Anthropogenic Global Warming 101

Heretic wrote:

That is, we could make smart decisions in order to save lives, if the "pro-life" GOP would stop getting in the way.

Yeah. Well don't hold your breath.  

Cruz to CNN: Global warming not supported by data

Quote :

Climate change, as they have defined it, can never be disproved, because whether it gets hotter or whether it gets colder, whatever happens, they'll say, well, it's changing, so it proves our theory, Cruz said.

Quote :

I am always troubled by a theory that fits every perfect situation. You know, back in the '70s - I remember the '70s, we were told there was global cooling. And everyone was told global cooling was a really big problem. And then that faded. And then we were told by Al Gore and others there was global warming and that was going to be a big problem. And then it morphed. It wasn't global warming anymore, it became climate change. And the problem with climate change is there's never been a day in the history of the world in which the climate is not changing," said Cruz.

Cruz sounds like a fucking parody of a climate change denier...Colbert could have said this stuff.

Yeah, just in the past week, the standard denier fare has gone into overdrive, due I'm sure to the weather.



It's cold over 2% of the world, therefore, NO WARMING ANYWHERE!  Again, I can't tell if the GOP is really that stupid, or they just don't give a fuck, laughing their way to the bank on the backs of their children 'cause they know their base really is  that stupid.  Phil Plait over at the Bad Astronomy blog has an interesting collection of this weeks losers.

Bill Nye, after thrashing Ken Ham in a debate on evolution, took on AGW denier Marsha Blackburn:



As always, easy to highlight how similar AGW denial is to creationism.  They've seriously lost their goddamned mind.

You'll notice that they always refer to it as a debate,to make it sound as if their claims are credible.

The members of the mainstream media seem to be as well informed about science as they are  about guns.



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/19/cnns-dumbest-news-question-evar/

CNN’s dumbest news question, ever

Posted on March 19, 2014 by Anthony Watts

And we thought this one was bad:  

CNN talking empty head (Feyerick) asks Bill Nye if approaching Meteor was a result of global warming….
OK that set the stage, what could be dumber than that? Now study the picture below, and ask yourself, what’s wrong with this picture? Note the plane, a Boeing 777.


And here is what was said:

CNN’s Don Lemon has been entertaining all sorts of theories about the missing Malaysian Airlines Flight 370, including the chance something “supernatural” happened, but on Wednesday night, he actually asked panelists about the possibility a black hole was involved.
Lemon brought this up along with other “conspiracy theories” people have been floating on Twitter, including people noting the eerie parallels to Lostand The Twilight Zone, and wondered, “is it preposterous” to consider a black hole as a possibility?
Source: Mediaite (click for video)
I wonder how many B.S. detectors went off globally at that moment.
Now, I’ve seen everything. Remember this the next time one of these idiots discusses the science of global warming.


http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-don-lemon-is-it-preposterous-to-think-a-black-hole-caused-flight-370-to-go-missing/

CNN’s Don Lemon: ‘Is It Preposterous’ to Think a Black Hole Caused Flight 370 to Go Missing?
by Josh Feldman | 11:31 pm, March 19th, 2014VID

Mary Schiavo, a former Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Transportation, said, “A small black hole would suck in our entire universe, so we know it’s not that.”

A post on accuracy in science reporting from Anthony Watts. Delicious.

happy jack wrote:

Regardless of who reports on it, Mr. Lemon's statement is no less idiotic.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Regardless of who reports on it, Mr. Lemon's statement is no less idiotic.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

Too bad Captain Obvious is too stupid to realize that Lemon was referring to "conspiracy theories". Only a right-wing moron would make the assumption that he was serious.When there's no breaking news to report cable shows need ways to fill time.

If ya can't beat 'em, shut 'em up.
Should be fun to watch.



http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376574/climate-inquisitor-charles-c-w-cooke/page/0/1

APRIL 28, 2014 4:00 AM

The Climate Inquisitor

From the May 5, 2014, issue of NR
By Charles C. W. Cooke


‘Everyone is in favor of free speech,” Winston Churchill once wrote. “Hardly a day passes without its being extolled.” And yet, he added dryly, “some people’s idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.”
This aphorism, generally applicable as it is, could easily have been issued to describe the attitude of one Michael E. Mann, a climate scientist and opponent of free inquiry who is currently suing NATIONAL REVIEW for libel.
Advertisement
Mann, a professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, rose to prominence for his “hockey stick,” a graph that purports to depict global temperature trends between the years a.d. 1000 and 2000. The graph takes its name from its shape, which shows a mostly flat line of temperature datafrom the year 1000 until about 1900 (the handle of the hockey stick), followed by a sharp uptick over the 20th century (the blade). Based on this graph and related research, Mann has built a noisy public career sounding the alarm over global warming — a plague, he argues, that has been visited upon the Earth as a result of mankind’s sinful penchant for fossil fuels.
In the course of his evangelizing, Mann has shown little tolerance for heretics. A recent op-ed he penned for the New York Times is illustrative. “If You See Something, Say Something,” the headline blares, mimicking New York subway warnings and suggesting a not-so-subtle parallel between the dangers of global-warming “denial” and the murderous terrorism that brought down the Twin Towers. In the opening paragraph of the piece, Mann castigates his critics as “a fringe minority of our populace” who “cling[] to an irrational rejection of well-established science.” These aristarchs, Mann contends, represent a “virulent strain of anti-science [that] infects the halls of Congress, the pages of leading newspapers and what we see on TV, leading to the appearance of a debate where none should exist.” Alas, such comparisons are commonplace. In the rough and tumble of debate, climate-change skeptics are routinely recast as climate-change deniers, an insidious echo of the phrase “Holocaust deniers” and one that has been contrived with no purpose other than to exclude the speaker from polite society.
Secure as he appears to be in his convictions, Mann has nonetheless taken it upon himself to try to suppress debate and to silence some of the “irrational” and “virulent” critics, who he claims have nothing of substance to say. To this end, Mann has filed a lawsuit against NATIONAL REVIEW. Our offense? Daring to publish commentary critical of his hockey-stick graph and disapproving of his hectoring mien.
Ostensibly, Mann’s litigation against NATIONAL REVIEW is the product of a blog postwritten by Mark Steyn back in 2012, in which Steyn provided commentary on a separate article (written by Rand Simberg and published on the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s blog) that had drawn a crude analogy between Mann and Jerry Sandusky, the convicted child molester and former assistant football coach at Mann’s employer, Penn State. Steyn quoted a passage in which Simberg had stated, “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.” Distancing himself from the Sandusky analogy, Steyn averred that he was “not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr. Simberg does.” “But,” Steyn continued, “he has a point.” After all, “Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey-stick’ graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus.” (This “tree-ring” remark refers to Mann’s reliance on controversial “proxy” data to gauge historical temperatures — about which more below.)
Shortly after the publication of Steyn’s post, Mann’s lawyer sent NATIONAL REVIEWa letter, demanding a public apology and a retraction. NATIONAL REVIEW responded to the missive with the reminder that the blog post was “fully protected under the First Amendment” and, later, NATIONAL REVIEW’s editor, Richard Lowry, invited Mann to “get lost” and to “go away and bother someone else.” In Lowry’s view, Mann’s threat to submit Steyn’s commentary to judicial resolution under the libel laws was nothing short of preposterous. Steyn’s disagreement, Lowry argued, was with the validity of Mann’s scientific work — his words serving as a contribution to the question of whether Mann’s statistical methods and his reliance on “proxy” data give a valid picture of historical temperature trends, or instead his work is flawed, false, and misleading. As Lowry put it, “In common polemical usage, ‘fraudulent’ doesn’t mean honest-to-goodness criminal fraud. It means intellectually bogus and wrong.” In a free and open society, the correct way to respond to the accusation that one’s work is “intellectually bogus and wrong” is to attempt a rebuttal, not to file a lawsuit. NATIONAL REVIEW stands on the side of free and open society.
Evidently, Mann does not. True to his threats, he filed suit in D.C. Superior Court against Steyn andNATIONAL REVIEW (along with both the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Rand Simberg), alleging libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Per the complaint, both Steyn and Lowry’s writings, which were published on NATIONAL REVIEW Online, are unlawfully defamatory because they “tend[] to injure Dr. Mann in his profession because [they] falsely impute[] to Dr. Mann academic corruption, fraud and deceit as well as the commission of a criminal offense, in a manner injurious to the reputation and esteem of Dr. Mann professionally, locally, nationally, and globally.”
More specifically, it charges that, “in making the defamatory statement, [NATIONAL REVIEW] and Steyn acted intentionally, maliciously, willfully, and with the intent to injure Dr. Mann, or to benefit [NATIONAL REVIEW] and Steyn.” In other words, it charges that all of the critics Mann is suing are guilty of the narrow form of libel that American law prohibits. It has made no difference that NATIONAL REVIEW has made abundantly clear that, “in common polemical usage, ‘fraudulent’ doesn’t mean honest-to-goodness criminal fraud,” but instead means “intellectually bogus and wrong.” Incredibly, Mann’s complaint contends that the phrase “intellectually bogus” itself is legally actionable. Mann’s feelings have been hurt, the theory appears to go, so his critics’ words must have been illegal.
………

happy jack wrote:

If ya can't beat 'em, shut 'em up.

Two things.  

A)  Libel suits have nothing at all to do with censorship.

B)  What argument/evidence did Steyn use in refuting Mann and his work that you found "unbeatable"?  

But anyway, glad you're finally catching up to "current" events. And reading Artie's posts.  

happy jack wrote:

If Mr. Mann had used the power of the government to prevent the personnel of National Review from publishing something that hurt his feelings, that would be censorship.

I know.  It's why your previous post didn't make any sense.

happy jack wrote:

But he is merely attempting to use the power of the government to punish them for and to make them retract something published by them that happened to hurt his feelings.

They openly accused him of fraud, a definitive, provable falsehood.  So you're against the legal concept of libel too, huh?  But you actually read the National Review, so it's no wonder you're rallying to their defense of lying without consequence.  Especially now that they told you to.

I wrote:

B) What argument/evidence did Steyn use in refuting Mann and his work that you found "unbeatable"?

happy jack wrote:

If, as you say, it's "provable", then Mr. Mann should have an airtight case.
Or not.

Exactly.  Which is why it should have gone to trial over a year ago, but Steyn and the National Review have been dragging their feet, hoping Mann drops it first.

Seriously, are you not familiar with this case at all?

Mann first asked them to remove only their specific accusations.  They refused.  Then he brought the suit back in 2012.  It was the National Review and Steyn who tried to have it dismissed, saying it was all exaggerations and hyperbole and therefore acceptable, rather than rushing to expose Mann as the fraud they think he is.  The judge said no, since fraud's real they should have no problem backing up their claims.  That was in July of 2013.  The science community's been waiting, because they're not worried.  Since then, the Review and Steyn have been going through appeal after appeal trying to have it dismissed (more importantly, avoid discovery), but no one's buying their bullshit.  Now we've got a new judge, the National Review has new lawyers and Steyn's representing himself, who openly acknowledged the National Review is avoiding taking Mann head on.  

Hardly the scenario you believe it to be.  Rather than rushing to the light as quickly as possible, they, like most skeptics when confronted, are quick to avoid a factually based discussion of science.  Like so:

I wrote:

B) What argument/evidence did Steyn use in refuting Mann and his work that you found "unbeatable"?

happy jack wrote:

. . .

Then what did you mean by this:

happy jack wrote:

If ya can't beat 'em, shut 'em up.

Who can't beat who and who is being censored?

happy jack wrote:

As I said in my previous post, I don't know if anyone has been 'beaten'.

I understood that. I'm trying to figure out who the "ya" was referring to, but you seem unwilling or unable to answer.

happy jack wrote:

And no one has been censored - yet.

Nor will they, since this is a libel lawsuit, and therefore as nothing to do with censorship.

happy jack wrote:

That's why I said it should be fun to watch.

You did, but I can't figure out why. I know why Artie and I will enjoy it so much; we always love watching conservatives get publicly trounced after they're called on their bullshit. Do you too? Are you finally beginning to hold the conservative echo chamber to slightly higher journalistic standards?

Climate change lawsuits filed against some 200 US communities

Quote :

A major insurance company is accusing dozens of localities in Illinois of failing to prepare for severe rains and flooding in lawsuits that are the first in what could be a wave of litigation over who should be liable for the possible costs of climate change.

Farmers Insurance filed nine class actions last month against nearly 200 communities in the Chicago area. It is arguing that local governments should have known rising global temperatures would lead to heavier rains and did not do enough to fortify their sewers and stormwater drains.

The legal debate may center on whether an uptick in natural disasters is foreseeable or an "act of God." The cases raise the question of how city governments should manage their budgets before costly emergencies occur.

The biggest coming economic showdown you haven’t heard of

Quote :

This is the first ever lawsuit of its kind, but it will not be the last. The insurance industry is not going to do down with a sinking ship, and communities are obviously not going to go without insurance. Nor can the federal government realistically afford to singlehandedly cover the cost of repairing the damage from every increasingly severe wildfire, hurricane, drought, tornado, flood or snowstorm.

. . .

Something is going to give. If the insurance industry gets serious enough to put enough of its money up to challenge the fossil fuel barons, we might even see some Republicans start to see the light on climate change. Probably not, but one can always hope.

The problem with denial is that the bills still have to be paid.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/20/pat-sajak-climate-change_n_5358656.html?&ir=Technology&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000046

Pat Sajak Says People Concerned About Climate Change Are 'Unpatriotic Racists'

The Huffington Post  | by  James Gerken
Posted: 05/20/2014 1:45 pm EDT Updated: 05/21/2014 12:59 pm EDT

"Wheel of Fortune" host Pat Sajak is very active on Twitter. Among other topics, he tweets about climate change. A lot.
His latest tweet on the subject on Monday evening prompted dozens of replies:

@patsajak
Follow
I now believe global warming alarmists are unpatriotic racists knowingly misleading for their own ends. Good night.
9:38 PM - 19 May 2014

It's unclear what prompted Sajak's latest tweet deeming those who acknowledge climate change are "racists," but the guy who watches people spin wheels for a living frequently tweets about global warming.



Unclear what prompted Sajak's tweet?
Unclear only to those who are too stupid and arrogant to figure out that Sajak’s statement is nothing more than a parody of themselves and the things they say about anyone who disagrees with them on any topic, much less global warming ....or cooling .... or climate change .... or whatever the hell we're calling it today.
Too damn funny.

Sajak's been a denier for years. Someone, Robin or tiger I think, laughably cited him in the thread on one of the previous forums years ago, though it was slightly less senile than his most recent one.