Shocker: Organizing for Action ad misleads on climate change

posted at 1:21 pm on May 2, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

With support for new gun-control legislation fizzling and Congress duking it out on immigration reform, President Obama’s campaign-turned-’advocacy’ group Organizing for Action has been putting together a new campaign to keep supporters riled up about the next-in-line, low-priority-to-most-Americans, non-economic, holy-grail progressive issue: Climate change, obviously.

When I saw this ad in passing last week, I was left wondering why it is exactly that any GOP lawmaker is supposed to be embarrassed by this:

Considering that the ad’s intended audience is a bunch of Obama supporters who are already determined to see what they want to see out of it, I suppose that, sure, the lines about carbon-dioxide exhalation and Boehner’s “cow” remark are a little squirm-inducing, but come on, now: Of course “the number of scientific organizations that have publicly denied climate change” is “ZERO,” because nobody is denying that climate change is a real thing that has been happening on our planet since time immemorial.

Is it, however, the all-consuming and imminent catastrophe that alarm-mongering eco-zealots have hysterically claimed for decades now, and we need to immediately begin catering to their too-eager big-government policy prescriptions of economic-growth and fossil-fuel stoppages or else we’re all going to die? …The fact that these groups often feel the need to passionately insist that the science is so very “settled” and “overwhelming,” when it very clearly isn’t, would suggest not, and that’s more toward the point that most of these Republicans are making in these conveniently out-of-context soundbites.

And the ad’s claim that Republicans “voted in 2011 that climate change was a ‘hoax’”? Uhm, actually, that was really more of a referendum on whether the EPA or Congress should set climate-change policy, as Glenn Kessler pointed out at WaPo today with a Four-Pinocchios rating. It was a nice try, though.

The underlying bill, known as the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011, was intended to thwart an effort by the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate gases believed to affect climate change. It would have amended the Clean Air Act to prevent the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide, methane and at least five other gases, instead leaving such policy decisions in the hands of Congress. …

Waxman’s amendment was a classic legislative gambit, goading the other side to reject language that — on its face — appears reasonable. To that extent, even in failure the amendment was a success. The Hill newspaper headlined its article on the vote: “Amendment that says climate change is occurring fails in House.

The Organizing for Action video then gilds the lily by immediately following a reference to the vote with a clip of a speech by Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.): “The idea of human-induced global climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated out of the scientific community.” As FactCheck.Org noted, that speech was given in 2009 — not during the debate over the 2011 amendment.

Moreover, nowhere in the amendment does the word “hoax” appear.


Related Posts:

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

Shouldn’t the Palm Beach sheriff’s office investigate Climate change deniers too?

And isn’t being Xenophobic nearly criminal or a sign of mental illness?

All you right wing haters out there…..

http://washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-could-there-be-another-wave-of-illegal-immigration/article/2528465

….you would deny global warming, keep marriage restrictive to just man and woman, want to have a house full of guns and keep those poor Mexicans in that really hot country down there.

Lock ‘em up Sheriff.

PappyD61 on May 2, 2013 at 1:27 PM

Shocker: Organizing for Action ad misleads on climate change

I thought the latest incarnation was “climate destabilization” or “climate disruption” or something??

It’ll always be “global warming” to me and my only interest in it is when the prosecutions take place for the frauds pushing it with feral government money stolen from me and the politicians destroying our economy and industry for it.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 2, 2013 at 1:27 PM

O bama
f lukes
A merica

Schadenfreude on May 2, 2013 at 1:27 PM

This ad works -
For the high school dropouts that already support Pres Obama.
.
Everyone else will probably roll their eyes.

LincolntheHun on May 2, 2013 at 1:28 PM

You lie.

/doesn’t get repeated enough

M240H on May 2, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Organizing for Action ad misleads

Since when is OFA interested in the truth?

GarandFan on May 2, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Climate Change is a religion. Insist on the separation of church and state.

John the Libertarian on May 2, 2013 at 1:34 PM

“Denier” is offensive.

Ben Hur on May 2, 2013 at 1:35 PM

“Denying climate change is dangerous”

The first step toward outlawing opposition. Characterize it as “dangerous”. And make no mistake about it, that’s what progressives aim to do, outlaw opposition, or worse if the murderous history of progressive movements is any indication.

forest on May 2, 2013 at 1:35 PM

I wish people would understand that in science, “consensus of opinion” means NOTHING.

You could have 100 scientists agree that “A” is true. One scientist shows with reproducible, documented, peer reviewed evidence that actually “B” is closer to the truth, and guess what?

That 101st scientist is right and the other 100 are wrong.

Politicians and pundits live by polls, surveys, ratings and so they are conditioned to think “more believe me than you, therefore you’re wrong.”.

One of my big gripes is that policy is decided by folks that fell asleep in High School science class.

kurtzz3 on May 2, 2013 at 1:39 PM

To the hard LEFT, this issue is one they can’t allow to simply fade away because it was such a great way to redistribute the wealth of productive, developed nations to any cause or pocket that the LEFT deigned worthy.

The UN even took the lead on pushing this notion because the amount of cash that could be siphoned off from the wealthier nations was so vast that all of the UN’s plans for expanded world dominance..er…one world governance… could have been fully financed and still have plenty left to make the dreams of any number of petty dictators and tyrants come true, allowing them to use UN funding to feather their own foreign accounts, live the grand life, and ruin their people at leisure, as well as enough to support armies of UN diplomats and their handlers and minions in the style they’ve become accustomed, or dream of becoming accustomed, in perpetuity.

We’ve seen this extortion scheme run the gamut from claiming that there was going to a new ice age in 1970′s… to claiming that Anthropogenic Global Warming was parboiling everyone…. and since there’s been virtually no warming for the last 20 years… to ‘Climate Change’ hysterics.

You have to give them credit…saying that ANY change in the climate was a sure sign of impending disaster was covering their bases… too bad some of them insisted that EARTHQUAKES were caused by ‘climate change’… proving, of course, that when you resort to unreasoned fear mongering… scientific speculation becomes superstitious hogwash… and all bets are off.

thatsafactjack on May 2, 2013 at 1:41 PM

I am so looking forward to the moment when the reality of the last two decades of world climate hits the AGW crowd.

I can see it now…”We have always been at war with Global Cooling.”

Chris of Rights on May 2, 2013 at 1:42 PM

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Joseph Goebbels

redguy on May 2, 2013 at 1:43 PM

kurtzz3 on May 2, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Agreed. If we did science by consensus while essentially outlawing dissent as “dangerous” “denial”, we’d still believe the earth is flat.

forest on May 2, 2013 at 1:44 PM

redguy on May 2, 2013 at 1:43 PM

While I understand the significance of the quote, the 13th comment is a bit soon to invoke Godwin, don’t you think? :)

Chris of Rights on May 2, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Pretty sure science doesn’t back up the claim that we caused Sandy.

theperfecteconomist on May 2, 2013 at 1:46 PM

That 101st scientist is right and the other 100 are wrong.

kurtzz3 on May 2, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Exactly. There is no such thing as consensus in science. Consensus is a purely political term.

John the Libertarian on May 2, 2013 at 1:46 PM

The only man made climate change there has ever been is when a women like Erika walks in to a room. Extreme hotness factor at work.

meci on May 2, 2013 at 1:47 PM

The “environmental movement” is about Communism. I generalize quite broadly for to make a point here but, essentially, the various orgs that define that “movement” are, indeed, all about Big Government, Limited Rights for the Individual, More Taxes, Less Keeping What You Make and More Regulations, Less Private Property. I call that Communism.

And the Sierra Club, for example here, has come out with their predictable statement advocating “immigration reform,” read amnesty for illegal aliens.

Be careful when they try to hook you in with their pleas about polar bears, recycling and all the poor fish who are feeling pain so you should stop eating them. These orgs are actually just catching hapless human beings in wide nets for purposes of advocating for Far Left Government.

Lourdes on May 2, 2013 at 1:47 PM

“Denier” is offensive.

Ben Hur on May 2, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Meh.

There are lots of “deniers” out there.

The deniers of the existence of God are particularly celebrated in many communities, even here at HA.

(I refer of course to a certain much-beloved beta male blogger in these here parts…)

Bruno Strozek on May 2, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Meh.

There are lots of “deniers” out there.

The deniers of the existence of God are particularly celebrated in many communities, even here at HA.

(I refer of course to a certain much-beloved beta male blogger in these here parts…)

Bruno Strozek on May 2, 2013 at 1:48 PM

It’s pretty clear what the intention is.

Ben Hur on May 2, 2013 at 1:49 PM

BAM!!!

Anyone know if there are enough $$$$$ from businesses to buy Rubio’s support for Global Warming Carbon Tax setup?

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/02/rubio-admits-gang-of-8-bill-border-security-provisions-are-weak/

Yesterday in an interview on Mike Gallagher’s syndicated radio show, Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio admitted that the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill likely isn’t going to pass the House in its current form given widespread skepticism about the federal government’s ability and willingness to enforce federal laws.

A day later on Sean Hannity’s radio show, Rubio elaborated further, saying that rhetoric coming from the Obama administrations was doing little to mitigate this skepticism.

“I don’t disagree with that being a major problem,” Rubio said. “And I would say that’s the single biggest impediment to getting anything done on this — that people just don’t trust the government. So here’s what I’m hearing from people, to be honest. What I’m hearing from people is, ‘Look, we understand there’s 11 million people here. We’re not going to round them all out and deport them. We understand that, but we’re not going to do anything if we can’t ensure that we don’t have 11 million more right behind them to come illegally.’”

He knows THIS IS A TRUCKLOAD OF SHINOLA.

PappyD61 on May 2, 2013 at 1:51 PM

“Denying climate change is dangerous”

That’s hatespeech by the Left.

Lourdes on May 2, 2013 at 1:52 PM

Not getting how this is “non-economic”.

Chickyraptor on May 2, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Omaha, Neb., Mason City, Iowa, and Rochester, Minn., are but only several cities that have been clobbered by their biggest May snowfall on record. In many cases in the major cities in the Plains, those records date back to the 1800s.

J_Crater on May 2, 2013 at 1:56 PM

So this is a pro-Republican ad?

NotCoach on May 2, 2013 at 1:57 PM

I want global warming to occur. I’d prefer a wider variety of hookers on the streets.

madmonkphotog on May 2, 2013 at 1:58 PM

When I was growing up in the ’50s and ’60s, I remember the adults were all worried about climate change. Back then, they called it, “the weather.”

Is it surprising to anyone that Obama’s group is a pack of lying marxists? The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

Adjoran on May 2, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Goebbels smiles

Schadenfreude on May 2, 2013 at 1:58 PM

“I don’t disagree with that being a major problem,” Rubio said. “And I would say that’s the single biggest impediment to getting anything done on this — that people just don’t trust the government. So here’s what I’m hearing from people, to be honest. What I’m hearing from people is, ‘Look, we understand there’s 11 million people here. We’re not going to round them all out and deport them. We understand that, but we’re not going to do anything if we can’t ensure that we don’t have 11 million more right behind them to come illegally.’”

He knows THIS IS A TRUCKLOAD OF SHINOLA.

PappyD61 on May 2, 2013 at 1:51 PM

I agree it’s “SHINOLA” but Rubio’s taken the or his liability in his ideas and plastered it onto “the bad citizen” or “the incompetent/difficult citizen” model, which is low down and awful.

Most of us, based on experience, “don’t trust the government” TO ENFORCE OUR LAWS, including deportations when they’re legally called for. Based on experience, we know that Congress underfunds Border Patrol and handicaps ICE if not renders them handicapped at enforcement effectiveness.

So Rubio has taken that realistic point made countless times by citizens and tried to make it out to be that that point of view is somehow untrustworthy, or, that held by “the problematic citizens”.

Lourdes on May 2, 2013 at 1:58 PM

The “environmental movement” is about Communism.

Then it’s funny how truly communist countries have no environmental movement. Try taking a jog in Beijing or Shanghai and you’ll come to appreciate how no real environmental protections enhance your personal freedom.

bayam on May 2, 2013 at 1:58 PM

PappyD61 on May 2, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Yes… and, as it happens, I have the plan he claims he’s been asking for to secure the border.

It won’t cost the nation much at all, either.

Enforce the law.

No benefits for illegal aliens of any stripe, ethnicity, or nationality. Full E-verify for all employers with stiff prison sentences for violators. National biometric ID. No automatic birthright citizenship for the children of foreign citizens. Prison sentences for those who choose to shatter federal immigration law.

thatsafactjack on May 2, 2013 at 2:00 PM

The trolls have been quiet on this issue for awhile, but with OFA making an ad to promote Republicans sensible approach to Gorebal warming I wonder if they have gotten their new talking points yet. Let’s see what happens in this thread.

NotCoach on May 2, 2013 at 2:00 PM

So this is a pro-Republican ad?

NotCoach on May 2, 2013 at 1:57 PM

You beat me to it. Seriously, with just a little bit of editing (and not very much), this is a great ad for the GOP.

Chris of Rights on May 2, 2013 at 2:00 PM

Snake Oil 2.0

–bayam

tom daschle concerned on May 2, 2013 at 2:01 PM

It’s been decades since we’ve seen a drought this severe?

Maybe we need to handle global warming now the same way we did back then.

BlueCollarAstronaut on May 2, 2013 at 2:02 PM

Then it’s funny how truly communist countries have no environmental movement. Try taking a jog in Beijing or Shanghai and you’ll come to appreciate how no real environmental protections enhance your personal freedom.

bayam on May 2, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Of course not. The people in those countries are already enslaved by the state. They don’t need a program to promote more government control because the government already controls all. Are you a college graduate? Did you major in obtuseness by chance?

NotCoach on May 2, 2013 at 2:02 PM

Hmmmm, why the need to aim ads at groups who are supposedly supportive of 0bama? Polls wouldn’t, you know, be showing a falling-away of support, now would they?

Sekhmet on May 2, 2013 at 2:03 PM

bayam on May 2, 2013 at 1:58 PM

You equate people not buying into the ‘Climate Change’ hysteria with “no real environmental protections”.

I saw your rants on the threads yesterday. You really are hysterical.

thatsafactjack on May 2, 2013 at 2:03 PM

It’ll always be “global warming” to me and my only interest in it is when the prosecutions take place for the frauds pushing it with feral government money stolen from me and the politicians destroying our economy and industry for it.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 2, 2013 at 1:27 PM

And for some of us, it will always be “the coming New Ice Age.” Wrong every time.

Or as C. S. Lewis put it in a different context: “That which is not eternal is eternally out of date.”

de rigueur on May 2, 2013 at 2:04 PM

Then it’s funny how truly communist countries have no environmental movement.

bayam on May 2, 2013 at 1:58 PM

You’re correct. Screwing up Western economies via environmentalism is mostly a Western limousine leftist scheme to reduce the West to the sad state of real commie countries. Human-hating environmentalism is pretty much a useful, nihilistic idiot tool. But, you knew that. Intimately.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 2, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Then it’s funny how truly communist countries have no environmental movement. Try taking a jog in Beijing or Shanghai and you’ll come to appreciate how no real environmental protections enhance your personal freedom.

bayam on May 2, 2013 at 1:58 PM

As always, leftist are ignorant of the phrase: ends justify the means.

Environmentalism, like all other progressive policies, is just a means to communism, and will be discarded after the state wins out (and its supporters summarily killed).

nobar on May 2, 2013 at 2:05 PM

And for some of us, it will always be “the coming New Ice Age.” Wrong every time.

Or as C. S. Lewis put it in a different context: “That which is not eternal is eternally out of date.”

de rigueur on May 2, 2013 at 2:04 PM

The best part is the left’s screams of CATASTROPHIC MAN_MADE GLOBAL COOLING!!! and CATASTROPHIC MAN_MADE GLOBAL WARMING!! were both based on burning the same fossil fuels! Funny how that works.

BTW, it’s pretty clear from the Vostok Ice Cores (the favorite “evidence” of the lunatic, nihilistic left) that the climate is seriously periodic, that we are at a local peak, characterized (historically) by high volatility, and about to head into a serious 8-10 centigrade freezing over the next millenium or two. If only Anthropogenic Global Warming were true it might save us …

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 2, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Organizing For A–holes

J_Crater on May 2, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Then it’s funny how truly communist countries have no environmental movement. Try taking a jog in Beijing or Shanghai and you’ll come to appreciate how no real environmental protections enhance your personal freedom.

bayam on May 2, 2013 at 1:58 PM

A cogent observation. However environmentalism is about socialism/communism. Thus the Green Party. Global Warming/climate change/climate disruption/irritable clime syndrome are the vehicle intended to get us to that socialist utopia. Environmentalism will fall apart if/when we get there.

iurockhead on May 2, 2013 at 2:10 PM

A cogent observation. However environmentalism is about socialism/communism. Thus the Green Party. Global Warming/climate change/climate disruption/irritable clime syndrome are the vehicle intended to get us to that socialist utopia. Environmentalism will fall apart if/when we get there.

iurockhead on May 2, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Maybe we should ask the His Obtuseness why unions are illegal in communist countries as well.

NotCoach on May 2, 2013 at 2:12 PM

The climate hasn’t budged in a decade and a half. The science is settled.

crrr6 on May 2, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Then it’s funny how truly communist countries have no environmental movement.

bayam on May 2, 2013 at 1:58 PM

They had their run with Lysenkosim. Luddites are a western phenomena. Environmentalist Luddites a decadent western phenomenon.

de rigueur on May 2, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Here’s my question for the Bayam’s of the world: If “Global Warming” is passé now in favor of “Climate Change”: What, exactly, and how, are humans “changing the climate?” The only thing I ever see is “Moar Carbon is changing the climate!!!” Soooo… isn’t that global warming? How is more carbon dioxide not warming the planet? If the theory is correct, of course. How did we get from global warming to climate change, and what is humanity doing to offset all that global warming from our carbon dioxide?

Since we all know that global temperatures haven’t skyrocketed.

Vanceone on May 2, 2013 at 2:17 PM

The supposed ‘consensus’ — the often quoted 97% consensus is a cooked-up number based on a subset of 75 out of 77 scientists, OUT OF THE ORIGINAL 10,257 Earth scientists surveyed.

There is no ‘scientific consensus’ that human activity is causing global warming, that is another bald faced lie by climate alarmists.

Axion on May 2, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Then it’s funny how truly communist countries have no environmental movement. Try taking a jog in Beijing or Shanghai and you’ll come to appreciate how no real environmental protections enhance your personal freedom.

bayam on May 2, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Communist countries already have the mechanisms in place for divesting wealth from the makers, so they don’t need the pretext of “saving the world” to dupe people into their redistributive schemes.

crrr6 on May 2, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Yeah, seriously – why aren’t folks able to be charged with fraud for falsifying data in order to get/keep government funding?

Where there’s evidence of it – and there is ample evidence – why are these people not charged/arrested/etc?

Midas on May 2, 2013 at 2:23 PM

If climate change legislation couldn’t pass in 2009, I think we’re safe from it for a while.

So I hope OfA keeps pi$$ing their money away chasing this fantasy.

22044 on May 2, 2013 at 2:26 PM

If climate change legislation couldn’t pass in 2009, I think we’re safe from it for a while.

So I hope OfA keeps pi$$ing their money away chasing this fantasy.

22044 on May 2, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Very true. If red state Dems are worried about passing gun background checks, passing a new tax on air would to be like running into cannon fire.

crrr6 on May 2, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Then it’s funny how truly communist countries have no environmental movement. Try taking a jog in Beijing or Shanghai and you’ll come to appreciate how no real environmental protections enhance your personal freedom.

What, do you wake up every morning, chomping at the bit, to display your ignorance? What are you, twelve? Since when is the ROC “truly communist”? I’m pretty damn sure that every sentient adult has, for the last fifty years, recognized the totalitarian regime in China as, at best, a corruptocracy of shifting cliques and familial connections.

M240H on May 2, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Speaking of energy, it looks like the House has introduced legislation to get Keystone up and running. I wonder how many Libs will vote against it.

H.R.3,Northern Route Approval Act

As ordered reported by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on April 17, 2013

H.R. 3 would specify various procedures pertaining to federal review and permitting of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would be constructed by a private company to carry crude oil from Alberta, Canada, to destinations on the U.S. Gulf Coast. In particular, the bill would exempt the proposed project, which would cross international borders, from the existing requirement to obtain a Presidential permit. In addition, H.R. 3 would deem various actions by federal agencies involved with permitting decisions related to the proposed pipeline to be satisfied and certain federal permits to be granted.

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 3 would have no significant impact on the federal budget. Based on information from affected agencies, CBO estimates that the proposed changes to administrative procedures would not significantly affect federal spending for such activities relative to current law. The bill would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.

Patriot Vet on May 2, 2013 at 2:38 PM

I remember when the scientific consensus was that we had 9 planets.

Lily on May 2, 2013 at 2:48 PM

The representative who talked about the Vikings settling Greenland was right–they did settle Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period (AD 1000 to 1320) when Greenland’s climate was warmer than today.

The whole idea of blaming Hurricane Sandy on “global warming” is ludicrous. A few days before Sandy hit New Jersey, when it was still over Jamaica, meteorologists at the Weather Channel said that a COLD air mass over the North Atlantic would cuase Sandy to move toward the coast. After Sandy moved inland, it caused heavy snow in West Virginia–in October. Shall we play that back in an ad?

Somebody needs to make an ad showing a clip from Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”, where he shows a map of Florida after a 20-foot sea-level rise, then say, “If current trends continue, this might happen in 3,000 years, and then again it might not. Do YOU need to worry about it?”

Or how about an ad showing clips of meteorologists reporting on the numerous heavy snowstorms of the winter of 2012-13 (with dates indicated), followed by a voice over, “These scientists are too cold to believe in global warming. Do you believe in global warming, or do your believe your eyes and frozen hands and feet?”

Steve Z on May 2, 2013 at 2:49 PM

Alt Headline: Lying Sycophants Tell Lies – AGAIN!

mojo on May 2, 2013 at 2:57 PM

The representative who talked about the Vikings settling Greenland was right–they did settle Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period (AD 1000 to 1320) when Greenland’s climate was warmer than today.

Steve Z on May 2, 2013 at 2:49 PM

And farmed there, no less. It wasn’t named Greenland because it was discovered by someone named Green.

When Greenland is green again, I’ll concede that maybe it’s time to start worrying about global warming.

And not one second sooner.

Chris of Rights on May 2, 2013 at 3:02 PM

‘By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people…If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.’

- Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, 1971

He was right about the poverty; wrong about the cause (and everything else). The environment had nothing to do with it…except that the Cult of Gaia is part of the Labour coalition, which did, in fact, bankrupt the country.

I only wish that he would have made that bet…in euros.

Resist We Much on May 2, 2013 at 3:11 PM

I’ll bet the evening news shows will be full of the hundreds of high temperature records that are being set today.

Wait… they are record lows? Okay, how about we just forget about that bet? After all, record cold is just weather.

drunyan8315 on May 2, 2013 at 3:23 PM

Didn’t Al Gore claim that the Arctic Ocean would be ice-free by the summer of 2013? How many years from now is that, Al?

drunyan8315 on May 2, 2013 at 3:25 PM

I only wish that he would have made that bet…in euros.

Resist We Much on May 2, 2013 at 3:11 PM

I left out…

…if euros would have been in existence.

Resist We Much on May 2, 2013 at 3:28 PM

I remember when the scientific consensus was that we had 9 planets.

Lily on May 2, 2013 at 2:48 PM

I remember when plate tectonics was new-fangled geology. Everybody knew that geosynclines were responsible for lithospheric orogeny.

de rigueur on May 2, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Didn’t Al Gore claim that the Arctic Ocean would be ice-free by the summer of 2013? How many years from now is that, Al?

drunyan8315 on May 2, 2013 at 3:25 PM

That’s not funny. He sold me some prime beach-front property in the Northwest Territories. Had to trade him some very valuable shares in my bridge in Brooklyn.

de rigueur on May 2, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Resist We Much on May 2, 2013 at 3:11 PM

And for some reason, these same frauds keep popping up as ‘experts’ on the topic, flogging the same nonsense – and keep getting paid and respected to continue committing fraud. Seriously, am I missing something? The intentional fabrication and publishing of fraudulent data, with at least one of the goals being an on-going receipt of money they wouldn’t get otherwise… is this *not* fraud? Is this *not* a criminal act?

The guy on the corner in a robe, sandals, unwashed stringy hair and beard holding a ‘THE END IS NEAR!’ sign has more credibility than this bastards.

Midas on May 2, 2013 at 3:43 PM

I remember when the scientific consensus was that we had 9 planets.

Lily on May 2, 2013 at 2:48 PM

… or that the Earth was flat…
… or that the Earth was the center of the solar system…
… or that flies spontaneously formed from piles of rubbish…
… or that you could build a bridge out of a witch (she turned me into a newt! Okay, this one was just my silly side speaking, sorry)…
… or that we were suffering from a global COOLING wave and the planet would be frozen (brought to us by the *same* people hyping global warming, er I mean climate change today)…

Bah.

Midas on May 2, 2013 at 3:47 PM

When Greenland is green again, I’ll concede that maybe it’s time to start worrying about global warming.

And not one second sooner.

Chris of Rights on May 2, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Not even then.
Were all of the currently populated coastlines around the world under 20 feet of water during that time? I don’t think so.
Which means the AGW propaganda about rising sea levels due to that level of warming are also false – further debunking their hoax.

dentarthurdent on May 2, 2013 at 3:50 PM

The supposed ‘consensus’ — the often quoted 97% consensus is a cooked-up number based on a subset of 75 out of 77 scientists, OUT OF THE ORIGINAL 10,257 Earth scientists surveyed.

There is no ‘scientific consensus’ that human activity is causing global warming, that is another bald faced lie by climate alarmists.

Axion on May 2, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Fat Al’s claims of ‘consensus’ were originally based on the IPCC reports, and the reports didn’t tell us how many of those with purview agreed with the conclusions presented. Those who disagreed with the conclusions and who later spoke up estimated the agreement at around 60%.

The way Fat Al and the warmist community use ‘consensus’, it means nothing more than a simple majority.

slickwillie2001 on May 2, 2013 at 4:11 PM

Fat Al’s claims of ‘consensus’ were originally based on the IPCC reports, and the reports didn’t tell us how many of those with purview agreed with the conclusions presented. Those who disagreed with the conclusions and who later spoke up estimated the agreement at around 60%.

The way Fat Al and the warmist community use ‘consensus’, it means nothing more than a simple majority.

slickwillie2001 on May 2, 2013 at 4:11 PM

Yep… here’s a pretty good video on some of the deceptions and manipulations of the data and peer-review by the IPCC and other Warmists fanatics.

A Peer-Reviewed Deception

Axion on May 2, 2013 at 4:28 PM

… or that you could build a bridge out of a witch (she turned me into a newt! Okay, this one was just my silly side speaking, sorry)

Midas on May 2, 2013 at 3:47 PM

I got better….

runawayyyy on May 2, 2013 at 4:40 PM

Climate not following scientific predictions; WH blames GOP.

BobMbx on May 2, 2013 at 5:13 PM

What morons! A changing climate is a normal part of decades long weather patterns.

I don’t ignore it. I just don’t panic. I mean, after all, these nuts probably voted for hope and change.

EB

EdmundBurke247 on May 2, 2013 at 11:20 PM

Let Me C……

The Science is SETTLED on Man Made Global Warm’n…..

But Not Settled on when LIFE Begins…..

Bwahahahahahahaha

ooooohhhhh……THAT”S RICH

roflmmfao

donabernathy on May 3, 2013 at 5:37 AM