fact that when I ask common sense questions, someone else calls me a “denialist” … is nothing short of intellectual fascism.
And here’s a newsflash for liberals everywhere: the instant you call someone a “denialist,” the instant you declare that “the debate is over,” you’ve already lost the debate.
And you’ve become exactly what you claim to hate.
Those secure in their intellectual positions don’t just permit questions – they encourage them. And they’re ready to answer.
Fascism, folks. It’s coming squarely (and only, might I add) from the left side of babblefest. Environmentalism is their latest – but maybe most effective – tool in the fight to control you and yours.
Who needs a Reichstag fire when you can shriek about melting glaciers?
Professor Blather on August 1, 2007 at 7:48 PM
One of my best friends is a geologist. I love listening to him vent on the, as he calls them, absurd assertions.
Spirit of 1776 on August 1, 2007 at 7:49 PM
I guess Shep didn’t hear Rush say that Witchita Kansas hasn’t yet had a 100 degree day this summer, first time since 1928!
gmoonster on August 1, 2007 at 7:49 PM
Maybe, if he becomes an astronaut, that same Brit could become the first human to swim in Mars’ north pole, since it too is melting. Stupid inconvenient solar system.
Maybe Shepherd Smith can go with him and blubber about it like he did whilst emoting about Katrina. He’s no Edward R. Murrow, and that’s something both men and Democrats alike can agree on.
wordwarp on August 1, 2007 at 7:50 PM
So “all” of the current warming is caused by man (no possibility of a natural cause)! Then what on earth caused the earth to be so warm 500,000 years ago Greenland had trees, plants, and butterflies??? Anyone? Shep? Al? Scientific Consensus?
http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/13352/1066/
Fossil records DON’T lie, unlike humans.
The Angel Michael on August 1, 2007 at 7:52 PM
sorry for the double post — got a connection error both times. odd.
wordwarp on August 1, 2007 at 7:53 PM
I tell you what,Shep, I’ll follow along with you the second you or one of your AGW scammers can explain, rationally, how something(man made CO2) that is 50millionTHS of one percent of the atmosphere can do what you say.
Now, anyone please tell me where I’m wrong, but, as I recall all greenhouse gasses make up 4% of the atmosphere. Of that 4%, roughly 3% is CO2. Of that, man-made CO2 is roughly 4% of that 3%.
Imagine that, an entire industry shown to be a scam by a 99 cent calculator and Shep is still in dibelief that anyone would question their reasons. these people make telemarketers and lawyers look truthful… ok, maybe not lawyers.
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
paratisi
paratisi on August 1, 2007 at 7:53 PM
make that three times. here is the error I am getting, even though it is posting the comments:
wordwarp on August 1, 2007 at 7:54 PM
See? That just proves the point – carbon emissions are so bad, they’re even melting the Martian ice cap.
Stupid Republican. Now sign my petition.
Professor Blather on August 1, 2007 at 7:55 PM
Shep is still on Fox?
Wade on August 1, 2007 at 7:56 PM
Spirit of 1776 on August 1, 2007 at 7:28 PM
The false premise is that people only view global warming (or the contribution of carbon emissions to it) as fact is because they are “joiners”. Have a look at any science or skepticism journal or publication. Global warming is so prevalent in those pages not because of a pre-established political orientation, but because of the number and nature of things it has effects upon.
starflyer on August 1, 2007 at 7:58 PM
Why not? Shep would have probably grabbed the petition to sign it before the question was even finished being asked. I understand their point. If you’re going to support something, at least know what the hell it is your supporting. Many people are just like those in the video. You make something sound good and they just fall right in line. No questioning anything. A little knowledge about the cause you support or are against, and a willingness to debate it in a rational and reasoned fashion goes a long way towards whether or not I will be interested in listening to your argument.
Kowboy on August 1, 2007 at 7:58 PM
I think Shep is edwards for the guy.
TheSitRep on August 1, 2007 at 8:02 PM
Global Warming is a hoax. I am not in fear of it one bit, not even for my children’s, children’s children…… The more I read and see those that claim it is real the more I know it is nothing but a farce.
kahall on August 1, 2007 at 8:04 PM
I am getting some weird error here to when posting…just saying.
kahall on August 1, 2007 at 8:05 PM
Boy, you global warming skeptics are too much! Next you’ll tell me Al Gore has a financial interest in selling carbon offsets or that Climatology Scientists get more grant money to do more research directly in proportion to how alarmist their results are. The more serious the “problem” the more urgent it is that we find out all we can, right?
We all know that the bad scientists work for the oil companies and say whatever the people who pay them want them to say. We also know that those who get money from the Sierra club or like minded groups are uncorruptable bastions of goodness and light, paragons of wisdom and truth. You know if we’d only listen to the Goracle, we won’t get any older and we won’t ever die!
trubble on August 1, 2007 at 8:07 PM
You make something sound good and they just fall right in line.
Kowboy on August 1, 2007 at 7:58 PM
This statement has no place in the debate of presence of or contribution to (or fault in, if you wish) global warming. It’s used on both sides: “You just deny global warming because of your economic interests” vs “It’s just popular to say you are concerned about global warming.”
I’m generally a libertarian GOPer myself and am as opposed to onerous carbon taxation as most of my fellow commenters here are, but the science of presence and contribution to the phenomenon *is* settled. Tell me why I should believe otherwise (with the caveat of basing it on a scientific publication and not youtube).
starflyer on August 1, 2007 at 8:10 PM
But we would eventually all have to buy “Twinkie Offsets” to feel better about being fat b@stards.
Kowboy on August 1, 2007 at 8:10 PM
starflyer:
The false premise of your argument is the presumption that you are 100% correct, immune from challenge, and nothing is going to change that.
You are wrong. AGW is not an established fact, it is a controversial hypothesis that is mired in political contention.
And trying to switch GW for AGW in your argument is quite dishonest. Stop it, or look a fool.
Is the statistical lie we call “the hockey stick” a “fact?” Are the failed hurricane predictions “facts?”
We can either discuss the facts and try to determine what they truly are, or get locked in dogmatic struggles with no possible conclusion.
The former is what I was taught science was all about, but the last decade of “AGW Mania” has corrected that erroneous education. Science, like everything else, is about humans doing what humans always do – good and bad, right and wrong, truthful and lying.
Of all people, scientists should understand the value of skepticism, and the need for proof. Unfortunately, AGW has become an article of faith in many circles, and declared above question when real and valid questions remain.
If you’ve never heard the questions, it’s because you’ve been hanging out at the propaganda site “RealClimate” and haven’t realized that things self-consciously titled “Real” or “True” rarely are.
Branch out.
Merovign on August 1, 2007 at 8:15 PM
No it isn’t. You can find reputable scientists who say that global warming is not real. That what is happening now is a normal part of the cycle of warming and cooling of the earth. Now, man may be in some small way accelerating the warming process, but there is still no absolute concensus on that.
Kowboy on August 1, 2007 at 8:23 PM
Guys, I’ve found the solution for those who are horribly worried about all they’re doing to the environment.
PETA had the first step, avoiding meat to avoid that portion, but still; the farming.
Then it hit me… Breatharianism http://breatharian.info/
Of course, go completely without food altogether. That would reduce your carbon footprint significantly by removing you from the responsibility of even the farmland converted from forests; and the science behind the Breatharians is about as good as the science proving that mankind is truly responsible for any climate change ever noticed.
So, here’s the solution. Quit eating anything.
I think that will solve the problem nicely for everyone. I’m completely stoked about the Man-Made Global Climate Change “true believers” becoming breatharians. This may be one of my better ideas. What better merger for two groups of people than this?
gekkobear on August 1, 2007 at 8:26 PM
Guys, I’ve found the solution for those who are horribly worried about all they’re doing to the environment.
PETA had the first step, avoiding meat to avoid that portion, but still; the farming.
Then it hit me… Breatharianism.
Of course, go completely without food altogether. That would reduce your carbon footprint significantly by removing you from the responsibility of even the farmland converted from forests; and the science behind the Breatharians is about as good as the science proving that mankind is truly responsible for any climate change ever noticed.
So, here’s the solution. Quit eating anything.
I think that will solve the problem nicely for everyone. I’m completely stoked about the Man-Made Global Climate Change “true believers” becoming breatharians. This may be one of my better ideas. What better merger for two groups of people than this?
gekkobear on August 1, 2007 at 8:29 PM
For starflyer:
Numberwatch
SEPP
Basically follow links from there.
I’ve been following this “debate” from the early 1990s, and very little has changed. The basic arguments have been known since then, with some details added since. CO2 and plant growth cycle, timing of CO2/temperature spikes, historical patterns, the influence of the sun, the dominating influence of water vapor… none of this is new.
But for some reason, none of it seems to seriously affect the debate, because the debate isn’t mainly about the science. Oh, maybe it was once, and sometimes it still is. But the major players are politicians, bureaucrats and ideologues.
I WANT this to be about the science. I REMAIN completely unconvinced that there is a crisis that is CAUSED by mankind and will be RESOLVED by government regulation, especially when that involves restrictions on energy technology, transportation, and even more especially picking favorites in energy technology.
You know, like liquid hydrogen and ethanol, two of the biggest time-wasters in the history of energy technology since Orgone generators.
Environmental changes have many causes, and can happen quite unpredictably. Developing our ability to cope with them is far, far more likely to help humanity than restricting our own development in hopes of staving off an uncertain heating effect of controversial origins.
In the face of a long-term cooling trend.
Oops, did I bring up another controversy? My bad.
Merovign on August 1, 2007 at 8:33 PM
Tell you why you should believe it? No pal, your the one trying to jam this scam down our throats. The onus is on you to come up with a credible explanation as to why we should believe that something that is 50 millionths of 1% of the atmosphere will do anything to the climate. In the meantime I will continue to “say no” to the religion of AGW.
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
paratisi
paratisi on August 1, 2007 at 8:34 PM
This statement is not true. The presence is generally accepted. The contribution is much in doubt, indeed highly indicated to be false. The largest claim for such contribution is increase co2 levels in the atmosphere, but they do not correlate with industry particularly well. However they correlate with increases in various sun activities like hand and glove.
The global warming argument (not directed at you personally) is like the flat earth or the sun revolves around the earth theories. They are self-centered and myopic. The earth is, essentially, in the sun’s atmosphere. It determines our climate and climate changes – it is the master of the solar system. To think otherwise is, even if well-intentioned, falsely interpreting the data.
Spirit of 1776 on August 1, 2007 at 8:36 PM
Oops, sorry I didn’t specify but my prvious post was for Starflyer.
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
paratisi
paratisi on August 1, 2007 at 8:38 PM
starflyer…
educate yourself: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
The Angel Michael on August 1, 2007 at 8:42 PM
I like Shep. But here’s one viewer who’s finding him increasingly hard to take.
petefrt on August 1, 2007 at 8:47 PM
Penn and Teller RULE!!!!!
libertytexan on August 1, 2007 at 8:47 PM
This is a repost of two posts I made that didn’t get any responses in this thread.
The links I provided: CO2 Storage, Carbon Cycle, Oceanic Resources.
The truth is carbon damages the (stratospheric) Ozone layer (When O3 is split into O2 and O1 Carbon attaches itself to the Oxygen in the Ozone which doesn’t allow it to repair itself at night). When the Ozone layer is damaged more harmful radiation from the sun enters the Earth. When this radiation enters the Earth not only are humans directly affected, but we’re affected indirectly when these rays begin to melt the ice in our oceans. So when people say “the sun is to blame,” duh. The UV rays from the sun are what is causing Global Warming, but the only reason they’re able to reach us in large quantities is because the O3 is depleting because of the Carbon we produce and the Carbon nature produces.
Lets say nature produces 90% of the CO2 on this planet and humans produces 10%. Everyone would agree that nature gives out a lot more CO2 than humans, but say the Earth can only handle a 95% load of CO2 before the Ozone really gets beat up and allows UV-B rays into the Earth’s atmosphere. That 10% humans give off isn’t so insignificant anymore, and seeing as how we can’t control what nature gives off (unless we decide to plant a lot more trees), to prevent the Ozone from depleting we need to regulate our CO2 emissions.
Nonfactor on August 1, 2007 at 8:50 PM
In r/e Shepster. I think The View is hiring.
commonsensehoosier on August 1, 2007 at 9:04 PM
Nonfactor:
Allow me to quote from NASA:
In other words, the ozone layers is created primarily by sunlight. It does not repair itself at night. It is not a vampire. You are a moron.
I have known that ozone creation in the upper atmosphere was due primarily to solar radiation since I was a callow youth. You are a moron.
You know less than nothing about the environment because what you know is wrong and apparently derived from Scooby Doo movies. You are a moron.
Did I mention that you are a moron?
The Ozone Hole over the south pole exists primarily because there is less sunlight there. There is a legitimate and interesting argument about other factors that play a part in ozone depletion, but these do not include crosses, garlic, or you.
If you have any sense of shame, you will bow out of this particular discussion for a while, at least long enough to do something with a book other than prop up a table with odd-length legs.
Did I mention that you’re a moron? I hope I’m not perceived as being unduly harsh, because I am actually restraining myself considerably.
Merovign on August 1, 2007 at 9:08 PM
Nonfactor on August 1, 2007 at 8:50 PM
If I get a chance, I’ll dig up some links and get back to you tonight on this subject.
Spirit of 1776 on August 1, 2007 at 9:08 PM
Merovign on August 1, 2007 at 8:15 PM
I am not claiming to be someone who is always 100% correct, I am simply asserting (through the work scientists have done) that there is a very high probability that global warming is present and is contributed to by humans. That is how all branches of science work. It is not dogmatic religion. Science always refines and sometimes repudiates previously existing ideas.
Second, the hurricane predictions were just that: predictions. They may yet turn out to have been in error, but on those predictions does not rest all of anthropogenic global warming (let alone simple global warming). Hurricane predictions are just one of many branches of climate science.
Third, calling a site a propaganda site does not make it so (and that’s not a place I hang out), and the skepticism movement is fully behind GW and AGW. I will however say that the GW evidence is more compelling than that of AGW. This is why the goalpost has been moved to say that there is no AGW.
starflyer on August 1, 2007 at 9:11 PM
“Dihydrogen monoxide”. I’m going to use that.
PRCalDude on August 1, 2007 at 9:12 PM
And every computer simulation that predicts climate change is exactly the same thing.
No matter how you slice it, they can’t tell you exactly what the temperature is going to be next Wednesday, but they can tell you with absolute certainty what the temperature is going to be in 50 years. Give me a break.
Kowboy on August 1, 2007 at 9:15 PM
All the information I provided you came from sources or government websites, but hey, you’ve known about this stuff since you were a kid, you must be more knowledgeable than them. Here are some more links for you to ignore: Link 1 (gov), Link 2 (gov), Link 3. When you’re entire argument is predicated on the straw man that I think the Ozone layer is a vampire you know you’ve gone wrong.
Look forward to it.
Nonfactor on August 1, 2007 at 9:29 PM
Kowboy on August1,2007 at 9:15PM
Take that one step further, you can input all the info you want, into those computer models, from two days ago and they will get the wrong pedictions for yesterday.
This is the “work” the so-called “scientists” have done.
So I’ll ask again. Who can explain rationally how a gas which is .037% of the atmosphere create the wild temperature fluctuations the AGW scammers are screaming about? Specially considering that the man-made percentage is less than 3% of that .037%.
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
paratisi
paratisi on August 1, 2007 at 9:30 PM
you’re should be your of course and the third link has a section on the side called “Understanding Stratospheric Ozone” leading to links like this that should be easy for Merovign to follow.
Nonfactor on August 1, 2007 at 9:33 PM
Kowboy on August 1, 2007 at 9:15 PM
The long-term predictions may yet prove to be true in that we may have more hurricanes over the long run. Also, your comments concerning the 10 day forecast is a non-sequitur. Forecasts are at the other end of the spectrum from long term climatology. And regardless of that, do you mean to say you never check the weather forecasts?
starflyer on August 1, 2007 at 9:35 PM
Crichton’s “State of Fear” – read it. Enjoy the novel – then follow the footnotes. To dozens upon dozens of those “respected scientific journals.”
Anyone who says this debate is settled is either a fool, completely unfamiliar with the science, or simply willing to be led without thought.
Anybody who tries to conflate global warming with anthropogenic global warming is simply dishonest. Of course the Earth will warm – and cool – and warm – and cool – etc. Of course. It always has. It will be and has been much warmer than it is today. And much cooler.
But to claim that anything has remotely been “settled” about the specific role humanity plays – or what we can do about it – or what the actual consequences (or maybe benefits?) – might be … is again either lying or ignorant.
Worst of all, I suspect too many of these people know too little of history to recognize how many debates have been “settled” – on exactly the wrong consensus. There are a dozen examples from just the last generation, ranging from Y2K to the “population explosion” to everyone’s favorite, global cooling.
I repeat my earlier point: the instant your adversary tells you the debate is “settled” or calls you a “denier,” you’ve already won – or at the very least, you’ve proven the need to take a much closer look.
Professor Blather on August 1, 2007 at 9:37 PM
starflyer:
“Settled” does not equal “high probability.” “It’s true” is not “high probability.” “Established scientific fact” is not “high probability.”
And “all branches of science” work is a way opposed to “religious dogma?” Now we’re back to perfection.
Scientists are humans. Humans are flawed. The biggest flaw of scientists is hubris, “flase pride.”
There’s the way science is supposed to work, and then there’s the way scientists work. The latter is just like any other group of people. Scientists are not some mysterious perfect creatures that always follow their ideals to the letter and never make mistakes.
If you think I’m mischaracterizing your posts, read your own posts again, carefully.
Prediction is at the HEART of scientific theory. That basic flaw is at the HEART of the AGW controversy. Dismissing prediction is a terrible way to establish your scientific props.
RC was created by our “hockey stick” friend (who continues to push the statistically demolished model), has led the charge AGAINST examination of temperature recording sites for reliability, and consistently eliminates significant opposed discussion on their own site. I leave the rest as an exercise for the reader.
As to “GW” – “AGW,” YOU are the one who moved the goalposts. The argument is that AGW is unproven, and you leap to the defense of GW as if it proved anything about AGW. Apples and oranges. You’re solving for oranges and your abstract says Apples Are Real!
Please stick to the argument at hand rather than trying to prove your point by tangents. Or not, it’s up to you.
Merovign on August 1, 2007 at 9:37 PM
Earth to Shep: Al Gore is not a real scientist.
Earth to Al Gore: You lost in 2000 and you’re still a loser.
The Ocean has risen 300 feet since the Clovis people walked here from Siberia.
Now the Gore disciples want to change our entire civilization over 20 more inches (maybe).
Or it could be that Al Gore is a real politician.
TunaTalon on August 1, 2007 at 9:38 PM
Kowboy on August 1,2007 at 9:15 PM
Sorry, forgot to add that if anyone tries to tell you that these computer models are only for longterm predictions… that’s already been proven just as wrong by inputing info from a hudred years ago in an attempt to predict climate in this day and age and again were shown to be way off base.
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
paratisi
paratisi on August 1, 2007 at 9:42 PM
Nonfactor: Still not seeing anything in your links about the Ozone layer healing at night.
Sure, I was mocking you based partly on that detail, and partly on your general history of being a moron, neither of which is alleviated by your links.
Every so often I do get myself dragged into these “telephone pole” debates, generally with the same result. I guess it’s better than watching TV.
Merovign on August 1, 2007 at 9:45 PM
Shep is an ignorant azzclown. He proves it regularly. Socialist is. Socialist does. Even the young athlete [ie. attention monger] knew better than to speak with more than general accusations. Shep believes it’s completely America’s fault so you could just hear him cring with the young man’s last answer. Fox is always good for comedy.
Griz on August 1, 2007 at 9:45 PM
You shoot yourself in the foot with the words “may yet”. You admit that it all could be wrong.
And no, I don’t check weather forecasts. I do this thing called “going outside”. I make my conclusions on what the weather is going to be that particular day based on that. It’s usually more accurate than the local weather man.
When I was in the Navy, I hung around with guys in the meteorological department. I asked them how they came up with their forecasts. To a man they all admitted that what they really did was looked at all the data they collected and then GUESSED what the weather was going to be tomorrow. Therefore, I don’t put much stock in models that predict weather conditions in the future. They all told me that there were way to many variables to predict what the exact weather conditions are going to be at pretty much any time in the future.
Kowboy on August 1, 2007 at 9:48 PM
paratisi:
Did you value Oxygen less when you found out that the air we breathe has only 21% of it? I would suspect not. When you say that CO2 is a smaller still amount of the air, does that mean it cannot have had an impact on global temperatures? There are also other more potent greenhouse gases such as methane that contribute to this (admittedly small, depending on how you look at it) 1 degree centigrade rise in global temperatures over the last hundred or so years.
The science on this topic is broad and deep. 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
Why do I find it more annoying to hear Shep push this crap than anyone else? I can’t stand him for a variety of reasons I’ve explained here before (mainly he constantly lifts his skirt and shows us his liberalism), but something really grates on my when I hear him talk about this.
Maybe it’s because he comes off like an idiot, never offers this mountain of “evidence” to support his position, maybe it’s because he doesn’t offer a debate on it? I don’t know, but I’m really f-ing sick of this clown, particularly as it pertains to “global warming”.
Quick question, has anyone ever seen a climatologist or meteorologist or any expert in a related field actually go on a debate show, to debate one of the many scientists in these fields who don’t subscribe to man made global warming? Ever? I honestly don’t think I have once. We always here ab out that UN IPCC group of “2500 of the world’s top scientists”, but if I’m remembering correctly, that’s a flat out lie everytime we hear that. It’s actually a group made up of almost all politicians, a handful of scientists, and perhaps some actually in related fields (of course we know every field tries to tie itself to “global warming” these days to get funding. I don’t think I need to list some of the more ridiculous examples to you, I’m sure you’ve read about them).
Bleh… bored with this already, I usually will rant on for 10 minutes on why global warming is crap, but I’ve got bridge collapse coverage to catch up on.
RightWinged on August 1, 2007 at 9:57 PM
starflyer:
Since we are on Ozone holes now… Here is a link to the Ozone layer in every moth of every year since 1979 Click on October of ANY year and there IS a hole, click on July of ANY year and there is NO hole… but CO2 and CO3 levels DONT change depending on what month of the year it is so how come the Ozone hole does??? Maybe its because CO2 and or CO3 has NOTHING to do with the size and thickness of the Ozone layer.
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/monthly/index.html
hopefully you think NASA is a good source.
The Angel Michael on August 1, 2007 at 9:58 PM
Science always works on “may yet” and “likelihoods”. These words come from statistics. This is not religion. We are not dealing with absolutes. In order to get published in academic journals likelihoods must be over 90% and often over 95% or 99%. That is the way it works. Once again, if a small area of this large field is proven wrong that does not invalidate the whole theory. Absolutes may have their place in recorded history and morality, but they seldom have a place in science.
starflyer on August 1, 2007 at 10:00 PM
Starflyer:
When you’re wrong, re-iterate. A time-honored and unethical behavior.
Do you really have no shame? Are you even aware that when faced with contrary evidence, you simply blink and repeat your mantra?
You are in the grips of religious ecstasy and you think it’s scientific rigor. Now THAT’S entertainment.
Scientism is a religion that superficially resembles the process of science, but not so heavy on the “process” side.
All those absolute statements about certainty and the incorruptibility of the scientific process… a dead giveaway, it is.
The method of science is not something I dispute. It’s what people impose on it.
Merovign on August 1, 2007 at 10:05 PM
The Angel Michael on August 1, 2007 at 9:58 PM
My understanding of ozone holes is that it is a separate phenomenon from global warming, and a glance a wikipedia seems to support that. I have not said anything about them to this point. And I do consider NASA to be a good source.
starflyer on August 1, 2007 at 10:06 PM
Ok, which statement is correct?
BANG! Damn I’ll bet your foot really hurts right about now.
Kowboy on August 1, 2007 at 10:09 PM
The really funny part is that it’s head simultaneously holds the view that absolutes play no part in science, and produces absolute statements by the drove about science.
Merovign on August 1, 2007 at 10:09 PM
This is exactly what the problem is. If there was a specific problem theorized out of a specific cause, then the theory of human caused climate change would make more sense. but that isn’t the case. It forecasts a wide variety of problems, which even if all true, could have individual and varying causes and not necessarily be bound together from the same cause. We are currently at the point where any measured change whatsoever in the ecosystem, weather, or glaciers is taken as proof this theory is true. The Earth always changes, so short of an unexpected ice age hitting us this makes the theory of human caused globabl warming non-falsifiable. (if you slept through science class that means it is a bad theory)
Resolute on August 1, 2007 at 10:14 PM
Merovign on August 1, 2007 at 10:05 PM
To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens, I always consider an argument won when the other side begins to use ad homenim attacks.
I’m obviously not going to convince the closed of mind. Not that it will matter so much to anyone still reading this thread, but I have changed my mind on this issue over the past year or so and I did that without seeing any documentaries which shall remain nameless. I changed my mind with as I became more attentive to science and skepticism. I encourage you all to see for yourself by checking out (or trolling) the science blogs when you get a chance. Don’t let a tendency towards liberalism in these blogs and the media keep you away from reading substantive reporting on science.
starflyer on August 1, 2007 at 10:15 PM
Oh my. A scientist are you?
PRCalDude on August 1, 2007 at 10:16 PM
So my last post which pointed out your conflicting statements was an ad homenim attack?
Ok, time for work. Y’all fight nice. :-)
Kowboy on August 1, 2007 at 10:20 PM
Ok, one last post. Seriously. And then I’m closing the window. Definitely. Maybe.
No my foot does not hurt. All I am saying is that for individual papers statistical significance must be quite high and when many, many papers support a general theory we can accept that theory as operational fact. If you do not accept this basic premise of science, there is no more I wish to say on the issue.
starflyer on August 1, 2007 at 10:21 PM
starflyer: “I have not said anything about them to this point.”
Fair enough, I had you in my copy paste clipboard, the response was actually meant for Nonfactor.
Dont forget:
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/cause.html
The Angel Michael on August 1, 2007 at 10:21 PM
Kowboy:
I was talking about Merovign on August 1, 2007 at 10:05 PM.
And I neither made an ad hominem attack nor did you point one out. Do you know what an ad hominem is?
starflyer on August 1, 2007 at 10:24 PM
The Angel Michael on August 1, 2007 at 10:21 PM
Thanks for the link. There were so many from credible sources that supported my main point on my google search for “global warming” that I was wondering where many of the posters were getting their information.
starflyer on August 1, 2007 at 10:27 PM
What does this mean? When you use the term ’statistics’, I ask, “The statistics of what?”
PRCalDude on August 1, 2007 at 10:27 PM
Global Warming is caused by Science turning tricks for Socialism.
Dork B. on August 1, 2007 at 10:30 PM
Global warming, if a hoax, is a funny hoax. It seems to have ensneared entire Biology departments. Just as an example, at the two universities near me, not a single biologist doubts global warming and they are both major universities. Biologists are real scientists–not fluffy BS “social scientists” like sociologists whose tendency to be Marxist indicates just how scientific they are.
Even if you have reasons to be skeptical about global warming & I encourage skepticism about everything, it’s a little bit insane to dismiss something like this out of hand–given who is actually endorsing the idea.
thuja on August 1, 2007 at 10:33 PM
Starflyer:
Oh, snap. Is it okay if I consider an argument won when the other side begins to use strawmen and move goalposts? ‘Cause then I get to be the one who declares victory without addressing the opposition’s points.
You are the closed of mind, dude. Every heard the expression “converts make the worst sort of bigots?”
Are you actually completely unaware of the contradictory nature of your statements on this thread alone? You haven’t addressed them. Is it just because you think it’s not important?
I am a skeptic by nature. I LOVE to do research. I’ve spent some of my spare time for the last, oh, say 16 years following this debate. On those rare occasions when there’s a detailed debate on the facts, I tend to learn a lot.
Unfortunately, that’s rare. Usually the pattern is more like this thread, where someone makes a lot of absolute statements, contradicts them, avoids the opposition, and then declares victory based on some junior debate club aphorism.
One of the first things you learn when you debate seriously is that premature declarations of victory will eat you alive.
You are unwilling to defend your position, and when faced with criticism, you deflect. I’m sure there’s a junior debate aphorism about that as well.
It’s been fun. Is it over? Only the Shadow knows!
Merovign on August 1, 2007 at 10:34 PM
PRCalDude on August 1, 2007 at 10:27 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
If you give one dollar to the Ron Paul campain, you have “contributed” to the presidential race. You have in no way “affected” the election. The ambiguous terms are the dead give away.
BDavis on August 1, 2007 at 10:38 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »