Limbaugh Distorts Numbers To Downplay Global Warming Science
Limbaugh Distorts Numbers To Downplay Global Warming Science
Rush Limbaugh, last Friday:
I read something the other day that says in the last four years, surface temperatures on average have not gone up. They’ve gone down one-tenth of a degree Celsius. If they’re trending anywhere, they’re trending down the last four years.
NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 1/24/06:
The year 2005 was the warmest year in over a century, according to NASA scientists studying temperature data from around the world. …
The result indicates that a strong underlying warming trend is continuing. Global warming since the middle 1970s is now about 0.6 degrees Celsius (C) or about 1 degree Fahrenheit (F). Total warming in the past century is about 0.8° C or about 1.4° F.
“The five warmest years over the last century occurred in the last eight years,” said James Hansen, director of NASA GISS. They stack up as follows: the warmest was 2005, then 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004.
Rush may not like the scientific facts, but he’s not entitled to create his own.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
This is your brain on drugs.
July 9th, 2006 at 7:35 pmLimp-baugh is banking on a global warming pill to solve everything.
July 9th, 2006 at 7:35 pmGuess Viagra cuts off the flow to the brain in order to redirect it to the useless organ… Probably, therefore, not smart to talk while using.
July 9th, 2006 at 7:38 pmI was in London in late August 1998. It was like 96 degrees. It’s usually more like 76. And 2005 saw record deaths from heatwaves across the Northern Hemisphere.
How does the Limp-noodle explain stuff like that?
July 9th, 2006 at 7:41 pmI hear that Orin Hatch, that stalwart senator from, what is it, Utah?, accepted a 40K donation from a convicted drug dealer. All he had to do was to contact his friends in Dubai and ask them to please, please, show some compassion and let the culprit go.
They did. And this guy aspires to the grand bench?
July 9th, 2006 at 7:45 pmExcellent, #2 Laszlo Panaflex.
July 9th, 2006 at 7:48 pmLimp-baugh is banking on a global warming pill to solve everything.
Comment by Laszlo Panaflex — July 9, 2006 @ 7:35 pm
Brilliant.
July 9th, 2006 at 7:51 pm#8 Everyone ignore her, please.
July 9th, 2006 at 7:55 pmGlobal mean temps since 2000:
2000: 0.291
2001: 0.423
2002: 0.475
2003: 0.477
2004: 0.458
2005: 0.485
Rush Limbaugh is indeed wrong about that.
July 9th, 2006 at 7:56 pmHowever, the United States has only gone up 0.13 C over the last 10 years.
Spend a whole 3 hours with Rush’s radio show some day. You’ll be absolutely astounded at how often his memory calls up a false fact or an event that never occurred. He reconfigures reality on-the-fly, in real-time.
Of course he knows his audience will never fact-check him. As long as he says whatever he feels like saying, with a sense of absolute conviction, they will continue to smile inwardly at how wise and enlightened they are while they shuffle to the polls to vote for their own demise.
If the bobos ever figure out that Rush has led them, skipping, to the abbatoir, his only hope is that the Golden EIB microphone feels better being yanked out than it does getting shoved in.
July 9th, 2006 at 8:00 pmSeixon, if those numbers are right, that’s an alarming spike in five years.
July 9th, 2006 at 8:00 pmThe problem with those absorbed with post modern progressives is the notion that history is utterly forgettable….(to be rewritten using the tenets of THEIR sociopathic “faithâ€, THEIR mistakes to make over and over again, THEM, THEM THEM…..genocidal….)
July 9th, 2006 at 8:01 pm“Rove made a faux pas that drew a few titters when he said, in the course of telling an anecdote that harkened to his own hardscrabble immigrant heritage as a Norwegian-American (who knew?), he revealed that there is a little known and, he said, rarely used library in the White House. That, at least, rang very true.”
sEiXXON?
July 9th, 2006 at 8:04 pmThe problem with righties is they go to left leaning blogs and try to piss off lefties by leaving hateful comments.
July 9th, 2006 at 8:08 pmAnd they swallow everything uttered by Rove, Bush, O’Reilly and Limbaugh without question. Mindless sheep.
The only thing “trending down” the past four years is Rush Limpball’s sexual virility.
July 9th, 2006 at 8:09 pmJack,
Seixon, if those numbers are right, that’s an alarming spike in five years.
Hmmm, sure, if you ignore the five years prior:
1995: 0.373
1996: 0.227
1997: 0.411
1998: 0.58
1999: 0.34
2005 was not the warmest year of the past century, 1998 was. 2005 was the warmest year in the Northern Hemisphere, a fact that Al Gore left out of his movie.
July 9th, 2006 at 8:10 pm*THE TREND IS UP* , unlike Rush who is limp and trending downward,sell,sell,sell
July 9th, 2006 at 8:11 pmToo add to the penis jokes: The only thing that ISN’T going up is his dick.
July 9th, 2006 at 8:20 pmActually, what is going on here, and any idiot can see it, is that we really should be in an ice age. That’s right, folks, an ice age.
Now folks are blaming global warming on industrialization. That’s industry, to you and me. Captial at work, creating jobs. So the more jobs we create, that’s global warming.
But industrialization can’t be responsible for global warming. Take the winter of 1812 for example. That was in the industrial era. And Napoleon’s Army froze to death in Russia? Why? Was there global warming? No! Industry has nothing to do with it!
Now I know there are some of you who doubt this, but you can look it up. It’s a historical fact, Napoleon’s Army froze in the Russian winter. Now just because they’re French you can’t say global warming caused their demise. And remember, that was before Russia was a communist nation. They had a Czar back then. I don’t remember his name, but you can look it up.
So when you think of global warming, just remember Napoleon. He tried to conquer the world, and so do these global warming nuts. They want to shut down industrialization and take away your jobs. Just remember that when someone talks to you about global warming.
July 9th, 2006 at 8:21 pmThat title should read
July 9th, 2006 at 8:22 pmDrugged Distorted Limbaugh Alters Numbers To Downplay Global Warming Science
Which is funnier?
> Crushed Limp-Balls
> Lush Rim-Job
July 9th, 2006 at 8:25 pmThe problem with righties is they go to left leaning blogs and try to piss off lefties by leaving hateful comments.
The people left in the bush camp are not really righties but dangerous hypocrites and propagandists.
[[In marchWhite House quit posting the "M3" monetary statistic for one]]
July 9th, 2006 at 8:29 pmi have to wonder where sEiXXON gets his data, and why it conflicts with the nasa study?
oh, i forgot. sEiXXON is far superior to all of us.
July 9th, 2006 at 8:30 pmand moderate too. just like all of those liberal-hating moderates you run into.
Flesh Rimjob….
July 9th, 2006 at 8:31 pmThroughout the known history of our planet, ‘warming periods’ between ice ages tend to last about 1,000 years. We are currently 1,200 years past the last Ice Age (the mini-one doesn’t count). Therefore, we are going into unchartered territory with record heat and mammals existing at the same time…
July 9th, 2006 at 8:33 pmClimatologists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City noted that the highest global annual average surface temperature in more than a century was recorded in their analysis for the 2005 calendar year
Seixon is a typical lying ass bush propagandist — every post it makes, even with data, is like truth, truth..then the Lie and the Blame on some Democrat…
It’s really lame seixon..
July 9th, 2006 at 8:35 pmI don’t doubt that #21 represents the scattered, illogical, irrational thinking of most of the so-called global warming skeptics. But if we actually look at the science–for example, the National Academy of Science, we get statements like this: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.”
And this from the science academies of the G8 nations: “The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It
is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions. Action taken now to reduce significantly the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will lessen the magnitude and rate of climate change. As the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) recognises, a lack of full scientific certainty about some aspects of climate change is not a reason for
delaying an immediate response that will, at a reasonable cost, prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”
I don’t see anything about conquering the world and taking your jobs away. I see taking reasonable measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
July 9th, 2006 at 8:36 pmProgressaurus,
Perhaps next time you will ask me kindly what my source is instead of making a big show. My source is: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
More specifically: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ftpdata/tavegl2v.dat
As the BBC reported:
July 9th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
i have to wonder where sEiXXON gets his data…
Comment by Progressaurus Rex
Um… his ass?
July 9th, 2006 at 8:38 pmfact that Al Gore left out of his movie.
Sexless, I mean err seixon went thru all that trouble, all that crap, just to say this above.
Isn’t that just about the lamest Rovacian Troll you ever saw?
July 9th, 2006 at 8:39 pmHey, Jim…21 it was my humble attempt at a Rush impersonation. Please don’t take it seriously!
July 9th, 2006 at 8:39 pmDamn, too late.
July 9th, 2006 at 8:40 pmThis year has been the warmest on record in the Northern Hemisphere, say scientists in Britain.
why would you listen to those inbred big eared liberals and not the good old USA NASA?
July 9th, 2006 at 8:41 pmPlease don’t take it seriously!
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
What a relief, I thought studying for the bar had sent you over the edge…
July 9th, 2006 at 8:43 pmI first became an environmentalist in 1969 or 1970. I lived in Tempe at that time (by Phoenix for non-Arizonans and non-sports fans). My parents lived in Prescott, AZ, about 90 miles NW of Phoenix and between 5,000 and 6,000 ft altitude depending on where you are in the city.
The year I became an environmentalist, I drove to Prescott to visit my parents for Christmas. The Phoenix area had had a huge inversion which had lasted for a number of days and the air was foul, with a smog alert. The days of foul air had been increasing in the Phoenix area since the 50s, but always before, driving on I17 north, you would escape the visible smog by about 20 miles north.
So in my untutored mind, the smog was safely contained in Phoenix environs, as well as LA with which I was familiar, and I knew other large cities had smog. But rural areas? Nah. Not a problem.
This trip, the smog diminished as you drove further from Phoenix but persisted clear to Cordes Junction, about 60 miles north of Phoenix. This woke me up to the fact that smog was getting worse, and I realized, other damage to the environment must be also increasing. So I started doing some reading on the subject.
My mother, may she rest in peace, was quite conservative and we had a number of debates and arguments (and sometimes screaming fights) over the years. One of our areas of disagreement was the environment. Her attitude, and my father’s, was that we had “unlimited” resources, because they, being Depression and WWII generation, had grown up with that understanding. My father is still alive and completely denies that there are any problems. He drives an SUV and accuses me of being “childish” if we get into an argument about the environment. Neither of them have ever been able to comprehend that because of increased population and ever-increasing use of nonrenewable natural resources, that there ARE limits and that we are approaching them.
This sort of denial is reflected in the refusal to believe in global climate change. Doing something about it, such as driving less, choosing more fuel-efficient vehicles, investing in increased insulation for your house, recycling (something my father refuses to do), etc., are inconveniences. So, therefore, deny that there is a problem or that you as an individual can remain part of the problem or do something, small though it may be, to contribute to the solution.
For people who are part of, or closely allied with, the petroleum industry, acknowledging global climate change and other environmental problems hits them in their pocketbooks. Others have commented on this. But I think that for other people the opposition is visceral, something they haven’t thought out. They stake their positions accordingly and cannot bring themselves to admit they are wrong.
BTW, Aphrodite, your post #8 was even more incoherent than usual.
July 9th, 2006 at 8:45 pmLadies and Gentleman, If you take that graph and tilt it way to the Right, surface temps are going down, just like I told you.
–Rush Limbaugh
July 9th, 2006 at 8:45 pmZooey,
Wow, so I bring data to show that Think Progress was actually right for once, and then you attack me. Good grief. The data is there. I have given my source. I have given a direct link to the data. I have given a link to BBC explaining it. Ah, but I made the sin of stating the fact that Gore left out part of the truth. Silly me.
July 9th, 2006 at 8:45 pmseixon is funny, i think we should hire it purely for the entertainment value.
Of course, no real work would be required, nor desired, just show up everyday and be a dolt.
July 9th, 2006 at 8:45 pm36, no, that was landing on the other side of the fence!
;-)
July 9th, 2006 at 8:46 pmlol 21, 29 =)
July 9th, 2006 at 8:47 pmSeixon,
I wasn’t attacking you, I was making a comment to Progressaurus Rex, before you even showed up, lame brain.
Lame brain — THAT was an attack, idiot.
Idiot — THAT was an attack, too.
Get bent — get the trend, sweetie darling?
Don’t bother to respond, I know what you’re going to say…
July 9th, 2006 at 8:50 pmLimbaugh has got to be the most insensitive jerk in the world. What a hypocrite. For someone who is wrapped up with the religious right what right does he have to callously mock someone else’s religion. Like me: I would never come here, to your place of worship, and bring up things like the Urban Heat Island Effect or CO2 levels not corresponding with changes in temperature or the consistent rise in temperature before the industrial revolution any more than I would walk into a mosque and declare Mohammad is a fraud or walk into a church and say that Jesus was gay. It would be an enormous understatement for me to say that it would be an extremely rude and insensitive thing to do. I am a strong believer that people should be free to practice their faith in any way that they choose just as long as they don’t try and cram their belief system down my throat or try and pass their religion off as absolute and attempt to breach the constitutional right to a separate church and state by bringing their faith into our public schools. I apologize for interrupting your services.
July 9th, 2006 at 8:51 pmno, that was landing on the other side of the fence!
;-)
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
Ouch! Don’t remind me!
But please do remind me not to respond to Norway boy, anymore.
July 9th, 2006 at 8:53 pm45 – ok, don’t respond to Norway boy anymore.
July 9th, 2006 at 8:56 pmZooey,
I wasn’t attacking you, I was making a comment to Progressaurus Rex
Ehmm….
i have to wonder where sEiXXON gets his data…
Comment by Progressaurus Rex
Um… his ass?
Comment by Zooey — July 9, 2006 @ 8:38 pm
before you even showed up, lame brain.
Ehmmm…
Comment by Seixon — July 9, 2006 @ 8:37 pm
Ehmm….
Lie much?
July 9th, 2006 at 8:57 pmwhere did suxon get those junk numbers in #10? …..just like the commercial says; and you(sexion) ……..shake your junk…
July 9th, 2006 at 8:57 pmJust look at the graph in the link Seixon provided:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
Take a look at the trend in global temperatures. It’s very clear.
Global temps can oscillate or go down from one year to the next and still be consistent with global warming. It’s the overall trend that matters. And yeah, a few degrees is a HUGE deal, because it represents a tremendous amount of energy.
July 9th, 2006 at 8:57 pmok, don’t respond to Norway boy anymore.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
Thanks. I think I’ll go now, because…well because. :)
July 9th, 2006 at 9:02 pmAh DrSinker, so my data isn’t junk after all? Good job haters.
July 9th, 2006 at 9:05 pmHere’s a similar graph from NASA, lest any folks try to suggest the one in Seixon’s link indicates the temps are leveling off.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif
The red is a running 5-year mean.
July 9th, 2006 at 9:07 pmRush Limbaugh? Spouting bullshit? I can’t believe it.
July 9th, 2006 at 9:07 pmI’m not a hater Seixon so don’t lump me in with that group. In fact, I’m a big supporter of the current push in congress to change the wording on our currency to “In Environmentalists We Trust.” May the Environment have mercy on your soul.
July 9th, 2006 at 9:09 pmPointMan12 is employing a tactic that has recently gained much favor with libertarian ideological fanatics, religious nut cases, and fossil fuel industry propagandist-liar-whores: equating science and fact with religious belief systems. We have our reality; they have their reality. Everybody’s on equal footing. But PointMan12 seems to lack confidence in his belief system, judging from his need to repeat the discredited scientific criticisms raised by the fossil fuel industry spokespeople.
July 9th, 2006 at 9:11 pmSurely Norway Boy, who lives in the same neighborhood, must be aware that there is no frozen North Pole anymore. He’s probably waiting until they build a sauna right next to it so he can take an icy plunge after a refreshing steam and get run over by a nuclear powered submarine.
July 9th, 2006 at 9:11 pmAh DrSinker, so my data isn’t junk after all? -Seixon
It’s not from a source I know, and I haven’t checked the data you posted, but the graphs seem fine to me. They use some simpler methods to calculate the means (thus the difference with the Goddard curves) that don’t take into account as much uncertainty, but otherwise look fine.
I’m glad you’re now linking to web sites that support the current scientific consensus regarding GW. Keep it up.
July 9th, 2006 at 9:12 pmSources, please. Your numbers seem to contradict the linked article. The linked article seems to do an adequate job of explaining that, no, in fact, 2005 was hotter than 1998, unless you want to exclude large areas of the arctic that had anomoly temperatures. Further, you cannot dismiss 0.2 degrees C per decade simply because, the number, 0.2 is small. 0.2 inches, small. 0.2 ounces of Pepsi, small. 0.2 degrees C average increase in temperature per decade is huge. Thats 2 degrees every century.
Whats worse is if we plot a moving average, it seems that the delta’s off the mean temp are going up. Which means global warming is speeding up- not slowing down as GWB wants you to believe.
July 9th, 2006 at 9:13 pmAnother Limpdick statement parroting his fuhrer(Bush).
July 9th, 2006 at 9:14 pmAlso, FWIW, Rush’s comments just reveal his own ignorance (or that of his audience – take your pick) concerning global warming. No real story there folks.
July 9th, 2006 at 9:15 pmOh, and please note that PointMan12’s rhetorical tactic is exactly the same thing that the intelligent design people have been using to try to get creationism into the public schools.
Well, I guess I wouldn’t expect creationists to put much faith in science.
July 9th, 2006 at 9:16 pmNow where did I read that before…oh here it is. I found this on an Al Jazeera website:
Like I’ve said, questioning someone’s religion can cause an extreme backlash.
July 9th, 2006 at 9:18 pmGraph looks like a 90M ski jump Norway boy, surely you know what that looks like .
July 9th, 2006 at 9:20 pm1990-2005:
0.308
0.251
0.116
0.179
0.233
0.373
0.227
0.411
0.58
0.34
0.291
0.423
0.475
0.477
0.458
0.485
Certainly does look like the temps are stabilizing at around 0.46. I wonder what 2006 will end up being.
July 9th, 2006 at 9:26 pmReligious Zealot: someone who’s belief system is absolute and rigorously defend the “TRUTH†regardless of the facts.
Scientist: Someone who tests data against hypotheses in an attempt to find correlations that can be represented by probabilities but never proclaim findings with limited data as absolute and always question their own findings.
I’m sorry to disrupt your religious services with a misguided attempt to question your faith.
July 9th, 2006 at 9:28 pmGlobal warming does not exist. The trolls all know it. Why don’t you?
July 9th, 2006 at 9:29 pmScientists can become religious in their faith of their own scientific theories. You can’t deny that guys.
July 9th, 2006 at 9:33 pmCertainly does look like the temps are stabilizing at around 0.46. I wonder what 2006 will end up being.-Seixon
Stabilizing? Not really, certainly not for very long. Here’s another graph, from a link on the site you provided:
http://www.met-office.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/globaltemperature.html
The trend is clear. Besides, a year-to-year perspective is not the one to take – that’s what Rush doesn’t get.
July 9th, 2006 at 9:36 pmScientists can become religious in their faith of their own scientific theories. You can’t deny that guys.-Seixon
They can certainly be stubborn, but calling them religious isn’t right. Either you don’t understand religion or science, or you’re just trying to pick a fight.
No decent scientist ignores evidence that is contrary to their own theories. Religion doesn’t have anything to do with acquiring evidence or testing hypotheses.
July 9th, 2006 at 9:41 pmI believe that I’ve seen enough evidence that global warming is occurring. In fact, it has likely been occurring for a very long time. Why is it impossible for you guys to accept that a reasonable person can look at all of the data that exists and come to a different conclusion as to whether man is the cause? Why are you so passionate about it? I’m sure that most of you have heard the contrary evidence, and personally I can understand why someone might come to another conclusion, but why do you feel the deep need to zealously defend your position as absolute? I’m telling you, I’ve seen this behavior before but not outside of a church. When the environment becomes your God then I think it’s a good time to step back and start looking for a 12 step program or something.
July 9th, 2006 at 9:46 pmStabilizing? Not really, certainly not for very long.
Huh? The temperature has been virtually unchanged for the last 5 years. The last time the temperatures were as stable as they are now was from 1957-1963. Or 1946-1949. Look at the last 4 years especially. All within 0.46-0.49. That is historically very stable.
July 9th, 2006 at 9:47 pmsEiXXON accuses me of making a big show.
that’s rich.
i also like that you linked to an article from the bbc that quotes scientists who say you are wrong:
the article goes on to quote “the sceptics”, only to pull the rug out from under them by stating in the last sentence, “Eight of the 10 warmest years since 1860 have occurred within the last decade.”
and — let me get this straight — your argument is predicated on the difference between two studies, one that says 2005 was the hottest, the other that says 2005 was the second-hottest (1998 is first), but both still say 8 out of 10 years from the last decade as the hottest in the past century, and both showing a clear warming trend since 1980?
and you’re insinuating that al gore is misrepresenting facts merely because he chooses to use the findings of american scientists rather than british scientists?
don’t you have some fjords to go and play in?
July 9th, 2006 at 9:47 pmPointMan12 gives an excellent definition of scientist, that happens to fit well the vast numbers of highly qualified scientists that have reached a broad and strong consensus on global warming science. His definition of religious zealot works well too, especially when applied to the right wing trolls at this site, like Mr. Computer Expert Seixon.
PolintMan12, thanks for helping me make my case.
July 9th, 2006 at 9:50 pmDrSinker,
No decent scientist ignores evidence that is contrary to their own theories. Religion doesn’t have anything to do with acquiring evidence or testing hypotheses.
So all scientists are decent? Nope. Religion has as one of its definitions: “A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.” This could perfectly describe a scientist who is completely devoted to their own scientific theory who ignores all evidence to the contrary. Isn’t scientology a religion that bases itself around some sort of scientific theory?
July 9th, 2006 at 9:50 pmlots of foam and froth in Rush’s brain cell.
July 9th, 2006 at 9:51 pmProgressaurus,
and you’re insinuating that al gore is misrepresenting facts merely because he chooses to use the findings of american scientists rather than british scientists?
Isn’t that what they call cherry-picking, dear dinosaur? The last 4 years have been very stable as far as the historical record is concerned. I wonder what you’ll say if 2006 brings the mean down… as happened in 2004…
July 9th, 2006 at 9:55 pm#33: Hah, you had me going! You’re good.
#70: Why are people so “passionate,” you ask? Because the science overwhelmingly says that global warming is the result of human activities, and the consequences of doing nothing are likely to be very serious. That makes me passionate.
According to a 2004 study, of the 928 scientific papers studying global climate change published between 1993 and 2003, not ONE suggested that global warming is not being caused by human activities. As far as I know, there haven’t been any recent studies that question this, either. The “contrary evidence” you cite is not scientific; it’s ideological, and usually funded by ExxonMobil.
July 9th, 2006 at 9:56 pmOh wow….I knew that if I stuck around long enough, I’d be treated to yet another preceless Seixon gem…and there it is. Seixon just equated scientists who concur with the global warming consensus with Scientologists.
his could perfectly describe a scientist who is completely devoted to their own scientific theory who ignores all evidence to the contrary.
No, it couldn’t, Seixon. A scientist who ignores evidence is not a scientist. Period. Insinuating that all, or even most, of the scientists who subscribe to the global warming consensus are ‘overzealous’ is on par with your usual disingenuousnes.
July 9th, 2006 at 9:57 pmno one here is buying sexon,……… go sauna,…….. get it nice and hot, drink lots of straight alchohol, then fall asleep,………….please
July 9th, 2006 at 9:57 pmJim,
According to a 2004 study, of the 928 scientific papers studying global climate change published between 1993 and 2003, not ONE suggested that global warming is not being caused by human activities. As far as I know, there haven’t been any recent studies that question this, either.
How many of those 928 stated that global warming is being caused by human activities?
July 9th, 2006 at 9:58 pmHuh? The temperature has been virtually unchanged for the last 5 years. The last time the temperatures were as stable as they are now was from 1957-1963. Or 1946-1949. Look at the last 4 years especially. All within 0.46-0.49. That is historically very stable.-Seixon
“Historically very stable”? You’re not making any sense. I said things may level off, but not for very long.
You can cherry pick a set of years and draw the wrong conclusions – that’s the whole point. If we were talking about this in 1949, you’d say “look at the last few years – temps are stabilizing. Actually – we’re fine – things are cooling off!” Problem is, that hasn’t happened, has it? The mean temperature’s quite a bit warmer than it was in 1949.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:00 pm#68 How right you are! Seixon indeed understands nothing about science or scientists.
#69 Either PointMan12 hasn’t thoroughly examined the scientific evidence, or simply isn’t able to understand it (probably both). Otherwise he would have concluded the same thing that thousands of experts have agreed upon: that it is impossible to explain the current rate of warming in terms of natural (i.e. non-industrial) activities.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:01 pmTripMaster,
Seixon just equated scientists who concur with the global warming consensus with Scientologists.
You must have tripped on something, because I did no such thing.
A scientist who ignores evidence is not a scientist. Period.
I see. The apparently the dictionary is not as smart as you: “A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science.”
So, according to you, when a scientist pursues a theory with zeal and ignores evidence contrary to their theory, they immediately lose all expert knowledge of science? Interesting concept.
The truth is that you tried to cop out of the fact that not all scientists are “good” scientists by redefining the bad ones as not being scientists. Sorry, that won’t work. A cop is still a cop even if they do things that a cop shouldn’t do.
Insinuating that all, or even most, of the scientists who subscribe to the global warming consensus are ‘overzealous’ is on par with your usual disingenuousnes.
Again, where did you read this? I haven’t insinuated any such thing? If you want my opinion on the matter, I see a select few scientists, such as James Hansen, as being overzealous on global warming. Follow closely to the answer Jim gives (if he does) to see how many other scientists this applies to. Hint: not that many.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:04 pmPeople who abuse drugs are seeking an alternative reality to the one which they are actually confronted with. I’m surmising Rush is trying Viagra (sex?) now that he’s been cut off from Oxycotton or anything similar.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:05 pmThe actual reality he is trying to deny, I surmise, is that there is any real intellect or even hope for the concept of conservatism as it chokes in the grip of the madness of king george and his court.
So all scientists are decent? Nope.-Seixon
By decent, I meant someone who is well-qualified. And yeah, not all “scientists” are decent. But those at the top research institutions tend to be more than decent, more than qualified.
Religion has as one of its definitions: “A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.†This could perfectly describe a scientist who is completely devoted to their own scientific theory who ignores all evidence to the contrary. Isn’t scientology a religion that bases itself around some sort of scientific theory?-Seixon
Scientology might pretend or suppose to be based in scientific theory, but it’s not a theory any decent scientist (using my definition above) would accept. I wouldn’t call Scientology a religion or a science – you’re insulting both communities if you do.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:05 pm#70: Why are people so “passionate,†you ask? Because the science overwhelmingly says that global warming is the result of human activities, and the consequences of doing nothing are likely to be very serious. That makes me passionate.
According to a 2004 study, of the 928 scientific papers studying global climate change published between 1993 and 2003, not ONE suggested that global warming is not being caused by human activities. As far as I know, there haven’t been any recent studies that question this, either. The “contrary evidence†you cite is not scientific; it’s ideological, and usually funded by ExxonMobil.
OK Jim, you seem like a reasonable guy. Let’s say, for example, that you have scientist A and scientist B. Both A and B come to the conclusion that the data is inconclusive to support the hypothosis that man is the cause of global warming. Now, A publishes these findings and is immediately scorned by a hyperpolitical movement that uses all of their resources to discredit Mr A and drive him into the shadows. Meanwhile, scientist B, after seeing the result of A’s disclosure elects to include a statement that man “probably†is the cause of global warming. Scientist B immediately gets requests to appear on dozens of television appearances and when he returns to his office he finds a grant for $50 million to continue this well needed research. Now, scientists C through ZZZZ are all watching this unfold before their eyes. And now my question: What is the probability that scientists C through ZZZZ will find that the evidence is inconclusive?
July 9th, 2006 at 10:09 pmSeixon,
Your broad brush mischaracterization of scientists really brings you to a new low. I take it as a complete admission that you simply cannot argue your points against the available evidence. Absolutely pathetic.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:10 pmoh, dear, sEiXXON, you’re really reaching now.
cherry-picking? you mean like when bush chose facts that supported the case for wmds over facts that repudiated it?
the difference there being that the facts lead to opposite conclusions!
these studies don’t lead to different conclusions by any means whatsoever. they both show that global warming is occurring, and, as the scientists that conducted the studies maintain, that it is human-induced.
you’re employing an old, dishonest and ineffective debating tactic here, sEiXXON. it goes like this: “SEE I’VE FOUND ONE TINY DIFFERENCE IN THE FACTS PRESENTED, THEREFORE THE ENTIRE CONCLUSION IS WRONG.”
this moderate extremism is getting out of hand! call the norwegian embassy!
July 9th, 2006 at 10:11 pmA scientist who ignores evidence is not a scientist. Period.
I see. The apparently the dictionary is not as smart as you: “A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science.â€
So, according to you, when a scientist pursues a theory with zeal and ignores evidence contrary to their theory, they immediately lose all expert knowledge of science? Interesting concept.-Seixon
Now you’re just constructing straw man arguments. I’d like to think you’re here with a genuine interest in intelligent debate Seixon, but this kind of stuff isn’t very convincing.
Your dictionary definition does not describe what scientists do, only what they are, in layman’s terms. No decent scientist openly ignores evidence.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:12 pmDrSinker,
“Historically very stable� You’re not making any sense. I said things may level off, but not for very long.
Not making any sense? The last 4 years are one of the most stable periods in the past century. You’re right that things won’t stay stable for prolonged periods of time, but that doesn’t mean that the last 4 years haven’t been stable. The previous stable periods I talked about were both followed by a decrease in temperature.
I’m not into predicting the future, so I won’t speculate on whether 2006 will be above, below, or on par with the past 4 years. You can do as you wish.
You can cherry pick a set of years and draw the wrong conclusions – that’s the whole point.
Problem being that you are misrepresenting my conclusion. I’m just saying that the past four years have been one of the most stable periods of the past century. No less, no more.
If, we were talking about this in 1949, you’d say “look at the last few years – temps are stabilizing. Actually – we’re fine – things are cooling off!†Problem is, that hasn’t happened, has it? The mean temperature’s quite a bit warmer than it was in 1949.
What if the temps go down? As they did in both 1950 and 1964… All I said was that the last 4 years are stable historically. What that means for the future – I don’t know. I’m just stating indisputable facts.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:12 pmI can’t express just how much I love to read maniacal cornered right wing thought. Fascinating Rush and sexion.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:15 pmPointMan12,
Baling up the straw men, just like Seixon, I see. Your little scenario about scientist A and scientist B is a preposterous mischaracterization of how science and science funding work. As for the hyperpolitical movement you cite shutting down the science, you are just making it up as you go, pal, because scientists were studying and writing about global warming for many years before the subject ever entered the public conciousness or political sphere. And when that did happen, it was the fossil fuels industry and its flaks like you that started trying to distort the science.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:17 pm77 – Jim, thank you.
The first time I heard Rush was on the car radio, I thought he was hilarious! Then, it dawned on me, he wasn’t doing satire: he actually believed what he was saying!
July 9th, 2006 at 10:17 pmRealScientist,
Your broad brush mischaracterization of scientists really brings you to a new low. I take it as a complete admission that you simply cannot argue your points against the available evidence. Absolutely pathetic.
Which mischaracterization was that? I made none. Is that an admission that you simply cannot argue your points without making up shit? Absolutely pathetic.
DrSinker,
Your dictionary definition does not describe what scientists do, only what they are, in layman’s terms. No decent scientist openly ignores evidence.
See the qualifier you had to use? Let’s just defer to your earlier statement:
And yeah, not all “scientists†are decent.
As I was saying.
Progressaurus,
you mean like when bush chose facts that supported the case for wmds over facts that repudiated it?
Well, sir, Bush didn’t choose a damn thing. The intelligence agencies did. Bush knew what was told to him, unless you think Bush was hanging around the CIA making shit up. Facts that repudiated it? Facts proving a negative? Wow, that certainly would be a new break-through.
these studies don’t lead to different conclusions by any means whatsoever.
Did I say that did? Nope.
you’re employing an old, dishonest and ineffective debating tactic here, sEiXXON. it goes like this: “SEE I’VE FOUND ONE TINY DIFFERENCE IN THE FACTS PRESENTED, THEREFORE THE ENTIRE CONCLUSION IS WRONG.â€
Where did I say the conclusion was wrong? Nowhere. Pack up your strawmen and take a hike buddy. The adults are trying to have a discussion.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:19 pmProblem being that you are misrepresenting my conclusion. I’m just saying that the past four years have been one of the most stable periods of the past century. No less, no more.-Seixon
So your point is…that you have no point? That’s fine. Let me ask you a question: how do you define stability of a nonlinear system? Do you even know what stability means from a system dynamics perspective?
The point of the scientific community is that it’s important to look at the past several decades and beyond, and how the temperature rises correlate with CO2 and other greenhouse gases. And their conclusion is that GW is real, and that humans are playing a significant role. I’m just stating indisputable facts as well.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:22 pmLeslie G,
My thought is rightwing and cornered? Huh. I thought I expressed agreement that Rush was wrong. I guess I’m not wearing your Truth Glasses.
RealScientist,
Name my strawman or admit that you’re making shit up about me, once again.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:24 pmDrSinker,
The point of the scientific community is that it’s important to look at the past several decades and beyond, and how the temperature rises correlate with CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
Except for the period between 1945 and 1980… Shhh. Let’s keep it a secret.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:26 pmDrSinker,
Stable as in not changing significantly. Can you dig?
July 9th, 2006 at 10:29 pmSee the qualifier you had to use? Let’s just defer to your earlier statement:
And yeah, not all “scientists†are decent.
As I was saying.-Seixon
You’ll always be able to find people who call themselves “scientists” or “doctors” or “insert profession” who don’t follow the procedures and protocols established by the vast majority in the field. So what?
July 9th, 2006 at 10:29 pmI wouldn’t depend on Rush to tell me whether or not my crotch was on fire much less about global warming.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:30 pmThe only facts that Rush talks about are the ones he makes up and pulls out of his rectal database.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:30 pmSexxon,
Just remember what they taught you at Karl Rove Brownshirt School:
Repeat the lie. Repeat the lie. Repeat the lie. Repeat the lie.
Hang in there, buddy.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:32 pmDrSinker,
You’ll always be able to find people who call themselves “scientists†or “doctors†or “insert profession†who don’t follow the procedures and protocols established by the vast majority in the field. So what?
Sorry, but it seems a select few here at Think Progress disagree with you, such as RealScientist. He thinks that those who don’t follow the procedures are no longer scientists, which is false on its face. There are poor people within each profession – including scientists. Perhaps RealScientist (if his name is an accurate reflection of himself) is a bit too biased because of his own profession that he sees it as an attack on himself, when that would only be the case if he was one of these “poor” scientists…
July 9th, 2006 at 10:34 pmStable as in not changing significantly. Can you dig?-Seixon
No – it’s incomplete. You can’t say anything about the stability of the system based on the temperatures alone. It doesn’t indicate the sensitivity of the system to perturbation – a necessary consideration for stability. Based on what you’ve posted, all you can say is something about the standard deviation from the mean over the past few years – just another calculation based on the data. By itself: rather meaningless.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:34 pm#8 Everyone ignore her(Mighty Hypocrite), please.
Comment by andrewg in little rock
Good idea, andrewg. One thing
July 9th, 2006 at 10:34 pmRealScientist,
Just remember what they taught you at Karl Rove Brownshirt School:
Repeat the lie. Repeat the lie. Repeat the lie. Repeat the lie.
Hang in there, buddy.
Well, that seems to be what you’re doing. You still haven’t shown that I created a strawman, even though I have specifically asked you to do so. As they say, put up or shut up.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:36 pmThe official global temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia show that temperatures haven’t risen since 1998. In fact, they’ve gone down by a non-stastical degree. It’s likely this is what Rush was referring to. He was vague enough in a passing comment to forgive any slight inaccuracy (i.e., four years instead of eight).
July 9th, 2006 at 10:36 pmP.S. No word on the fluctuations between the 40s and 80s? You know, temperatures dropped back then, and that was at the height of our evil industrialization. The cleaner we’ve gotten, the warmer we get. Hmm.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:38 pmSorry, but it seems a select few here at Think Progress disagree with you, such as RealScientist. He thinks that those who don’t follow the procedures are no longer scientists, which is false on its face.-Seixon
That’s your interpretation of what he said, but I don’t think anyone else here would agree. Like I said before, your straw man arguments are growing old.
I suspect RealScientist was saying very much what I was – that essentially there are a lot of “quacks” out there who may call themselves doctors, but that nobody with any sense would send their mother to for a diagnosis.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:39 pmSorry, but it seems a select few here at Think Progress disagree with you, such as RealScientist. He thinks that those who don’t follow the procedures are no longer scientists, which is false on its face.
Uhh, numbskull, I didn’t actually say that, or anything like it. I happen to know some lousy scientists. I also know that lousy scientists rarely get far. We aren’t talking about lousy scientists here. We are talking about the entire scientific community, including the best scientists in the world.
Repeat the lie. Repeat the lie. Repeat the lie. Repeat the lie.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:40 pmDrSinker,
You can’t say anything about the stability of the system based on the temperatures alone.
You can’t say anything about the stability of temperatures based on the temperatures?
Based on what you’ve posted, all you can say is something about the standard deviation from the mean over the past few years – just another calculation based on the data. By itself: rather meaningless.
So… the past 4 years have had no significant change, and that is meaningless? What if the past 4 years had shown an increase or a decrease? Would you still say it was meaningless? Nope, especially if it was an increase, you’d be all over it.
I think the fact that the temperature hasn’t gone up or down significantly for 4 years, something which hasn’t happened since the 1960s, is a fact worth mentioning. If you don’t, fine, but I suspect this is because you are only interested if it had shown an increase.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:41 pmP.S. No word on the fluctuations between the 40s and 80s? You know, temperatures dropped back then, and that was at the height of our evil industrialization. The cleaner we’ve gotten, the warmer we get. Hmm.-bonch
Yeah – probably you’ve stumbled onto something here that the scientific community has overlooked. /sarcasm
July 9th, 2006 at 10:44 pmYou still haven’t shown that I created a strawman, even though I have specifically asked you to do so. As they say, put up or shut up.
Don’t have to. It is on display right here. Just scroll up and read everything you have written.
I think it is comical that you would try the schoolyard tactic of “put up or shut up” when there is obviously a strong consensus here that you deal almost exclusively in straw man arguments. You aren’t going to get much traction with that.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:45 pmRealScientist,
Uhh, numbskull, I didn’t actually say that, or anything like it. I happen to know some lousy scientists. I also know that lousy scientists rarely get far. We aren’t talking about lousy scientists here. We are talking about the entire scientific community, including the best scientists in the world.
My apologies, it was TripMaster who said that.
Yet you have still not explained my “broad mischaracterization” of scientists, nor the supposed “strawman” I supposedly came up with. Can you address this please?
July 9th, 2006 at 10:48 pmSexxon,
Let me repeat something I wrote earlier: I am not here to debate you. I don’t debate science with non-scientists. You do not have the training, knowledge, or critical thinking skills to participate in such a debate. I am here to tell people who you are and what you are trying to do.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:50 pmSo… the past 4 years have had no significant change, and that is meaningless? What if the past 4 years had shown an increase or a decrease? Would you still say it was meaningless? Nope, especially if it was an increase, you’d be all over it.-Seixon
First of all, that’s not what I’ve said – that there’s been no significant change. Is a 0.01 degree increase insignificant? It’s not a question that is well posed.
Second, what I’ve stated here is that it’s important to look at long term trends. So if the past four years showed an increase, I wouldn’t be all over it. I haven’t posted anything here to suggest otherwise.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:52 pmRealScientist,
Don’t have to. It is on display right here. Just scroll up and read everything you have written.
The fact that you can’t even summarize or state outright what it was shows you’re the one being dishonest here.
I think it is comical that you would try the schoolyard tactic of “put up or shut up†when there is obviously a strong consensus here that you deal almost exclusively in straw man arguments. You aren’t going to get much traction with that.
It’s funny you should invoke consensus when that consensus is obviously limited to people who hate me for stating my opinion on Think Progress. You invoke consensus instead of proving your statements about me. Reminds me a bit of certain scientists.
Get on with it, lay out what my strawman or strawmen have been. If you can’t, you’re lying.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:53 pmwhew, looks like Sexion is taking a reaming on this one. take it easy people, you don’t want him to tear.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:54 pmHmmm… where did Rush read that? Maybe in a fax sent to him by Karl Rove?
July 9th, 2006 at 10:55 pmIt’s funny you should invoke consensus when that consensus is obviously limited to people who hate me for stating my opinion on Think Progress.
Well, duh, cretin. Do you think you are playing on the world stage here?
July 9th, 2006 at 10:57 pmgod, people say I’M a pain-in-the-ass, but the norwegian gives our side a more despicable appearance than even i do!!!
July 9th, 2006 at 10:57 pmRealScientist,
Let me repeat something I wrote earlier: I am not here to debate you.
Obviously not.
I don’t debate science with non-scientists.
Wouldn’t want to be embarrassed within your own field, I suppose.
You do not have the training, knowledge, or critical thinking skills to participate in such a debate.
Let me ask you real quick, are unsubstantiated blanket statements like that scientifical?
I am here to tell people who you are and what you are trying to do.
No, you’re here to spread lies about me and try to undermine me, as I have already proven from your unwillingness to prove for the record your supposed accusations against me.
DrSinker,
Second, what I’ve stated here is that it’s important to look at long term trends. So if the past four years showed an increase, I wouldn’t be all over it. I haven’t posted anything here to suggest otherwise.
It is important to look at long term trends, but just because the past 25 years has shown an increase in temperatures doesn’t mean that this will continue unabated. In fact, the 4-year lull might be an indicator of that this trend is coming to an end. Or as from 1945-1980, it might not.
Yeah – probably you’ve stumbled onto something here that the scientific community has overlooked. /sarcasm
I think suppressed is a more fitting word.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:58 pmIt’s funny you should invoke consensus when that consensus is obviously limited to people who hate me for stating my opinion on Think Progress. You invoke consensus instead of proving your statements about me. Reminds me a bit of certain scientists.-Seixon
I certainly don’t hate you Seixon (it’s a waste of time), but I pretty much agree with RealScientist on this. You do understand what a straw man argument is, right? Basically you continually make unreasonable interpretations of what people have posted.
I suspect you’re doing so because you enjoy the fight. You haven’t posted much in this thread at least that indicates you’re interested in serious debate. So most folks are going to tune you out.
July 9th, 2006 at 11:01 pmRealScientist,
Well, duh, cretin. Do you think you are playing on the world stage here?
I’ve tried being nice, and have asked you to state what strawman or strawmen I came with. Instead of being an honest and dignified person, you attack me and invoke an illegitimate consensus as an argument.
Might as well hang out in Hitler’s bunker and state that the Aryan race is not superior to others, to only get attacked with the “consensus” within the bunker saying otherwise.
July 9th, 2006 at 11:02 pmDrSinker,
I certainly don’t hate you Seixon (it’s a waste of time), but I pretty much agree with RealScientist on this. You do understand what a straw man argument is, right? Basically you continually make unreasonable interpretations of what people have posted.
All I did was confuse TripMaster and RealScientist, something I have already apologized for. The only one making unreasonable interpretations of anyone is RealScientist of me. He claimed I broadly mischaracterized scientists when I did no such thing. TripMaster also completely misreprestented me.
If I came with strawmen, shouldn’t it be easy to list them?
I suspect you’re doing so because you enjoy the fight. You haven’t posted much in this thread at least that indicates you’re interested in serious debate. So most folks are going to tune you out.
Who’s the only one to have posted scientific data in this thread? Please, what you said here is just plainly false. You’re relying too much on RealScientist’s admitted witch-hunt against me.
July 9th, 2006 at 11:05 pmIt is important to look at long term trends, but just because the past 25 years has shown an increase in temperatures doesn’t mean that this will continue unabated.-Seixon
The scientific consensus is not based on the temperature record alone. That’s the problem behind the argument you’re making (and to a degree, Rush as well).
In fact, the 4-year lull might be an indicator of that this trend is coming to an end. Or as from 1945-1980, it might not.-Seixon
If it were the only thing we had to go on, you’d be correct. But it’s not. Do you buy a stock strictly on the basis of what it’s price has been over the past four years?
July 9th, 2006 at 11:06 pmData seems to indicate that the global warming process has entered the realm of a positive feedback cycle. This is the effect that one observes when a mike it trained onto a loud speaker. The effects are nearing logarithmic proportions. Melting in the Artic and Antarctic will release carbon based gases to an extent never observed before in the history of Earth. This is a self-perpetuating process. An honest election just 2803 days ago would have rescued the Earth from this fate. Let us hope that humanity survives the next 925 days. It takes so little time and only one man to undo 4.5 billion years (1.65 trillion days) of development.
July 9th, 2006 at 11:07 pmIt’s funny you should invoke consensus when that consensus is obviously limited to people who hate me for stating my opinion on Think Progress.
Comment by Seixon
No, I think the broad consensus includes people who hate you just for being you, as well as — conceivably — those who detest hair-splitting, argumentative little narcissists in general.
It’s a big tent.. Never underestimate the diversity of reasons for which people hold you in contempt.
July 9th, 2006 at 11:07 pmDrSinker,
The scientific consensus is not based on the temperature record alone. That’s the problem behind the argument you’re making (and to a degree, Rush as well).
What argument? I said Rush was wrong. Are you guys reading a different version of Think Progress? I can’t even understand where you guys are taking your version of events from. All I’ve said is that the stability of the past 4 years hasn’t been seen since the early 1960s, a fact I think is interesting.
If it were the only thing we had to go on, you’d be correct. But it’s not. Do you buy a stock strictly on the basis of what it’s price has been over the past four years?
What else are we going on? CO2 emissions? If so, please explain the discrepancy in correlation between that and the temperature between 1945-1980.
Sorry, I’ve never bought any stocks, but I’m guessing if I were to do so, I would purchase them based on current events and partly on the stock history.
July 9th, 2006 at 11:11 pmA scientist who ignores evidence is not a scientist. Period.
I see. The apparently the dictionary is not as smart as you: “A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science.â€
So, according to you, when a scientist pursues a theory with zeal and ignores evidence contrary to their theory, they immediately lose all expert knowledge of science? Interesting concept.-Seixon
There’s one straw man, as I pointed out earlier. The person you quoted never suggested that someone who ignores contrary evidence suddenly loses all their expert knowledge. You’re suggesting someone made a stupid argument, for the sole purpose of knocking it down. Like a STRAW MAN.
July 9th, 2006 at 11:14 pmWaltTheMan,
An honest election just 2803 days ago would have rescued the Earth from this fate.
They say a sucker is born every minute. Don’t worry, you’ll get a chance to put your hero into the White House in 2008. It’s too bad he wasted 8 years in the White House doing absolutely nothing to stop this from happening, huh?
RunningDogLackey,
No, I think the broad consensus includes people who hate you just for being you, as well as — conceivably — those who detest hair-splitting, argumentative little narcissists in general.
Makes it all the more easy when we have people like TripMaster and RealScientist who go around lying about what I’ve said, doesn’t it? When I ask them to prove their BS, you see it as “hair-splitting”. It’s perfect. Repeat the lie. Repeat the lie. It truly does work RealScientist. Never have I been on a forum where so many people have believed so many lies about me without questioning them in the slightest, even when I do.
July 9th, 2006 at 11:16 pmSeixon:
TripMaster also completely misreprestented me.
Let’s review, shall we?
What you said:
And what I said:
Looks like a pretty fair representation to me. If you don’t like getting called on your idiotic bullshit, you might want to tone it down a bit.
July 9th, 2006 at 11:17 pmahhh the circle has completed at #129, grasshopper. Thank you for the trip.
July 9th, 2006 at 11:19 pmIt seems very bizarre to me that the right wing is trying so hard to discredit and to politicize science. It’s kinda like pissing into the wind. Apparently, that’s part of being a sociopath.
July 9th, 2006 at 11:25 pmwell, we have allowed yet another thread to spiral down into an abyss of norwegian bullshit…
the point of the original thread, i assume, can be summed up:
rush opened his mouth on last friday and he lied about global warming again
*yawn* why this is news, why it is ‘post-worthy’ is another question when there are other more interesting, more relevant, and more informative.
but, regardless of the thread, the format seems to be:
July 9th, 2006 at 11:25 pm
TripMaster,
Looks like a pretty fair representation to me. If you don’t like getting called on your idiotic bullshit, you might want to tone it down a bit.
Fair as in shooting someone in the face?
1. I do not mention global warming scientists at all in that excerpt.
2. I never equated Scientologists with anything. Scientology was given as an example of a religion based in science.
So will you plead illiteracy or just plain old dishonesty?
Let’s review what I said, for those with reading comprehension problems such as yourself:
This could perfectly describe a scientist who is completely devoted to their own scientific theory who ignores all evidence to the contrary. Isn’t scientology a religion that bases itself around some sort of scientific theory?
What is the subject of the first sentence? It is “a scientist who is completely devoted to their own scientific theory who ignores all evidence to the contrary”. Does that equal what you said, which was “scientists who concur with the global warming consensus”? I sure hope not…
Does the second sentence equate Scientology with these scientists? No, it does not.
Class dismissed.
July 9th, 2006 at 11:26 pmSeixon,
I have to sign off now, because I’m laughing so hard my wife can’t hear the t.v. and is getting pissed.
July 9th, 2006 at 11:26 pmJust like at the zoo…DON’T FEED THE TROLLS
July 9th, 2006 at 11:28 pmjames risser,
Let me help you determine when the thread started going off track:
“Rove made a faux pas that drew a few titters when he said, in the course of telling an anecdote that harkened to his own hardscrabble immigrant heritage as a Norwegian-American (who knew?), he revealed that there is a little known and, he said, rarely used library in the White House. That, at least, rang very true.â€
sEiXXON?
Comment by Progressaurus Rex — July 9, 2006 @ 8:04 pm
Did this have anything to do with the topic or anything I had said? No. Then we have:
The problem with righties is they go to left leaning blogs and try to piss off lefties by leaving hateful comments.
And they swallow everything uttered by Rove, Bush, O’Reilly and Limbaugh without question. Mindless sheep.
Comment by Colorado Jyms — July 9, 2006 @ 8:08 pm
Does that have anything to do with the topic? No. Moving on:
oh, i forgot. sEiXXON is far superior to all of us.
and moderate too. just like all of those liberal-hating moderates you run into.
Comment by Progressaurus Rex — July 9, 2006 @ 8:30 pm
Unneccessary provocation instead of just asking me for my source of data. Then:
Seixon is a typical lying ass bush propagandist — every post it makes, even with data, is like truth, truth..then the Lie and the Blame on some Democrat…
It’s really lame seixon..
Comment by Cool Breeze — July 9, 2006 @ 8:35 pm
Note that I had stayed on topic the whole time before this.
Stop trying to blame me for your maniac friends more concerned about attacking me for agreeing with Think Progress than anything else.
July 9th, 2006 at 11:30 pm“Well, sir, Bush didn’t choose a damn thing. The intelligence agencies did.”
that’s a TOTAL cop-out, sEiXXON — so bush didn’t choose to go to war, it’s all the fault of the intel. yep, they sure did choose those facts, with the overt and unprecedented aid of the office of the vice president, who made regular visits to langley. imagine gore doing that in 1998 — your rage would’ve been so uncontrollable you would’ve been spitting blood. in the meantime, there were intelligence officers that worked on the issue that maintain (correctly) to this day there was no evidence, that they were, in fact, ignored, and their findings continually removed. the aluminum tubes, the uranium from niger, the mobile weapons labs – this had all been debunked within the cia, yet it still made it to the public, with cheney leading the charge.
your claim that bush didn’t choose anything merely underscores how incompetent the man is.
and what world of logic do you come from that says that facts couldn’t prove something is untrue? isn’t that exactly what you’re trying to do with this anti-global warming canard? that’s got to be one of the most ridiculous things i’ve ever seen you post here.
the fact is now, after looking for 3 years, we’ve found no wmds. that’s how a fact proves the wmd claims were not true.
“Where did I say the conclusion was wrong?”
your entire premise is that the conclusion is wrong so please don’t act all of the sudden like that’s not what you’ve been here saying for the last several weeks. otherwise you are a colossal hypocrite.
to further demonstrate your disingenuous nature, from your post 18:
you state this with absolute certainty, therefore, by your logic in #76, you are also cherry-picking in choosing the study that allows you to insinuate here that gore is misrepresenting the facts. the study you choose differs in only one substantive detail — whether 2005 or 1998 was the hottest year — yet that’s supposed to somehow prove that gore is misleading the public.
i really don’t think that choosing to use a nasa study rather than a british academic study is misrepresenting the facts. or do you disavow nasa? no, you’re merely conflating a discrepency of two very similar studies that support gore’s assertions into a platform for accusing him of dishonesty.
once again, the “moderate” views of sEiXXON! damn those liberal-hating moderates!
July 9th, 2006 at 11:32 pmRealScientist,
I have to sign off now, because I’m laughing so hard my wife can’t hear the t.v. and is getting pissed.
Laugh it up liar boy. Maybe we’d actually have a discussion going if you weren’t hell-bent on attacking, smearing, and lying about me like a good little troll. You’re a scientist, but would rather attack and lie about someone than show them the errors of their ways. Join the sociopath club at Think Progress.
Let me know when you get around to actually proving all your lies about me, mk?
July 9th, 2006 at 11:33 pmSeixon,
July 9th, 2006 at 11:46 pmIt’s approaching 6 AM in Norway, time to shower and head off to work.
Seixon:
I really ought to be ued to your deliberate obtuseness by now, but for some reason your dishonesty always manages to surprise me. The subject of this thread is global warming.
1. I do not mention global warming scientists at all in that excerpt.
You don’t need to explicitly mention ‘global warming scientists’, given the subject of this thread.
2. I never equated Scientologists with anything. Scientology was given as an example of a religion based in science.
Any why was that ‘example’ given? To support your assertion that ‘all scientists are not decent’, referring to…which scientists? Again, given the subject of this thread, your inference is painfully obvious.
Give it up, Seixon. You’re not fooling anyone. You never did.
July 9th, 2006 at 11:49 pmProgressaurus,
that’s a TOTAL cop-out, sEiXXON — so bush didn’t choose to go to war, it’s all the fault of the intel.
That’s not what I said, but thanks for demonstrating to RealScientist what a real strawman looks like. Bush chose to go to war, he didn’t choose the intelligence he was briefed with. After all, the intelligence agencies do perform a function don’t they? Their job is to give the president intelligence. It’s not Bush’s job to give himself intelligence and act as an intelligence agent.
yep, they sure did choose those facts, with the overt and unprecedented aid of the office of the vice president, who made regular visits to langley.
Ah yes, they cowered before the powerless VP. You’d think it was a good thing that the VP was visiting the CIA, showing a genuine interest in the intelligence, but no, of course not. Here we only ascribe negative motivations to anything without evidence.
imagine gore doing that in 1998 — your rage would’ve been so uncontrollable you would’ve been spitting blood.
Why? So Gore never visited the CIA? Why not? Not interested in intelligence? Since I voted for Gore in 2000, I think you’ve got some things wrong.
in the meantime, there were intelligence officers that worked on the issue that maintain (correctly) to this day there was no evidence, that they were, in fact, ignored, and their findings continually removed.
Yes, and coincidentally all of them have ties with the Veterans of Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, publicly represented by Larry Johnson and Ray McGovern, two of the craziest guys I’ve ever encountered for people over the age of 50. Unfortunately, none of these guys have been able to produce a single shred of evidence of their claims. You’d think they’d have all sorts of papers to prove their claims, but alas, no.
the aluminum tubes, the uranium from niger, the mobile weapons labs – this had all been debunked within the cia, yet it still made it to the public, with cheney leading the charge.
Gosh, it’s odd then that all the intelligence agencies signed off on the NIE in October 2002 that maintained that all of these things were supported by the intelligence. Even Larry Johnson has had to admit to me personally that the NIE said all of these things. The majority of intelligence agencies assessed that the tubes were for centrifuges. The majority of agencies assessed that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium. The majority of intelligence agencies stood behind the mobile weapons labs, so much so that Colin Powell even talked about them at the UN. Powell personally went over this intelligence with the CIA before his presentation.
your claim that bush didn’t choose anything merely underscores how incompetent the man is.
Either that or he was just doing his job as the president, and not micromanaging the entire government which it seems you are expecting of him. Should we just fire the people at the CIA then? I mean, Bush can obviously choose and figure out all the intelligence on his own.
and what world of logic do you come from that says that facts couldn’t prove something is untrue? isn’t that exactly what you’re trying to do with this anti-global warming canard? that’s got to be one of the most ridiculous things i’ve ever seen you post here.
Prove that there isn’t a pig flying somewhere in the world right now. Come on, do it! Now prove that there are no WMDs in Iraq at this very moment. Please tell me how you’d go about doing it. It will be a fun exercise. You should really have taken a Theory of Knowledge course.
the fact is now, after looking for 3 years, we’ve found no wmds. that’s how a fact proves the wmd claims were not true.
Proves? Not really, no. There could be an arsenal of WMDs buried out in the desert somewhere. The WMDs could have been moved to Syria. The WMDs could have been destroyed. The only thing you can do is prove that there are WMDs. It’s virtually impossible to prove that there weren’t WMDs there, because that would require omniscience. As I was saying, you cannot prove a negative when the circumstances are too large for this to be feasible.
your entire premise is that the conclusion is wrong so please don’t act all of the sudden like that’s not what you’ve been here saying for the last several weeks. otherwise you are a colossal hypocrite.
I haven’t agreed or stated any conclusion here. Nor have I ever claimed that the temperatures have been going down. I’m not acting – you are. You’re making up stuff that I’ve never stated here nor anywhere else.
you state this with absolute certainty, therefore, by your logic in #76, you are also cherry-picking in choosing the study that allows you to insinuate here that gore is misrepresenting the facts.
He is because he’s cherry-picking. I was not cherry-picking, because I was not aware that NASA came up with a different set of data from the data I had.
the study you choose differs in only one substantive detail — whether 2005 or 1998 was the hottest year — yet that’s supposed to somehow prove that gore is misleading the public.
Well, Gore is misleading the public, but the 2005 vs. 1998 thing is not really part of that. I was just pointing out that some scientists say 2005, while it appears NASA says 2005. Just like with most of Gore’s movie, he cherry-picks the science to his liking, even science that is virtually unsupported by the scientific community (20 foot sea level rise).
i really don’t think that choosing to use a nasa study rather than a british academic study is misrepresenting the facts. or do you disavow nasa?
To tell you the truth, I was not aware that NASA had used a different set of data from the data I had. I don’t disavow NASA, but I think it would be better if Gore actually stated for the record that many of the things he said in his movie are disputed or at least disagreed upon by other scientists. For example, he cites a couple studies that support his contention that global warming causes more and stronger storms. By doing this, he leaves out that this is a contentious issue for hurricane scientists, with many not supporting the view Gore went with.
no, you’re merely conflating a discrepency of two very similar studies that support gore’s assertions into a platform for accusing him of dishonesty.
Seriously, Gore has much greater examples of dishonesty than this one. If I were making that an issue (which it wouldn’t have become had not people jumped all over me for it while ignoring the fact that I disagreed with Rush) I would be speaking about far greater lies by Gore in his movie.
once again, the “moderate†views of sEiXXON! damn those liberal-hating moderates!
Would you explain what this has to do with being liberal, moderate, or conservative? I pointed out, quite rightly so, that Gore cherry-picked the science to his liking. Is it “conservative” to point that out? Nope.
Pointing out the truth knows no political persuasion.
July 9th, 2006 at 11:56 pmSeixon,
July 10th, 2006 at 12:01 amYour understanding of science could be written on the head of a pin in 12 point type.
Seixon:
Bush chose to go to war, he didn’t choose the intelligence he was briefed with.
Three words: Downing Street Memo
Thanks for once again for demonstrating what we all already know.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:02 amTripMaster,
I really ought to be ued to your deliberate obtuseness by now, but for some reason your dishonesty always manages to surprise me. The subject of this thread is global warming.
If you stopped trying to see me as a liar, you’d stop making the stupid mistakes you are now making.
You don’t need to explicitly mention ‘global warming scientists’, given the subject of this thread.
So when I specifically state the subject as “scientist who is completely devoted to their own scientific theory who ignores all evidence to the contrary”, then I am still talking about “global warming scientists”? How come? That’s ridiculous. You might as well just claim I am always talking about “global warming scientists” no matter what I actually write. What a joke.
Any why was that ‘example’ given?
To prove that you can have religions that are based on scientists believing their own theories beyond what is factually supported.
To support your assertion that ‘all scientists are not decent’, referring to…which scientists?
Where did I say that all scientists are not decent? Not once. Do you need a set of glasses? Can you read? I never ‘all scientists are not decent’ or anything even remotely like that.
Again, given the subject of this thread, your inference is painfully obvious.
Well yes, when you ignore what I’m actually writing about. You’re just putting words in my mouth when I’ve already written my own words on the page.
Give it up, Seixon. You’re not fooling anyone. You never did.
Since I haven’t even written anything you’re ascribing to me, I’m not sure what else to say. You’re conducting a witch-hunt that isn’t supported by the facts.
You can’t read. Neither you nor RealScientist can read.
I know where this is coming from. I said:
So all scientists are decent? Nope.
You took this to mean that I said that all scientists are not decent. For those of us who don’t jump to conclusions and like the language we call English, all I am saying here is that not all scientists are decent. That’s not the same thing as saying all scientists are not decent.
Try to figure it out.
We wouldn’t waste so much time on stupid shit like this if you guys would actually learn to read English and stop conducting your little partisan witch-hunt every time I comment. Even when I agree with you guys, you hunt me down like a pack of dogs who always seem to smell blood wherever they go.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:06 amWe have to admit that thanks to Seixon these threads are a little more entertaning…less informative but entertaining.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:07 amRemember, he knows science because he reads science. Take that, all you 4-year-PhD students!
WaltTheMan,
Your understanding of science could be written on the head of a pin in 12 point type.
Wow, how long did it take you to think up that personal attack slick?
TripMaster,
Three words: Downing Street Memo
Thanks for once again for demonstrating what we all already know.
You mean the document that has never been proven to exist? The document in which you take “fixed” out of context to mean something else when the whole phrase “fixed around” means something completely different?
You mean that one?
July 10th, 2006 at 12:09 am#148 – Juan C ,
July 10th, 2006 at 12:11 amI took 2 years to go from Masters to PhD. Does that disqualify me?
# 149 – Seixon,
July 10th, 2006 at 12:13 amAbout half a nanosecond.
Uh, oh. TPJUDD’s argument here:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/30/national-review-think-progress/
…has been debunked by a NASA funded study here:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/sea_ice.html
And it wasn’t funded by big oil! BUSTED!
A new NASA-funded study finds that predicted increases in precipitation due to warmer air temperatures from greenhouse gas emissions may actually increase sea ice volume in the Antarctic’s Southern Ocean. This adds new evidence of potential asymmetry between the two poles, and may be an indication that climate change processes may have different impact on different areas of the globe.
“Most people have heard of climate change and how rising air temperatures are melting glaciers and sea ice in the Arctic,” said Dylan C. Powell, co-author of the paper and a doctoral candidate at the University of Maryland-Baltimore County. “However, findings from our simulations suggest a counterintuitive phenomenon. Some of the melt in the Arctic may be offset by increases in sea ice volume in the Antarctic.”
Typically, warming of the climate leads to increased melting rates of sea ice cover and increased precipitation rates. However, in the Southern Ocean, with increased precipitation rates and deeper snow, the additional load of snow becomes so heavy that it pushes the Antarctic sea ice below sea level. This results in even more and even thicker sea ice when the snow refreezes as more ice. Therefore, the paper indicates that some climate processes, like warmer air temperatures increasing the amount of sea ice, may go against what we would normally believe would occur.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:15 amThat chart looks like CRushed Limp-balls cholesterol level or his Viagra intake.
-GSD
July 10th, 2006 at 12:17 amWaltTheMan,
I took 2 years to go from Masters to PhD. Does that disqualify me?
From making unsubstantiated blanket statements to attack people you disagree with? Guess not. Let me guess, you have a PhD in Ad Hominem?
July 10th, 2006 at 12:20 am#148 – Juan C ,
I took 2 years to go from Masters to PhD. Does that disqualify me?
Comment by WaltTheMan — July 10, 2006 @ 12:11 am
Same case here. I was being ironic.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:25 amSo TP “climate scientists” tell us that there is that the debate on global warming is over and they think that computer models tell us so with a high degree of certainty, but NASA doesn’t agree:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/arctic_changes.html
Perhaps the best tool scientists have today to answer these questions are computer models, that simulate present oceanic-atmospheric behavior as well as future and past climates. But, due to the limitations of today’s computers, it is not possible to explicitly represent all the important physical processes that govern the climate.
Most computer models predict continued precipitation increases in high latitudes and some warming over the Arctic waters within the next 70 years, assuming a doubling of carbon dioxide. But, these models only offer a “best guess” as to how scientists believe different climate processes interact.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:29 amRush is in a rush to look like an idiot!
July 10th, 2006 at 12:34 amHe is like Bush. Lie, lie again and repeat until people believe it is the truth.
Global warming is a myth just like Israeli terrorism is.
But, these models only offer a “best guess†as to how scientists believe different climate processes interact.
Comment by memphis minnie — July 10, 2006 @ 12:29 am
Thank you very much. You are dismissed. Come back with better arguments instead of telling what everybody knows. BTW, there are like a thousand “best guesses” showing the same trend.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:35 amSeixon,
July 10th, 2006 at 12:38 amThe PhD is in physics.
#152 – memphis minnie,
Since ice is less dense than dissolved ice (water), any increase in submerged sea ice will result in an increase of sea levels of greater proportion than mere melting. How submerged sea ice could ever evolve evades me since ice usually floats in dissolved ice (water). This principle holds true for both saline and pure dissolved ice (water) environments. Otherwise, the HMS Titanic would still be plying the sea lanes (Barring a torpedo attack).
Seixon,
The PhD is in physics.
#152 – memphis minnie,
Since ice is less dense than dissolved ice (water), any increase in submerged sea ice will result in an increase of sea levels of greater proportion than mere melting. How submerged sea ice could ever evolve evades me since ice usually floats in dissolved ice (water). This principle holds true for both saline and pure dissolved ice (water) environments. Otherwise, the HMS Titanic would still be plying the sea lanes (Barring a torpedo attack).
Sorry for the echo post.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:44 amReply to #149:
You mean the document that has never been proven to exist?
Wow…even for you, that’s desperate. Pathetic.
(And no, Seixon, I’m not going to be drawn into one of your endless quests for enough evidence to force you to admit something. This ploy is straight out of the neocon’s handbook: deny everything, demand evidence, and accept no evidence as conclusive. You’ve employed it innumerable times in the past to derail the discussion, and it’s not going to work this time.)
Reply to #149:
You mean the document that has never been proven to exist?
Wow…even for you, that’s desperate. Pathetic.
(And no, Seixon, I’m not going to be drawn into one of your endless quests for enough evidence to force you to admit something. This ploy is straight out of the neocon’s handbook: deny everything, demand evidence, and accept no evidence as conclusive. You’ve employed it innumerable times in the past to derail the discussion, and it’s not going to work this time.)
The document in which you take “fixed†out of context to mean something else when the whole phrase “fixed around†means something completely different?
Oh….so now we’re disputing the language of the memo whose existence you just finished disputing? They must have good pot in Norway.
Just so there’s no dispute, here’s the relevant text of the memo:
Given the context of that paragraph, the meaning of the phrase ‘fixed around’ is obvious, your hysterical denials notwithstanding.
Again, Seixon, you’re not fooling anyone. Your specious arguments only serve to reinforce the positions of your opponents, and for that, we thank you. Keep up the bad work.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:59 amI’m not discounting global warming, but if you were to zoom out on the graph in order to show the last few thousand years, you would find a heavy amount of fluctuation of the temperature, both warming and cooling. This graph is a little deceiving.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:00 amRe. 162: Sorry for the duplicate text…It’s getting late here.
(What time is it in Norway?)
July 10th, 2006 at 1:01 am#164,
July 10th, 2006 at 1:04 amIt’s about 7AM.
Memphis Minnie,
If you believe those passages you quote somehow call the scientific consensus into question, I think you need to study much harder, because they do no such thing. Note that the very people who wrote those passages and other report signers who agreed with those passages, all accept the consensus.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:07 amTripMaster,
Wow…even for you, that’s desperate. Pathetic.
What you meant to say is, gee Seixon, I don’t have any proof that the document actually exists and now I will huff and puff instead of just admitting it.
Oh….so now we’re disputing the language of the memo whose existence you just finished disputing?
The existence of the document has never been proven, so yes, I do bring up that fact. Aside from that, yes, I am disputing your use of the English language which just got you in trouble when you couldn’t see the elementary school different between “not all scientists are decent/all scientists are not decent”.
Given the context of that paragraph, the meaning of the phrase ‘fixed around’ is obvious, your hysterical denials notwithstanding.
Except for the fact that the other documents Michael Smith released, whose existence have in fact been corroborated and proven, showed that they had a genuine belief in WMDs, even fixing their military strategy around existence of WMDs. See how I used the word fix? Now see how that works out in the part you excerpted.
Again, Seixon, you’re not fooling anyone. Your specious arguments only serve to reinforce the positions of your opponents, and for that, we thank you. Keep up the bad work.
You couldn’t even admit that the Downing Street Memo has never been proven to exist, lol. You are so easy to stump because you rely on things you have not thought of yourself, and have not researched yourself. Keep up all the bad work? No, the pleasure is all yours. You keep on putting out all the tired and debunked talking points, while people like myself have critically analyzed and researched them, having found them to be critically lacking when it comes to the Big Picture.
(What time is it in Norway?)
You don’t even know the time difference with Europe? That’s pretty weak for a brainiac such as yourself. I await your realization that you can’t read English, as I so aptly proved in my previous comments.
Now, for real, I am leaving.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:11 amSeixon, no, wait, we aren’t done with you yet!
July 10th, 2006 at 1:12 amYou never are done lying about me RealScientist, you never are. Now you can do it while I’m not here to defend myself! A favorite past time here at Think Progress! Yeay! Good night, don’t get too nasty now, I might take a page out of Randal’s book and threaten to go to the FBI! Wait no, I’m not an obsessive compulsive cyberstalker. Nevermind. Night! :)
July 10th, 2006 at 1:15 am#80: About 75% of the studies explicitly reached the conclusion that global warming is caused by human activities. The other 25% were focused on aspects of climate change unrelated to this, and therefore were silent/neutral on the issue. But none of the studies challenged this finding.
#86: Your scenario is unrealistic because NO scientists have published studies in peer-reviewed science journals challenging the notion that global warming is caused by people. And believe me, it’s not for lack of trying. Scientists funded by ExxonMobil, the mining industry, the Heritage Foundation, and numerous other groups have been trying to do exactly what you propose.
“Mainstream” scientists who concur with the hypothesis that global warming is caused by human activities aren’t the ones getting invited on every cable TV talk show or getting the huge bucks for funding. Quite to the contrary. Professor Richard Lindzen, a professor at MIT, received $2500 a day to do “consulting” for ExxonMobil during the 1990’s, and he recently published an Op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, even though he has never published a scientific study challenging the existing climate change science. It seems that being a global warming “skeptic” is a pretty lucrative business, even if the science doesn’t back you up.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:16 amoh good. minnie’s here. great. minnie, you’ll have to take issue with one of george (sEiXXON)’s statements from earlier:
so go on, minnie, refute. take all the time you need.
george, #144,
“that’s not what i said”
it isn’t? well how exactly am i supposed to respond to, “Bush didn’t choose a damn thing”? my interpretation of that statement is that you’re saying he didn’t choose a damn thing. and besides that, he’s the president, and he’s responsible. no, he doesn’t conduct the investigations, but i’d hope the man is analytical enough to know when there isn’t enough evidence to support going to war (apparently his initial reaction to the evidence was, “this is it?” — how did he go from that to war?)
“Ah yes, they cowered before the powerless VP.”
oh, that’s a riot, george. the idiocy of that comment stands on its own. even republicans think cheney exerts too much power. did you happen to watch the frontline ‘darkside’ documentary, wherein cia officers recount the intimidating visits by cheney, feith, et al? they do, in fact, call it unprecedented. gore didn’t visit the cia because he knew he had no authority, george. it’s not the place of the vp to be performing executive duties. that’s pretty clear in the constitution.
“I was not cherry-picking, because I was not aware that NASA came up with a different set of data from the data I had.”
you mean you couldn’t read the information right here at the top of this thread? guess you need to retake that theory of knowledge course, george. not that i’m surprised you went of half-cocked without checking the facts provided.
and all of the other stuff, quickly:
prove this, prove that — well, that’s precious. you know what i mean but instead are trying to make semantic arguments that have no bearing on the veracity of the statement i made. that’s a good debating tactic — sidetrack the debate with semantic arguments.
“doing his job as president” – i do not want a micromanager, i want someone that will tell cheney to sit in his little vp’s chair and shut the hell up, like a good little vice president. i want someone to fire don rumsfeld for his incompetence in managing the iraq war, as he has been advised by countless persons on all sides of the political spectrum. i want someone who will take responsibility for the mistakes made under his command. i want someone who will quit with the unitary executive bs and start making compromises for the good of the country.
the nie in 2002 — yes, what a thorough piece of work that was. an nie that was produced in 2 weeks, when normally such a document takes months, if not years to produce. an nie that looked more like a marketing piece for the war than anything the cia had ever produced previously. an nie that withheld information that was known by cia agents to debunk the claims put forth by the feith group. gimme a break.
the fact that you disagreed with rush — ding ding ding! give this man a prize! like disagreeing with rush is admirable, george. as i said in my previous post, limbaugh isn’t even worth refuting.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:25 am#157: What you’re saying is basically true. Although climate change has been studied extensively, and although it continues to be a high priority for scientists, it’s impossible to develop a perfect model for studying climate change. For instance, there’s still a lot of scientific debate about the effect that global warming has on the severity of storms.
I’m wondering what conclusion you’re drawing from these areas of uncertainty, though. All the most important scientific bodies studying climate change–the IPCC, the NAS, and the joint committee of the science academies of the G8 nations–agree that “a lack of full scientific certainty about some aspects of climate change is not a reason for delaying an immediate response that will, at a reasonable cost, prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” Are you seeking to undermine this conclusion?
July 10th, 2006 at 1:28 amSeixon,
July 10th, 2006 at 1:33 amThe time zone range in Europe extends from GMT 0 to GMT +3. If I remember correctlly, Norway is GMT +1. Clearly, you are faking your location. Europe has multiple time znes just like the US. If you have not realized that, you must be as dumb as a rock.
Limbaugh Distorts Numbers To Downplay Global Warming Science
Posted by Faiz July 9, 2006 7:26 pm
You know Faiz, judging by some of the babes Limpbough has been with, I have a feeling those aren’t the only numbers he’s been distorting.
:D
July 10th, 2006 at 1:37 amReply to #167:
What you meant to say is, gee Seixon, I don’t have any proof that the document actually exists and now I will huff and puff instead of just admitting it.
How depressingly typical. I state my unwillingness to take part in your endless little ‘present infinite proof’ game, and you predictably crow about it as if it’s some sort of victory…guess when you’re in the position you’re in, you’ll take whatever you can get.
You want proof? Here you go.
(Oh wait, I forgot. That source is the New York Times…the same ‘liberal media’ that aided the terrorists by exposing the administration’s tracking of financial records and published information on the homes of Cheney and Rumsfeld. Obviously, nothing they have to say can be regarded as factual in your universe…)
even fixing their military strategy around existence of WMDs. See how I used the word fix? Now see how that works out in the part you excerpted.even fixing their military strategy around existence of WMDs. See how I used the word fix? Now see how that works out in the part you excerpted.
Here’s the key part of my excerpt….the part you seem to be fixated on, anyway:
But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
You say they were fixing their policy around the intelligence. The Downing Street Memo says they were fixing the intelligence around their policy. See the difference?
You don’t even know the time difference with Europe?
Congratulations on failing to recognize a rhetorical question. (Hint: I’m typing this on a computer, moron….don’t you think I could find out the answer if I didn’t already know it? You don’t even need access to the Internet…it’s a question you can answer with your computer’s clock, for Chrissakes…but you’d think a person with a PhD in ‘computers’ would know that, now wouldn’t you.)
Apparently, your rabid desire to attack me any way you can has blinded you to these simple facts…seems that’s been hapenning quite a bit lately. Mabye you ought to get some rest.
Now, for real, I am leaving.
Hurry back soon, and thanks again for all your help. Keep up the bad work.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:40 amsEiXXON’s head must be made of the densest material known to man. the only things he’ll concede are those where people aren’t directly challenging his assertions.
he repeatedly points to his acknowledgement that rush is wrong, as if that somehow proves he’s a reasonable person. it’s ridiculous. if you actually tried to follow his logic, you’d get your brain twisted up like a pretzel.
look, it’s been pointed out before, but just to remind everyone, sEiXXON uses tried and true debating methods, to make it appear as though he’s winning the debate. it’s really all meant to tie up the debate, ie, to make it seem as if there really is still a debate about global warming (thanks to jj from a previous post)-
1. Never pass up the opportunity to make a purely semantic argument.
wherein he argues not the facts of what you say, but the way in which you say it (he did this to me on this thread with the ‘prove pigs can fly’ bs).
2. Ignore, at all costs, the context of any evidence that might support your position. Make sloppy, unsustainable arguments that require your opponents to do your research for you. Then, when they’ve done the research you should have, throw up another unsustainable argument to see if it sticks. Repeat ad nauseum.
see his responses pertaining to the downing street memo. btw, tripmaster, i almost went there in my post about wmds, but decided against it. somehow i just knew what his response was going to be.
3. Any uncertainty, no matter how irrelevant or tangential, always debunks the entire body of evidence no matter how voluminous or rigorously reviewed that evidence is.
see his claim of 1998, not 2005, as the hottest year on record. according to sEiXXON, that verifies that al gore is a fabricator and therefore is misleading everyone about global warming. notice he admits later to not having even referenced the data linked to (and illustrated) in this very post.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:52 amjust so we all know, it’s coming up on 8am in oslo.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:58 amsEiXXON keeps unusually odd hours, does he not?
#176: What you’re saying is true; these are common strategies used by so-called global warming skeptics. It’s important to note that these strategies are merely rhetorical and not scientific.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:59 amReply to #176:
if you actually tried to follow his logic, you’d get your brain twisted up like a pretzel.
Yup…most definitely. Imagining a universe in which Seixon’s arguments are cogent is a cost-effective alternative to doing drugs…kinda like smoking Norwegian pot by proxy.
see his responses pertaining to the downing street memo. btw, tripmaster, i almost went there in my post about wmds, but decided against it. somehow i just knew what his response was going to be.
I guess I knew too, but somehow I couldn’t keep from posting, especially given his equating supporters of the global warming consensus with Scientologists earlier in the thread. Seixon’s posts are like train wrecks….you shouldn’t stare, but you just can’t seem to tear your eyes away.
Everything you’ve said about Seixon is 100% correct, and can be summed up thusly: He doesn’t need to actually win an argument…if he can stall, derail, or otherwise stop an argument from being concluded rationally, he chalks that up in his ‘win’ column instead.
July 10th, 2006 at 2:03 amjim,
can you confirm whether his head is made of the densest material known to man? heh, just kidding.
i’ve said it before, and i’ll say it again — the crux of seixon’s argument: do nothing, stay the same, don’t adapt, don’t improve. in other words, stagnate.
and don’t forget, oil is very important to norway’s economy…
July 10th, 2006 at 2:05 amLet us go into the theory of refrigerants.
July 10th, 2006 at 2:07 amR-12 was a bad ozone depleting refrigerant. R 502 was almost as bad.
R 22 was rated as .05 as an ozone depleting refrigerant.
Almost all new refrigerants are green-house gasses.
Why are we supporting them?
Because they make twice the profits for the industry.
We want to save our enviroment, but industries stops us because they want to make money!
Let us put reason back to the people and stop the industry from making money on our backs.
(Response to Seixon idiocy)
Since the world’s oceans have a collective heat capacity many times that of the atmosphere, one cannot depend solely on atmospheric temperatures to get a complete picture of planetary warming. The big 1998 El Nino event resulted in the tropical Pacific Ocean “dumping” a bunch of heat into the atmosphere — that explains the 1998 *atmospheric* temperature spike.
However, if you include the heat energy in the oceans (necessary for a complete accounting of the Earth’s “temperature”), our planet has been *warming* since 1998.
Unfortunately, getting wingnuts to understand this is rather difficult, because you first have to get them to understand high-school science concepts like “heat capacity”. Not an easy task.
July 10th, 2006 at 2:15 am#181: You’re right. But it’s going to be very, very challenging. I’ve spent the past two weeks trying, very calmly and patiently, to show one of my parents’ friends (who is obviously a Dittohead) that global warming is happening, that it is caused in large part by human activities, that the consequences are likely to be very serious, that the scientific community is practically begging our political leaders to take reasonable measures to prevent it, and that if we make changes, we’ll likely see positive results.
He has responded first with denial, then with meaningless quotes from global warming “skeptics” like Richard Lindzen, then with claims that global warming activists are trying to generate “hysteria,” then with failed efforts to pick me apart semantically, and finally with personal attacks against me. This is from a family friend, mind you.
But I’d still like to believe that we can counter these irrational, illogical tactics with patience, kindness, and truth. What other choice do we have, really?
July 10th, 2006 at 2:16 amyes, cast some doubt upon the truth — you don’t need to win, all you need is a tie.
classic example is kerry’s military record. the truth is that he served honorably. the right-wing truth is that he served dishonorably. the net result was that the truth was obfuscated and kerry’s strength was neutralized.
of course, part of the problem is that the press, who are supposed to set the parameters for the debate, continually allow the right to expand the parameters into whackjob land. that’s what they call “objectivity” now.
damn the liberal media!
July 10th, 2006 at 2:20 amI can’t believe people who have personally done NO RESEARCH OF THEIR OWN, and im willing to guarantee by their shown intelligence aren’t scientists are aguing about this. When even a hint of politics arises and sides are taken, all of a sudden everyones an expert. Seeing as there is a scientific consesus that global warming exists and even the EPA stated it was man-made, WHY DO PEOPLE feel the need to some how unearth some amazing finding? Are we to believe that anyone on this board is as smart or smarter in science than a group of scientists? I really don’t see how anyone can argue they know more then the EPA, but alas thats the nature of politics, and apparently the internet.
July 10th, 2006 at 3:13 amInteresting comments everyone! I see that Seixon tried to gum up the thread, but he claims he does not work for the GOP/Karl Rove > lol.
Off to bed > bye all!
July 10th, 2006 at 3:16 amComment by boring — July 10, 2006 @ 3:13 am
July 10th, 2006 at 3:37 amYeah we should probably shut up and get back to the barnyard and feed the cows.
[...] It’s not about the facts, it’s about who wins. Check it out here: Think Progress » Limbaugh Distorts Numbers To Downplay Global Warming Science [...]
July 10th, 2006 at 6:31 amIn a nut shell:
Seixon: The Earth is flat.
Rational people; No, it’s round. Even the Ancient Greeks were able to deduce this using parallax, well before they were able to circumnavigate the globe. This was over 3,000 years ago.
Seixon: No, you lying stupid idiotys, it’s falt.
Rational people: No, it’s round. Ancient Norwegians were able to circumnavigate the earth, and then the Italians. In fact America is named after circumnavigator Amerigo Vespucci.
Seixon: Oh, that’s mature, you’re all picking on me now.
Rational people: No, it’s not about you. You stated that the earth is flat. It is in fact not.
Seixon: But I can walk in a straight line for miles without falling off this round earth you idots and liars call it. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Rational People: The earth is much larger than you are, therefore, the curve is gradual and it seems flat. But it is not. It’s round. Take a look at Hubble Telescopes photos of the Earth at http://www.hubblesite.org
Seixon: You’re just making stuff up. LIAR! LIAr! You don’t know what you’re talking about you lying liars. You’re just picking on me. Here’s proof the earth is flat: http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
Rational people: The Flat Earth Society isn’t based on scientific facts. Gravity works in 3 dimensions, not two as your link claimed.
Seixon: Is so you liars. I gave a link. Quit lying about me not posting links. When will you apologize for lying about me and posting personal information that isn’t even accurate!?!
Rational people: Sigh….
July 10th, 2006 at 8:39 amWould you trust the tobacco industry if they told you that their product never causes cancer? Would you believe ‘fellows’ from an ‘independent, privately funded think’ tank who you there was no connection between cigarettes and cancer risks?
What would you think of a massive tobacco advertising camapign designed to deny any cancer risk from smoking? What if at the same time the tobacco industry was also buying politicians left and right, many of whom also held personal financial stakes in tobacco finance companies? What other PR methods would they use?
There were a lot of ’scientific experts’ funded by the tobacco industry who claimed that smoking had no link to cancer; rather they claimed that broad ‘lifestyle choices’ and family genetics were the causes.
See any parallels to the current oil/coal industry response to the warming of the planet? They’ve got think tanks and scientific experts combined with PR campaigns (the Internet, TV, radio and print) and paid-for politicians – only on a bigger scale.
July 10th, 2006 at 8:59 amLet’s see—the evidence as interpreted by virtually every reputable climate scientist? Or something that Rush Limbaugh thinks he read somewhere? Science or stupidity?
July 10th, 2006 at 9:05 amReply to #189:
Thanks, unbelieveable, for giving me a chuckle over my morning coffee. I generally try to avoid parodying Seixon myself, since he is basically a parody of himself at this point, but that was good just the same.
Three things you forgot, though:
1) Ridiculously unreasonable demands of proof that the earth is round, and flat rejection of any and all evidence you might submit.
2) Claims that you’re ‘misrepresenting his position’, followed by an ad hoc redefinition of the words ‘earth’, ‘flat’, and ‘is’ (Clinton’s got nothing on Seixon in the evasion department).
3) The word ‘demonize’.
Still pretty spot-on, though.
July 10th, 2006 at 9:07 amStill pretty spot-on, though.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — July 10, 2006 @ 9:07 am
I could have also filled it with strawmen…. But I figured it would get too long, and didn’t want to piss off TP. :)
You know what was scarier – reading the Flat Earth Society’s web site. The arguments they use for proof of a flat earth are stuff a 5th grader with half a brain could debunk. If you want another laugh, go check out that link. Now I get why these people still support Bush. They are in complete and utter denial of reality – or they are just really, really, really stupid.
July 10th, 2006 at 9:15 amWhere’s Limbaugh’s scientific degree? When did he become the world’s leading expert on global warming? I’m agreeing with #191.
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog.php
July 10th, 2006 at 9:23 amAnother terror plot hoax?
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog.php
Check out SSA’s new forum!
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/forum
I’ve seen this link posted on thinkprogress before, but its so full of important information, that i think it should be posted again. It’s a rebuttle to every common anti-science statement that denies the blatant presence and growing threat of global warming. Check it out! Next time you all hear some reich-wing douchebag talk about how pollution isnt a problem, use this link as an arsenal of scientific facts.
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html
July 10th, 2006 at 10:04 amI’m not sure who authored the above blog, but whoever did, he/she did a great job in his/her research!
July 10th, 2006 at 10:05 am#190 Interesting point about the tobacco industry. Indeed, one of the leading spewers of misinformaiton, disinformaiton, and lies is Steven Milloy, a five star jerk who runs a web site called junkscience.com. Milloy is also a frequent contributor to Faux News. This lying dirtbag is funded by Exxon Mobil and other fossil fuel producers (through their proxies, of course) to lie about global warming science (many of Seixon’s bogus criticisms echo Milloy). Milloy has also worked for the tobacco industry for many years as a paid lobbyist (which he lies about but which has been proven by publicly available documents). He continues to flak for big tobacco by lying about the dangers of second hand smoke. Another one of his major disinformation projects is aimed at legalizing DDT.
Not surprisingly, this sociopathic liar has no scientific training. He is a lawyer.
July 10th, 2006 at 10:35 am#173 I too have been wondering whether Seixon really lives in Norway. He keeps odd hours indeed.
July 10th, 2006 at 10:39 amI found out an interesting tidbit about Bergen, Norway: Bars and nightclubs mostly close at 2:00AM, and a couple by 3:00AM > since Norway is 6 hours later than here it means that at 9:00PM Eastern time in US, its 3:00AM in Norway! Going out to get a drink with the guys is not possible to claim past 9:00PM on a TP thread > lol.
July 10th, 2006 at 2:03 pmWe currently are seeing the warmest worldwide average temperatures in the history of the human species. Along with the highest concentration of greenhouse gasses, and the highest sea-levels.. If this continues and if we can do something about it by controlling fossil fuel use and emissions,it is a reasonable question. For me, seems hard to come up with any reason why we shouldn’t try to mitigate the damage.
You go into the doctor’s office, because you have a cough. The doctor examines you and says, no it isn’t likely lung cancer, but you still should stop smoking. Apparently, if you are a Republican, you immediately go out and buy a cigar to celebrate not having cancer.
Can you show me one study that shows worldwide temperatures are lower today than 50 years ago?
All I ask is one.
July 10th, 2006 at 2:24 pmRush seems to think that reality is a ‘crutch’ for those who cannot handle drugs. And he has personal experience with ‘things that are not…rising’. I think his own issues are clouding his thought processing abilities, not that they were any good in the first place.
July 10th, 2006 at 3:30 pmI read something the other day that says Rush Limbaugh is a big fat liar who pulls “facts” out of his ass.
July 10th, 2006 at 4:00 pmSeixon,
And since when is America the globe?
July 10th, 2006 at 4:03 pmIt’s just one little part of the globe, in case you missed it. And even that has been warming in the last 5 years. So where is the “cooling trend” Limbaugh talks about? Asshole.
“2005 was not the warmest year of the past century, 1998 was. 2005 was the warmest year in the Northern Hemisphere, a fact that Al Gore left out of his movie.”
No you are wrong as usual.
2005 was the warmest year on record. Globally.
“The highest global surface temperature in more than a century of instrumental data was recorded in the 2005 calendar year in the GISS annual analysis.”
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
The only thing that Gore left out is that
“the error bar on the data implies that 2005 is practically in a dead heat with 1998, the warmest previous year.”
But if you talk about that you should also talk about the fact that 1998 was a
year of a strong El Nino while 2005 was not and still it was warmer than 1998.
“Record warmth in 2005 is notable, because global temperature has not received any boost from a tropical El Niño this year. The prior record year, 1998, on the contrary, was lifted 0.2°C above the trend line by the strongest El Niño of the past century.”
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
Give up, loser.
July 10th, 2006 at 4:09 pm#199 seixon – tony blair confirmed 1 the existence of the dsm on june 7 2005 at a white house press conference 2 by not disputing its contents he also gave authenticity to the smith report.
July 10th, 2006 at 4:12 pmlooks like your pants are on fire seixon – thanks for playing.
“Take a look at the trend in global temperatures. It’s very clear.”
Nevermind, Sinker. Seixon will still say that global warming is the invention of the left. Or whatever.
The guy is an idiot. You cannot do anything with him. He ignores the 1998 El Nino, he ignores NASA, he ignores NAS, he ignores the peer-reviewed science.
He ignores everyone who does not “confirm” his belief that man-made global warming is a myth. It’s simple as that.
He is like those assholes who denied the link between CFCs and stratospheric ozone depletion just because they were too stupid to imagine a functioning economy without CFCs.
Duh!
July 10th, 2006 at 4:18 pmRandal,
I found out an interesting tidbit about Bergen, Norway: Bars and nightclubs mostly close at 2:00AM, and a couple by 3:00AM > since Norway is 6 hours later than here it means that at 9:00PM Eastern time in US, its 3:00AM in Norway! Going out to get a drink with the guys is not possible to claim past 9:00PM on a TP thread > lol.
As usual, you obsess about me, dig for information, and then you don’t even end up getting correct information. Most nightclubs close between 3:00-3:30AM. I haven’t claimed to go get a drink anywhere on this thread, and never did so past 9PM EST. After digging up info on me, having someone call my parents, and then post all the details on here, then you are back to insinuating that I’m lying about things again? Have you no shame?
gringo,
So where is the “cooling trend†Limbaugh talks about? Asshole.
You might want to check through my comments and realize I never talked about or claimed that there was a cooling trend. Careful with those personal attacks, especially when you’re wrong.
Give up, loser.
I already posted the data which were the base of my comments. You’re showing up for a party that is long since over, and you don’t have a clue what happened.
July 10th, 2006 at 4:24 pm“Certainly does look like the temps are stabilizing at around 0.46. I wonder what 2006 will end up being.”
Huh?
2006 is a La Nina year. It will be propably cooler than 2005.
July 10th, 2006 at 4:25 pmBut the trend is what matters, moron. Which part of that you don’t understand?
“I’m sure that most of you have heard the contrary evidence,”
We heard contrary OPINIONS but not evidence. Two different things.
Anyone can say anything. Like Tim Ball who said that global warming stopped in 1940. Bullshit.
Or Roy Spencer who still tries to spin the MSU data just to “prove” that he has been right all along. He is a coward and he just can’t take it.
But just because someone says something it will not be evidence.
July 10th, 2006 at 4:47 pmDenialists do not have evidence. That’s the problem with them. And that’s why no sane person believes them anymore.
” I never talked about or claimed that there was a cooling trend.”
Limbaugh did, asshole. And you tried to defend him, moron.
Stop spinning. We know what you think. Man-made global warming is a hoax.
You spin all of your points to support that view.
“I already posted the data which were the base of my comments.”
And I already showed the data which shows that you are wrong.
You are particularly wrong to ignore the fact that 1998 temperatures were boosted by El Nino while 2005 temperatures were not.
Talk about ignoring facts.
July 10th, 2006 at 5:05 pmmemphis minnie,
Which scientist say that the debate about computer modelling is over?
No it’s not that part where the debate is over. It’s about whether
1)global warming is occuring
2) is caused mainly by human activity
Those are the two points where the debate is over and no scientist says that it’s over because computer modelling is not 100% accurate.
You don’t know what you are talking about.
July 10th, 2006 at 5:16 pmLimbaugh,distort..ed human being.
July 10th, 2006 at 7:32 pmLOL Seixon you think anybody looking up information about Norway is just about you? Get real, I was looking up information about Bergen, if I decide to ever visit there > seems to be a nice place, except for you living there > lol. I saw a list of bars and nightclubs and many closed at 2:00AM and some by 3:00AM! I guess you forgot, that you told *unbelievable* on a past thread that you had to go out with your friends to get a drink > it was about 10:00PM or later here in US, so the clubs were closed in Bergen!
As for someone calling your parents: I have NO idea who did that, so stop insinuating that I had anything to do with it! You claim the person is named “John Dean” > nobody I know!
July 10th, 2006 at 11:15 pm“So I leave and the flood gates open, my you guys are a bunch of cowards.”
you seem to like to throw around the word “coward” a lot.
“We were talking about intelligence, not the decision to go to war, thus “a damn thing†relates to the topic at hand, intelligence.”
yes, i know. i was making a semantic argument. pointless, isn’t it?
but i was in no way evasive. i went on to say something you neglected to address:
“Poor guy. Those CIA officers are with the VIPS group that has been trying to get Cheney to resign/fired since the beginning of the war. They will lie to no end as they have been caught doing many times already. They can claim that Feith and Cheney were “intimidating†all they want, but it makes no sense. Of course they call it unprecedented because there’s no journalist who is willing to actually fact-check them. Where in the Constitution does it say that the Executive branch has to stay away from visiting the CIA? You make things up on the fly like those obviously partisan CIA officers do.”
look. i’m not going to spell it out for you.
here. just watch the documentary. it’s free. you have no excuse not to.
and funny how you say “executive” when i’m talking specifically about the vice president. another nice semantic twist to redefine the terminology to fit your argument. see below for what the constitution has to say about the vice president’s executive powers.
“No data was provided, and I responded with my own data in my first post that was at odds with what NASA was saying.”
i repeat: you mean you couldn’t read the information right here at the top of this thread? please do all of us a favor by reading the posts thoroughly before you comment, seixon. this very thread links to the nasa report, and that nice little graph links directly to the study, complete with data, footnotes, and images. also, please decide whether you are to be a dolt or an intelligent person, as you have demonstrated the propensity for both in your comments.
“So the VP is supposed to sit in his chair and shut up? Wow, OK.”
tell me something, seixon — why are all of the vice presidential powers delineated in article i of the constitution, and not article ii? what i said is exactly how the founders intended it. the vp is president of the senate, a tie-breaking vote, and that’s it. it gives the office no other powers. the constitution is clear, “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” article ii, section 1. that’s singular, seixon. we do not elect co-presidents.
how do i know the writers of the constitution didn’t want the vp undertaking executive powers? because before the twelfth amendment, the runner-up in the presidential election became the vice president-elect. the vice president-elect was therefore a political rival of the president-elect. this is why he has no executive powers. he was supposed to sit in his damn president of the senate chair and shut the hell up. unless he was casting a tie-breaking vote.
what we have today is a tacit denial of the constitutional role of the vice president, and a mockery of article ii of the constitution.
“You know, I actually agree with you on that one [firing rumsfeld].”
thank you.
“He already has. He has taken full responsibility for taking the decision to go to war and everything that has meant, as he also took responsibility for everything that went wrong under his command when it came to hurricane Katrina. Were you sleeping when this was going on?”
yes, bush has publicly said the words “i take responsibility” for this and that. funny, he wouldn’t do it at all until he was safely in his second term, and since then he — or rove — has figured out that’s the only way he can hang on to the supporters he has left.
look, this is just another semantic argument. let’s act like we know the difference between saying “i take responsibility” and actually taking responsibility. if he was taking responsibility, he would have fired rumsfeld. if he was taking responsibility for katrina, new orleans wouldn’t still be languishing. and don’t try to tell me it’s not. i have friends and relatives in the area, and they all want to know — where’s all of that support the president promised? where’s that responsibility? new orleans is still a wreck, and hurricane season is upon us again.
“All intelligence agencies worked on and contributed to the report. All intelligence agencies signed off on it. Feith’s group had no bearing on the NIE, but it’s fun to pretend isn’t it? The CIA agents you speak of haven’t proved any of their claims because they are full of it. Like Tyler Drumheller, for instance. He misled people on 60 Minutes.”
please take the time to read some professional opinions of the celebrated nie
“Yes, that there is no proof the Downing Street Memo exists. There isn’t. You can scream as loud as you want, but there still is no proof that the document actually exists in the form presented by the journalist Michael Smith. Yes, I do know the name of the journalist who came up with it because I have researched this matter, unlike most of you who just picked up on it from Think Progress and left it at that.”
no proof? what about this?
see also this.
“Ah, so there isn’t a difference between me, some dude commenting at a forum, and Al Gore, someone making a movie about global warming? Al Gore cherry-picked the science on that issue, as he did with many other issues in his movie. That was only a tiny example of the thorough cherry-picking Gore does throughout his movie. When he is making a documentary about global warming, and presenting this to the public, he should not be cherry-picking evidence and should be aware of any differences in assessments.”
i hope you recall that you’re talking to someone who absolutely does not care. i don’t particularly understand the fervor with which you conduct your anti-gore campaign, but i haven’t seen his movie, haven’t read his books and don’t actually need that man — or anyone else — to tell me how to think about this issue. to me it is absolutely a matter of common sense:
renewable or non-renewable energy?
saudi arabian interests or american interests?
pollute more or less?
manageable (or even beneficial) economic consequences now or disastrous economic consequences later?
adapt or die?
what i’m saying is who the hell cares if there’s global warming or not, we should be doing this stuff anyway.
you argue about it a lot, but what are your motives, seixon? why wouldn’t you want to take positive steps for energy independence, national security, american well-being, environmental benefit, and potentially the most significant step forward for humanity in our lifetimes?
why?
July 11th, 2006 at 3:50 am[...] Thinkprogress exposes the authenticity of the numbers given by Rush Limbaugh that he uses to dismiss Al Gore and his global warming crusade. Rush Limbaugh, last Friday: [...]
July 11th, 2006 at 1:41 pmThis is my first post here ever. Not that I expect anybody will care, but I have some questions that have not been answered in any articles I have read. I am a skeptic of the cause of global warming.
I remember in the late 70’s and early 80’s when we were headed for the next ice age. In less than 20 years, the consensus has changed 180 degrees. Now we are heating up, and man is the cause.
Where is the information that shows that the warming is abnormal, when compared over a 100, 1000, 2000, 5000, and 10000 year period, or as best as we can look back and have reliable proxies. Why are we banking mainly on the tree ring proxy only?
I am skeptical about cherry picked data.
How do you explain the period between 1945 and 1980?
How do you explain what happened between 1000 and 1900, as shown on an IPCC graph presented in 1995, and the hockey stick graph?
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
There are plenty of sites out there that actually offer debate on the subject. The more politicized science becomes, the more skeptical we should be – regardless of who holds office. Fear is a very powerful motivator. It can be used to make people cower and give up freedom to their benevolent protectors, or it can be used to separate billions of dollars, trillions over a long time. Regardless of the science, there is little money in maintaining the status quo – everything is A-OK does not bring in the big bucks.
I am not a scientist, I’m an engineer. I’m educated and intelligent enough to understand scientific jargon, arguments, evidence, and logic. What I see more and more of from the “global warming is caused by man, and we must do something” crowd is an air of superiority, eliteism.
Why does the global warming crowd hide behind terms like consensus? I want to know how the data was collected, where it was collected from, and how the data has been massaged. From what I understand, the Mann study used some pretty heavy mathematics to come up with the results.
One group of skeptics claim that you get the same result with the Mann study, when you feed in white noise data. If this is not true, why not show it? Why all the secrecy?
I guess I don’t put a whole lot of faith into studies that, by their results, command millions in grants, and have a multi-billion if not trillion dollar effect, that do not disclose all their methods, data, and assumptions.
July 11th, 2006 at 4:20 pmmike r,
does it really matter?
should we be energy independent or not?
isn’t it in our national security interest, and the long-term interests of america, to greatly decrease our dependence on fossil fuels?
shouldn’t we pollute less?
hasn’t our quest for more oil skewed our foreign policy for long enough?
aren’t we, as humans, supposed to dedicate ourselves to adapting and improving, and not clinging with naive hope to the notion that our current paradigm will last forever, and that our problems would be best left for future generations to solve?
i find life is much easier if we let the scientists argue the science, although i think you left something out of your final statement:
i would add: i don’t put a lot of faith into anti-global warming studies that are funded by oil companies, oil company-funded think tanks (cei), and lobbies. there are people going to a lot of effort to make sure that the truth is utterly indiscernable.
it doesn’t matter. we should make the changes anyway.
July 11th, 2006 at 10:12 pmSeixon certainly doesn’t know how to read scientific literature. From NASA:
“…the error bar on the data implies that 2005 is practically in a dead heat with 1998, the warmest previous year… Record warmth in 2005 is notable, because global temperature has not received any boost from a tropical El Niño this year. The prior record year, 1998, on the contrary, was lifted 0.2°C above the trend line by the strongest El Niño of the past century.”
From his own citation (University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit Press Release 2005)
“All the temperature values have uncertainties, which arise mainly from gaps in data coverage. The sizes of the uncertainties are such that, although it is most likely to be the second warmest year, the global average temperature for 2005 is statistically indistinguishable from, and could be anywhere between, the first and the eighth warmest year in the record.â€
Mike R. claims “I’m educated and intelligent enough to understand scientific jargon, arguments, evidence, and logic.†Okay. Asymmetric molecules are excited into motion through the absorption of infrared radiation – the radiation given off whenever the earth cools. The main gasses making up our atmosphere (nitrogen, oxygen) form symmetrical molecules which don’t absorb light at these frequencies, don’t undergo molecular motion which is the definition of the term heat. The DOE reports worldwide emission of the gaseous molecules which do undergo excitation to be in the tens of billions of metric tons per year:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/emissions.html
That’s all covered by scientific consensus – no controversies there. And I’m not hiding behind a damned thing. The controversy surrounds the extent to which these emissions contribute to current warming trends – not whether we can get away with ever increasing greenhouse emission forever.
And your questioning of the local trends in two even more significantly cherry-picked periods suggests a certain linear fix to your perspective. We understand that global warming is periodic, but that the sine wave is being vertically translated.
Tree ring proxies only? Paleotemperature proxies include ice cores, deposits of flora and fauna, chemical properties of sediments…
But the real point is, there ain’t no free lunch in this universe. Inconvenient consequences do exist, and there is more than enough sound science out there to warrant concern.
July 12th, 2006 at 1:04 amSeixon:
How invested are you in the “Global Warming Doesn’t Exist” theory? Do you own a coal mine or something? What would it take to convince you that Global Warming is real?
I have yet to see a link to ANY peer-reviewed scientific study which contradicts the consensus among the world’s climate scientists that Global Warming is real, and that it appears to be caused by humans. All I keep seeing is little snippets of data (1998 warmer than 2005, etc.) being presented to try and discredit the theory.
What evidence do you base your opinion on? You think that you can interpret the climate data better than the world’s best climatologists? Who do you think you are, Rush Limbaugh, expert at everything?
Do you really think that the ALL of the world’s scientists are lying or mis-stating the data so that they can get more research funding? That wouldn’t fly for long, since other scientists would soon point out the errors in their research/analysis, if any existed.
Do you also believe that the world is only 6000 years old? If the answer is yes, I’m not surprised. If no, why not, you mean you believe scientists in this case?
Is someone paying you to disrupt this discusssion? I seems like it, since you seem to post more than anyone on this topic (methinks thou dost protest too much!)
I believe it’s people like you, and George Bush, who are responsile for the decline of Science in America.
July 12th, 2006 at 5:29 pmProgressaurus Rex,
Being energy independent as a nation would be nice, just like being automobile independent, lumber independent, mineral independent, and food independent.
I ask, at what price?
We have enough energy in North America to be independent, but the costs would be raised, both from an environmental and dollar basis. (Source: Wired magazine) The reason we use oil (for gas) is because it is relatively cheap and portable, compared to shale and tar sands, methane, propane, kerosene, or natural gas. If and when the oil or any other resource runs low (or is artificially held low) for an extended period of time, other sources will be sought. You have to take into perspective that oil has been under $35 a barrel, even as low as $10, for quite some time.
People naturally seek out efficiency on a cost basis. Ex. solar. Higher prices will create a greater market demand once solar becomes competetive (i.e., not heavily subsidized) and the return on investment period is short.
Back to the price issue. I am concerned that we have a national debt of over 8 trillion dollars, and our unfunded liabilities bring us up anywhere from 40 to 80 trillion, depending on the source. The payment on this interest will be staggering and could hobble the economy and our way of life, that of our children.
Given that we have limited financial resources, we must focus our efforts where they will be effective, and solve real problems. Aids, Malaria, potable water, famine, smog, other pollution, food supply, disease, ending stupid wars. Spending trillions of dollars to change the temperature less than .1 degrees seems like a waste to me.
If you look at things from a national safety perspective, it would be wise to explore alternatives, and have options open. Research is a good thing. I worry that we roll out undeveloped, inefficient solutions to say we are doing something. Regulations and subsidies often cause inefficiencies, and misallocations of resources, which could be used to further develop and enhance existing technology. A premature widescale roll out can actually be harmful to the environment.
I’m all for voluntary pollution reduction by individuals, and mandatory pollution reduction by the biggest polluter of all, the US govt.
hasn’t our quest for more oil skewed our foreign policy for long enough?
I won’t disagree with you. Our foreign policy is screwed up. Oil and the Middle East seem to be the focus of today, however, we have across generations, as a nation found it compelling to squeeze foreign governments and populations. And it has always been profitable (for some).
aren’t we, as humans, supposed to dedicate ourselves to adapting and improving, and not clinging with naive hope to the notion that our current paradigm will last forever, and that our problems would be best left for future generations to solve?
I love the idea of adapting and improving. I am excited about new technology in batteries that may make 100% electric vehicles a reality for the masses.
i find life is much easier if we let the scientists argue the science, although i think you left something out of your final statement:
Fair enough.
I guess I don’t put a whole lot of faith into studies that, by their results, command millions in grants, and have a multi-billion if not trillion dollar effect, or that can effect billions in profits, that do not disclose all their methods, data, and assumptions.
I am not interested in what scientists agree to. They could state that one race is smarter than another, ice sinks because it is more dense than water, the earth has more mass than jupiter and it is at the center of the galaxy, or we a separated from every human on this planet by less than 6 degrees of separation. The consensus was that Iraq had WMDs, and we should do something before it is too late.
More important than whether or not scientists have reached a consensus, however, is whether or not the scientific data backs up the theory.
I am an equal opportunity skeptic. I do put more trust in those that are more open to disclose their information, and explain their position. Sounds bites on the news are fine for the masses, not me. I also do not trust our political process and politicians. Their job is to bring as much pork home as possible, regardless of the cost, and to convince their constituents they are doing something about the crisis du jour, whether it be terrorism, global warming, the endangered snowy plover, jobs, the economy, etc, while they do what is necessary to acquire enough funds to run a reelection campaign and line the pockets of themselves and close friends.
it doesn’t matter. we should make the changes anyway.
I love the idea of promoting CFLs, better home insulation, and other cost competetive efficient solutions that benefit individuals. I support the idea of polluting less.
I’m all for you making whatever changes you need to make, along with the entire consensus and the believers. When you say “we should”, I have a feeling you mean to say “you shall”, as is the nature of government, force. Like any government program, some will profit handsomely, while the costs are distributed (unevenly)amoung all, creating the greatest harm amoung the least affluent, without necessarily providing any real benefit, and to the contrary commiting real harm.
July 12th, 2006 at 5:43 pmIt amazes me how few of these nuts that don’t know anything about science can spew garbage. In science the classic M.O. is to present a premise backed by careful though and evidence and build a theory. It is then used as a basis to find contradicting evidence to the theory NOT supporting evidence. In the absense of contradiction the theory gain weight as time goes on. So all you wing nuts out there that don’t know anything about science should go back to school or just leave science to scientists. Global warming has been a well studied theory and to date there is NO evidence that contradicts it. Produce one peer reviewed journal that does and I’ll shit on the floor and dance in it for a year! Now all the nutcases go listen to Rush Bimbo and be filled with ignorance because it’s bliss! As for liberals wanting to take jobs away-that’s the laugh of the century! Is that all you could come up with?
July 12th, 2006 at 5:55 pmSilas,
I would like to see much more “open source” style studies, open to criticism by all. The internet is good like that. When you talk about peer reviewed, you are talking about those studies that have already been cleared to be acceptable for review, that have made it past the gatekeepers. It helps to be on the politically correct side of the fence.
I’d be happy if anybody from the scientific consensus could offer an opinion other than me too, back it up with data, and explain how the results were obtained, as well as any limitations.
I have read some interesting papers that ask the same questions, provide their own theories, and ask for others to shoot them down from a scientific standpoint – the scientific community must be too busy to peer review these studies. If they are so full of holes, wouldn’t it make sense?
Can someone explain how they have come to the conclusion that CO2 is THE variable that is the cause of global warming, that it will continue upwards without stabilizing, and it will be bad for mankind or the environment as a whole? Please also address variations in the output of the sun, and explain why it is not at all related to the upward changes in temperature. Please also discuss what happened to the medieval warm period and little ice age.
If using a model, please discuss how your modeling works, how it varies from measured temperature, assumptions used, data discarded, data weighing, and statistical significance.
Also, please discuss your model projections, and as a bonus, how it will be affected if we completely stop using oil in 2050 (when we are supposed to run out).
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
July 12th, 2006 at 7:12 pmthat’s a nice little world you live in, “america”. maybe you need to get out more.
mike r – thanks. at least you’re taking a fair analytical approach.
July 13th, 2006 at 12:38 amtwo notes though:
1) the junkscience site is run by a lawyer who is a former lobbyist. he makes a habit of seeking only evidence that agrees with his conclusion. kind of like our current president.
2) i do not in any way advocate a governmentally mandated solution. on the contrary, i want to see market forces dictate that energy independence is a good investment and a good consumer choice (i have libertarian tendencies). it appears that many companies are indeed beginning to head that direction.
[...] Oh admittedly the Carbon Allowance idea isn’t appearently evenly applied troughout UK society. But its nice to see them making the effort. In fact a lot of countries are making efforts to be green, including ours. But thats inspite of our goverment and its supporters. Oh and heres a little list of all the prob- economic oppurtunities caused by global warming. And that ain’t the half of it. [...]
July 21st, 2006 at 3:50 amGlobal Warming is the biggest lie since Joe Stalin was mister nice guy. There are absolutely no figures to show that the planet is any hotter today than it was 100 years ago except for temperatures supplied by ‘pseudo intellectuals’ with vested interests.
July 25th, 2006 at 2:47 amGo check out the summer of 1923 when Vienna recorded temperatures of 112 – farenheight of course.
What would a graph of CO2 increase (horizontal axis) against temperature increase (vertical axis) look like? No one knows exactly, but the graph would obviously go through the origin. If the Earth was given an atmosphere of 100% CO2, then maybe the temperature of the Earth would rise by about 200C (making the Earth somewhat cooler than Venus, which has a nearly pure CO2 atmoshere, but is 30% closer to the Sun than the Earth is). So the graph goes through (0,0) and (100, approx 200). If the graph is approximately a straight line, then we don’t have anything to worry about. Even if the CO2 level was multiplied by about 30, meaning that it increased from 0.03% to about 1%, the temperature rise would only be 2C. So far, industrialisation has only increased CO2 by about 30%. We only need to worry if the curve goes up very steeply at first, then flattens out. I’d be interested to hear what environmentalists think the curve would look like.
July 29th, 2006 at 6:03 pmRush Dimbulb
OK I just had to type what I’ve been saying for years. But all joshing aside.
Any way I have a gut feeling he has about 3.5 years left to live. I just hope that as he becomes aware of his mortality he will let go of this position and try to make amends for the affect he has had on public opinion. The delays in solid action on this and other issues that this one man has contributed to has set mankind back in ways we may never completely understand.
Dear GOD thank you that Mr. Limbaugh can become key to a solutions and not to the problems we face as members of Earth. And thank you for his good health. In the name of my LORD, amen.
August 4th, 2006 at 8:55 pmOlga
I just wanted to write to say that you have a great site and a wonderful resource for all to share.
March 15th, 2008 at 10:12 pm