Matalin On Global Warming: ‘A Largely Unscientific Hoax,’ A ‘Political Concoction’
Matalin On Global Warming: ‘A Largely Unscientific Hoax,’ A ‘Political Concoction’
This week, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer discussed the right wing’s tepid support of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) with right-wing activist Mary Matalin. Matalin explained that McCain is out of step with the far right on several issues, in particular global warming, which many conservatives “loathe” discussing:
BLITZER: They loathe that?
MATALIN: Because it’s a largely unscientific hoax. And it’s a political concoction.
Watch it:
Echoing Matalin, former House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX) recently said that “there is no science to suggest that man is the cause of climate change.” These claims are laughable. As Science Magazine noted, in addition to the IPCC and National Academy of Sciences, there is overwhelming agreement that the causes of global warming are man-made.
Matalin observed that “you haven’t heard [McCain] prioritizing” climate change recently: “What you’ve been hearing him say since he’s achieved the nomination…is to prioritize security issues,” which are less controversial on the right.
(HT: TheGreenMiles)
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Yeah, the American Meteorological Society, they’re not scientists at all. I think they just sell furniture or something.
http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/2007climatechange.html
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:09 amTranslation Service:
“Largely unscientific hoax” = An Inconvenient Truth.
“Political concoction” = Poison for us at the polls with moderates and liberals.
“We were so close! Victory was within our grasp!” Hehe
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:10 amJust to cut and paste in their conclusion:
“Despite the uncertainties noted above, there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems, and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond. Focusing on the next 30 years, convergence among emission scenarios and model results suggest strongly that increasing air temperatures will reduce snowpack, shift snowmelt timing, reduce crop production and rangeland fertility, and cause continued melting of the ice caps and sea level rise. Important goals for future work include the need to understand the relation of climate at the state and regional level to the patterns of global climate and to reverse the decline in observational networks that are so critical to accurate climate monitoring and prediction.”
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:10 amThere is nothing Matalin won’t lie about. Not the reasons for the illegal war in Iraq, and not the truth about global warming. She is a political whore.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:12 amBut the far wrong apparently believe in the science of cloning–how do they know that Dolly the sheep wasn’t just some Disney animatronic?
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:12 amPersonally I’d like to see all their regressive ilk prove that the theory of gravity is a hoax too, from the nearest 10-storey building they can find.
You know, that just really depresses me. I mean, is it no wonder that conservatives will never come around on this issue when they see major personalities telling them it’s a hoax? That really just deflates my balloon right there.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:15 amALBANIA -
Read an article today with which I agree. Supporting seperatist movements in Europe is a dangerous precendent, as muslim populations in many European nations are starting to form their own enclaves, with their own local govenments – pushing for Sharia law even in England (not to mention Canada). It is only a matter of time before parts of France and Spain start seeking independence – is the US going to support those groups too?
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:18 amIt is science that gave her that frozen face.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:19 amScience denial. One of many reasons for the rapid extinction of the Republican party.
My friends who hunt here in Texas talk about global warming quite a bit. Even the Republican voters are way ahead of their leadership (as with the Democrats).
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:20 amJason,
Did you have this much trouble paying attention in school too? Maybe you just haven’t had your coffee yet. The topic here is climate change.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:21 amYes…and the world is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, and the first manned moon landing was flimed in a Hollywood studio.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:21 amHey Jason,
Good morning! Thanks for letting us know how the brown people are taking over the world. A little off topic,eh? So, who should we bomb next?
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:21 amIgnore Jason. He is off topic and is here for the sole purpose of redirecting this thread. He doesn’t want us discussing Global Warming and Mary Matlin.
Now back to Global Warming… the world will rejoice when Bush leaves office because Science will have finally won. Bush doesn’t support science because it takes intelligence to understand science and we all know that the boy Bush has very little intelligence.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:24 amAnother example: Repubs hammering House Democrats for blocking FISA/Protect America Act re-authorization–including that reprehensible internet ad. The Republicans, almost unanimously, voted against renewal a week ago because they didn’t want to extend debate on telecom immunity. The REPUBLICANS voted against protecting America.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:24 amIsn’t it time we recognize these tin foil hat types for what they are and keep them off the TV? Radio too.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:25 amInsanity is a disease. Show some compassion and help them get treatment!
Putting them on the air is cruel… to them and to us.
Cats,
Even when Bush leaves, there’s still a significant portion of conservatives who will never accept the reality of global warming. don’t you find that incredibly depressing? Even after “Inconvenient Truth” and god knows how many IPCC reports warning of major changes, it’s like, what else is there to do?
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:26 amWell, to Hendler’s defense (gasp) there’s no ThinkFast thread today.
So, Hendler, gotta link? That would be nice. And, of course you, in your wisdom, know that the ruling elite controls the masses by separating them, and pitting groups against each other.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:27 amHow can James Carville stand being married to this ugly person? It’s a good thing she doesn’t have kids, because her attitude would be signing her children’s death warrants.
The only reason why the Republiscums deny global warming is because they think it is going to cost them a bundle to stop polluting our environment. They could care less about what they are doing to the planet.
The next time you talk to someone who is a global warming denier, ask them:
Do you really think that pumping millions of tons of carcinogens and toxins into our environment isn’t going to hurt our planet or the atmosphere around our planet? If they say “no”, ask them if they would like it pumped into their homes.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:27 amThere is one group of uber-wealthy that will be directly and quite negatively affected by global warming – those corporations which own all that beach-front resort property around the world. They’ve got 50 years – TOPS – before they lose their assets. And it may already be too late to reverse that.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:30 amAnd Matalin got her degree in climatology from what, a Cracker Jack box?
Oh, she doesn’t have a science degree….
She has a LAW DEGREE and served on the RNC during the Reagan Administration and was assistant to President George W. Bush and counselor to Vice President Dick Cheney, at the same time.
Wow, she is not politically biased is she?
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:32 amGreat… another stupid guest being interviewed by a stupid host on a stupid news show on the stupid network, watched by stupid people.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:35 amHow can James Carville stand being married to this ugly person?
um… when was the last time you took a gander at HIM?
ick… it’s a match made in heaven, if you will…
…
how ’bout that bill maher last night?!
letting david frum and jack kingston (r-georgia) get away with
all kind of winger crap… i was fit to be tied…
even matt taibbi was of little help…
bill – wait till AFTER the show to get high, ok? … please?
one of the, maybe THE, worst real times ever…
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:38 amI first saw Mary Magdillene when she was doing a great great job as a spin doctor, I think about 1996. she is still a spin doctor, and I figure she will retire with her little Hubby, compare lies they have told on both sides of the aisle and fade away. I assume their cemetery plots will hold the old inscription, pedal your ass.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:39 amThe amount of carcinogens and pollutants from her cosmetics alone can kill a forest the size of Yosemite.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:41 amThey’ll someday call it “Bush Syndrome†– Room Temperature IQ like his.
Comment by satirev
Acutally I have started calling the children born after 2000 the “Fear Kids.”
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:44 amAnd we as parents are to blame, but it was brought on by the fear of this administration. Fear of going out, fear of playing outdoors, fear of everything. These kids are growing up stunted in social ways that we can’t even fathom now.
That’s actually an important and serious point, Jason. People have talked about the deolution of Europe, talking about the Basues, the Vlaandern, Catalonia and Scotland. In general I think it’s a bad idea.
But Kosovo is a bit different: 1)the real preferred parent–Yugoslavia–blew up like the Hindenburg. This is a fragment shaking free of another fragment. 2) The cultural oppression was being administered with AK-47’s.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:45 amI agree with you that it’s not a good precedent–but I think we can look at it as the last shoe dropping in the Yugoslavia affair. All the pieces are now separate.
While I buy into the idea that man “can” cause global warming, the data currently shows we haven’t yet. The hottest year since 1880 is 1934, 1998 is second, 1921 is third, followed by 2006, 1931, and 1999. Not sure this proves that man is causing global warming since the 200’s have been fairly level. I think the world needs more data and at least 20+ years to study what really is happening.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:49 amSpecial cell being held open for her and Cheeeney in the Hague…soon..
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:50 amUm, Mary, that’s only because he’s not in bed (literally) with a lobbyist who’s clamoring for that sort of thing. And that’s because wingnuts, you know, like the guy who signs your pay checks, tend to be invested in the fossil fuel business which would like for us all to believe that “global warming” is just a hoax.
Pravada, in it’s heyday, had far more credibility than Matalin ever will.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:52 amHey Roger, time to sign off of Fox Science, and get with some real data.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/recordtemp2005.html
The record heat of 2005 is part of a longer-term warming trend exacerbated by the rise of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere that is due primarily to our burning fossil fuels and clearing forests. Nineteen of the hottest 20 years on record have occurred since 1980.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:53 amWell, to Hendler’s defense (gasp) there’s no ThinkFast thread today.
So, Hendler, gotta link? That would be nice. And, of course you, in your wisdom, know that the ruling elite controls the masses by separating them, and pitting groups against each other.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — February 23, 2008 @ 10:27 am
You don’t seriously believe Hendler posted that to encourage an actual discussion, do you? Even on days with ThinkFast threads, he’ll post the same off-topic comment in every thread but that one, so it’s clear he has only one real agenda: taking threads off-topic and disrupting any actual discussion.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:53 am#9 Jason
I usually read most peoples entries, but I can’t do you anymore because you don’t make any sense with what you say, you seem to put it anywhere, and what you are saying is mostly Caa-Caa.
So I am gonna let other readers here pay attention to you and your entries.
All other Think Progress readers
It’s on you guys now. I don’t want my head to explode from trying to understand Jason.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:55 amNow Back to the Show!
Jason Hitler posts for dimes.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:56 amI think the world needs more data and at least 20+ years to study what really is happening.
Comment by Roger_Roger — February 23, 2008 @ 10:49 am
Yeah, in 20 years the ice caps will be totally melted. They can gather lots of data from that. =P
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:59 amReading this, I must conclude that Matalin’s kids must be the most confused siblings on the planet. Imagine growing up in a household with two snakes like Carville and Matalin, constantly telling you conflicting things. Their psychiatrist is probably making a case study of their twisted existence.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:59 amSomeone realized that the only ones in the world that don’t believe in Global Warming are USA conservatives? Something ado with political talking points? And lobbyists? Hmmmm?
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:01 amComment by Roger_Roger — February 23, 2008 @ 10:49 am
Climate is changing in many ways. Global mean temperatures have been rising steadily over the last 40 years, with the six warmest years since 1860 occurring in the last decade.
http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/2007climatechange.html
Once again Roger proves his stupidity trying to shuffle off his lies on TP readers. I wonder how old he thinks the earth is?
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:06 amI’m not completely convinced that conservative pundits don’t understand the impact or causes of global warming. I think it’s more likely that they simply do not care. They and their corporate masters (sorry, but that’s what they are) are the people who are largely insulated from disaster by their wealth and if a few cities are flooded, or crops lost, they’re not going to be the ones suffering. In fact, they’ll undoubtedly make money on it.
Katrina took a few of them by surprise, and a few Gulf plantations were destroyed, but it’s not as if they didn’t have the resources to recover, or other homes to live in while the plantation is being restored.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:06 amAll the comments on this post are a testament to how brain-washed the public is on so-called “anthropogenic global warming”. For the truly informed, the IPCC has lost its credibility as a mouth piece for science; the IPCC has circumvented and destroyed the scientific process in order to push their own agenda of AGW. If you are a “scientist”, politician, or bussinessman living off the teat of AGW, then I understand your motives. I am glad to see that Steve Forbes is enlightened on this issue (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0310/019.html). For the rest of you, just talk to any of the thousands of scientists who have a problem with the IPCC. If anybody wants names, then just ask.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:07 amThe hottest year since 1880 is 1934, 1998 is second, 1921 is third, followed by 2006, 1931, and 1999.
Comment by Roger_Roger — February 23, 2008 @ 10:49 am
RR, I know this is difficult to grasp, because you are a deeply stupid person, and I know that it has been explained to you here in the past, and you obviously didn’t get it then, but I will try just one more time to get it through your thick skull into your empty brain cavity: The data you are referring to applies only to the continental United States, which comprises less than 2% of the earth’s surface. We are talking about GLOBAL warming here.
The 14 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1990, and 24 out of the 25 hottest on record have occurred since 1980.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:09 amFor the rest of you, just talk to any of the thousands of scientists who have a problem with the IPCC. If anybody wants names, then just ask.
Comment by xraymike — February 23, 2008 @ 11:07 am
Oh, please, post your most trusted scientific names here and now.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:11 amSomeone realized that the only ones in the world that don’t believe in Global Warming are USA conservatives?
Comment by Evil Spaniard — February 23, 2008 @ 11:01 am
Excellent point! I was in Europe for a couple of months recently and it was really clear how backwards the US was in this regard. Even the mainstream newscasts would never have had such a stupid statement played on their channel.
Roger, wondering if you’ve read the report I posted earlier from the American Meteorological Society? Are you really here telling us that you’re right and the premier organization of climate scientists in the US is wrong?! Forgive me for being a little skeptical about your claims.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:11 amComment by xraymike — February 23, 2008 @ 11:07 am
Looks like a professional denier has just climbed aboard.
Steve Forbes? You’ve got to be kidding me. Forbes is a certifiable idiot, which is more or less normal for anyone who inherits great wealth.
In any case, liar, there are not “thousands” of scientists who deny AGW. I do notice that you employed some sleazy weasel words by saying “have a problem with the IPCC”, which isn’t at all the same thing as denying AGW.
I happen to be a scientist, a**hole, and I can tell you that the only scientists “living off the teat of AGW” are those who have been bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry to lie about AGW.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:13 amI shall just recycle my old comment – it fits so well here anyway…
Shorter version of crazy woman lobbyist: “Quit hassling me, I am counting the money!â€.
The fact that the famed legendary NorthWest Passage is now TRUE belies claims that the global climate change is bogus.
Also the fact that Canada, USA, Russia and EU are arguing whose territorial waters these are…
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:15 amYou don’t stand a chance here, xraymike, so I suggest running along and telling your masters that there is nothing to be accomplished by trolling these waters with your industry-generated lies.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:15 amJust imagine if all the right wing deniers were housed in tall buildings with generators on top that were powered by the convection current of all their rising hot air. I suspect that collectively they have enought hot air to power half the country.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:15 amSteve Forbes was on tv a few weeks ago claiming that Rudy Giuliani’s election strategy was on target to work out brilliantly.
Moran!
-GSD
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:16 amIf anybody wants names, then just ask.
Comment by xraymike — February 23, 2008 @ 11:07 am
Actually, I want names of SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS. You deniers have many industry-paid ’scientists’ who pay what they’re paid to say. You guys are full of their links which are full of you know what. How about valid scientific organizations? Since this is about science shouldn’t they matter a little more than a Republican spokesperson or a little blogger like yourself.
Below is my list of SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS that take the consensus position on climate change. Now it’s your turn to provide those that take your position. … We’re waiting.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Joint science academies’ statement 2005
American Meteorological Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
The American Astronomical Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America
American Association of State Climatologists
Australian Medical Association
American Chemical Society
American Quaternary Association
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:16 amFor the rest of you, just talk to any of the thousands of scientists who have a problem with the IPCC. If anybody wants names, then just ask.
Comment by xraymike — February 23, 2008 @ 11:07 am
Yes, please. Provide a list of the thousands of climatologists who have a problem with the IPCC. Usually, the people making claims like this provide lists of “scientists” ranging from proctologists to website programmers, virtually none of which can actually understand the data. We’re eager to see you do better.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:16 am“For the truly informed, the IPCC has lost its credibility as a mouth piece for science”
Since “mouthpiece” infers shyster, I’d say you were correct, except they never were such a mouthpiece.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:17 am“I’m not completely convinced that conservative pundits don’t understand the impact or causes of global warming.”
Actually, I’m convinced that most of them DO understand the impact and causes. But they are free market ideologues who believe that the best way to combat AGW is to simply let their vaunted “free” markets operate (even those these markets aren’t free at all). These people have already demonstrated their elitist pretensions, and are willing to tell any lie necessary to keep the unwashed masses from deciding that a different course is needed. They lie to subvert democracy, and they make me sick.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:18 amA new from the past monday, but very convenient to this thread
Aussies: Kyoto should have been ratified :
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:18 amhttp://news.yahoo.com/ s/ ap/ 20080218/ ap_on_re_au_an/ australia_environment;_ylt=Ar3ANLyLS_TLd902mEayYoys0NUE
“Steve Forbes was on tv a few weeks ago claiming that Rudy Giuliani’s election strategy was on target to work out brilliantly.”
And his wholehearted embrace of the Fair Tax shows an understanding of economics which is nigh-encyclopedic…
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:22 amThese right wingers are absolute geniuses with their predictions.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:23 amI wish they would pick pro football games so I could bet the other way!
Carville and her must have grudge sex. That is the only way it could be enjoyable.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:28 amGlobal warming, that’s a hoax. But religion, that’s the bare truth?! How do these people stay alive with their brain functions so visibly out of order?
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:30 amComment by goon_golly — February 23, 2008 @ 11:26 am
So, some deniers are cynically self-interested and others, well others are simply too stupid to understand the argument.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:31 amWhy is CNN (Blitzer) propagating corporate oil stances on a scientific subject?
I hate the term “balanced” evidence…because inevitably the word “balance” usually refers to the less scientific or non objective views…
but in this case…CNN is so unbalanced it is hanging over the precipice.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:33 amMatalan should more carefully think before she speaks. Just think about it – her term, “unscientific hoax” – to me she is sending a mixed message. On the one hand, we know she loathes reasoned science, but on the other hand, her term means science. What a mixed up crowd the far right is, and to think, their good intentions are accelerating our decline in so many worldly arenas! -Kevo
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:37 amI hope you NorthEasterners are enjoying shoveling out from under your “global warming†today. Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
Comment by good_golly — February 23, 2008 @ 11:26 am
Today’s news: Spaniard ski stations have increasing problems to stay open the whole season. Through the last years, snow storms and cold have been decreasing, making more difficult to mantain the ski ideal conditions. Artificial snow cannons and snowplow trucks are needed now to mantain the ski lanes with a minimum of snow. If this tendency continues, the level of the snow will go up 300 yards mountain up, with the loses in no longer valid installations.
Cold, indeed.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:37 amI haven’t heard anyone use the name Steve Forbes with out a punch line for years.
So what is the punch line Xrayputts. Tell me I want to know!
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:37 amLooks like little mikey had to cut ‘n run after doing his little drive by.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:41 amI hope you NorthEasterners are enjoying shoveling out from under your “global warming†today. Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
Comment by good_golly — February 23, 2008 @ 11:26 am
I suggest checking out this weekend’s temperatures in Europe, you provincial rube.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:41 amWould that any one remember the idiots empowered to ignore or act upon the gathering storm. Alas, it will take out their washington home, but they will be okay in Paraguay
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:43 amCan anyone explain the following:
if global warming is a “hoax”, why is virtually every GW denier in the media a right-winger?
If it truly were a scientific controversy, as R2, Gigi and the like seem to think (we won’t vcen count Jason, as he is a consistent sufferer of Troll Tourette’s), where are the mainstream scientific organizations and publications debunking the story in the media? Where are the fair-minded liberals and moderates who have looked at the data and say, “I agree, there’s no trend there”?
Why is science a partisan issue?
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:45 amThis is nothing more than eco-terrorism. These neocon pundits should be sent to Guantanamo forever.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:47 amOf course, since Gigi has a difficult time telling the difference between weather and climate, it’s understandable that she would jump aboard the “hoax” bandwagon.
And since R2 can’t tell the difference between the continental US and the planet, it’s understandable that HE would misinterpret the data (willingly or not).
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:48 amI worry about her children. Do they know how to differentiate between fantasy and reality? Do they understand why their parents sometimes go on TV together and fight? Will they grow up believing that winning is the only thing that matters? Will they grow up believing that although the world is a dangerous place, it’s possible that one day we might all live together in peace and harmony, without the need to go to war with each other? Or will they grow up to believe that there will always be evil people no matter what you do, and the only way to beat evil people is to use evil tactics (fight fire with fire), and if you have to lie to make your point, then so be it? I worry about her children.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:48 amIt’s known as “Global Climate Change” idiot.
Now pull that tiny head out of your tight, shriveled a$$hole, fcuking inbred cretin.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:55 amI thought I’d have a little fun with the record snow falls in the U.S.
Comment by good_golly — February 23, 2008 @ 11:52 am
I bet you take your brain out anf play with it for fun sometimes too.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:59 amActually pbg, Kosovo was an independent country in it’s own right many, many years ago. It wasn’t absorbed into Serbia until the late 12th century. And it didn’t become part of Yugoslavia (Serbia also) until 1929.
“Kosovo was known in antiquity and up to the 19th century as Dardania, after the Illyrian tribe of the Dardani.[7] Dardania was conquered by Rome in the late 1st century BC and became part of Moesia Superior.
The area remained part of the Byzantine empire until the 9th century, when it was conquered by the First Bulgarian Empire. Later it was briefly returned to the Byzantines, before it was absorbed into Serbia in the late 12th century, and was part of the Serbian Empire from 1346 to 1371. In 1389, in the famous Battle of Kosovo a coalition of Christian armies led by the Serbian prince Lazar Hrebljanovic was defeated by the Ottoman Turks, who finally took control of the territory in 1455.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo
The Basque country was once the Kingdom of Navarre and was annexed by Spain and France.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basque_Country_%28historical_territory%29#History
Scotland was an independent state until 1707.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland
Vlaandern (Flanders) never was an independent country, but was once part of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands. The Flemish movement is more about protecting the Dutch language and culture, as well as a reunification with the Netherlands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemish_movement#Belgian_Independence
I tend to support independence movements for those who are trying to regain it after colonization, invasion, etc. versus movements based on culture or language. Hence, I believe the Basque independence movement is valid, while the Flemish movement is not. (My opinion). My thinking is also that independent enclaves of Muslims (or Christians) within established states are inappropriate.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:01 pmJust another example of how far your head has to be buried in the sand to be a loyal Republican Bush supporter these days.
-B
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:03 pmYo good_golly, expand your intelligence. GW is only a faucet of climate change accelerated by overuse of the earth’s life sustaining systems. You are experiencing the Brrrrrrrrrrr of these rapid changes. Your denial and inane response to this most sobering moment in human history is the baggage you carry. Smarten up dude! -Kevo
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:15 pmSmarten up dude! -Kevo
Comment by kevo — February 23, 2008 @ 12:15 pm
As if….
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:17 pmTom Delay can say any nonsense he wants from his prison cell. Criminal, traitor, liar.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:18 pmHere’s an experiment for those who are struggling with the concept of AGW to try.
You will need a rubber band, duct tape, a clear plastic bag, pencil and paper.
Place the clear plastic bag over your head and secure it around your neck with the rubber band. Then duct tape around the band and your neck, ensuring an airtight seal. The sealed plastic bag represents the earth’s atmosphere and your head represents the planet.
Stand still and breathe normally for 30 seconds. Then jump up and down for 30 seconds. Pause for 10 seconds and then jump up and down for 60 seconds.
As you jump up and down you can expect to feel warmer and the air around your head will also feel warmer. This is to be expected and may be ignored. Now jump up and down for 120 seconds. You should now feel warmer still, and again you should ignore it because the increase in temperature you may be feeling is just a natural cycle and nothing to do with your increased human activity.
You might also notice a change in the quality of air you are breathing, which will probably seem moist and tainted. Ignore this also.
Jump up and down some more.
At this point you should be feeling hot ,groggy and confused. You might also notice an increase in moisture as sweat pools around your neck to which the condensation from your breath trickles down the inside of the plastic bag and adds its volume to the lake of liquid beginning to rise upwards from your neck.
As the temperature rises along with the liquid DO NOT PANIC. The temperature increase is only due to the inability of the CO2 that you breathe out, to escape. CO2 is completely natural and some if us like to call it “life”.
The accumulation of water in your plastic atmospheric bubble is also completely natural and therefore will not harm you in any way. Remember. neither of these environmental changes have anything to do with your human activity.
At this point should you suddenly start seeing drowning polar bears, ignore them, they are imaginary. Write down only what you can specifically observe, such as a distant ethereal light, choirs of angels etc. Remember, you WILL lose points for poor penmanship.
At the end of this 20-year experiment, please submit your findings in a clear oil-based plastic folder and be sure to properly underline the fromat headings of Purpose of Experiment, Equipment, Methodology, Data and Conclusions.
Upon review of your paper your experiment will be graded as follows:
A: As God intended
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:24 pmB: Bush-like
C: Conservative
D: Dead (Incomplete)
F: F**king liberal atheist hippie islamofascist (Fail)
Matalin, who is not a scientist, discounts a plethora of scientists who are certain that global warming is real – imagine that?
I never thought Matalin to be stupid or possessed by an all-consuming GOP herd mentality but she is showing signs.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:26 pm“…Carville stand being married to this ugly person?”
Comment by bilbobaggins — February 23, 2008 @ 10:27 am
That’s funny, but have you taken a close look at Carville…:) He looks alot like a muppet ;) But Looks aside, how can he stand being in the same room with her when she says such idiotic things?
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:31 pmSo… Gigi claims she can tell the difference between “weather” and “climate” but she “has a little fun” with those who tout heat waves as evidence of climate change.
Odd, that she dismisses weather evidence when it points to a conclusion she doesn’t like, but embraces it when it seems to undercut that conclusion.
That sounds like a … what’s the term I’m looking for…?
“Double Standard”?
Yeah! That’s it. Double Standard.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:32 pmI never thought Matalin to be stupid or possessed by an all-consuming GOP herd mentality but she is showing signs.
Comment by nofltwlt — February 23, 2008 @ 12:26 pm
What evidence ever led you to believe otherwise?
Besides her questionable taste in marriage partners, I mean.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:33 pmOh, and BTW Bilbo, She and Carville do have kids. and on that note I’ve got to go shower because the thought of those two in the “act” makes me feel all dirty… ;)
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:34 pmYou got the message!!!! I’m so proud of you that you got the message of the global warming alarmist Double Standard. There’s hope for you yet.
Comment by good_golly — February 23, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
and yet gg never gets the message. I wonder what it’s like to be a brainwashed, idiot Republican? gg seems to be our prime example. sad case.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:38 pmOdd, that she dismisses weather evidence when it points to a conclusion she doesn’t like, but embraces it when it seems to undercut that conclusion.
That sounds like a … what’s the term I’m looking for…?
“Double Standard�
Yeah! That’s it. Double Standard.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — February 23, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
Just thinking about writing this makes me itch in the wrong place, but . . . goon_golly does have a point (beyond the point on its head). Certain comments here do suggest that their local heat wave is indicative of Global Warming. I’ve seen it time and again and have given up pointing out that local weather is not global climate data. Last summer I saw a lot of it here at TP, with people talking about “the hottest summer I remember”, while we in the PNW were having a very pleasant season. Local weather gets used a lot to “prove” GW. The goon is mocking those comments and (excuse me while I scratch vigorously) I agree.
The fact that the goon is doing this as an ignorant denier is beside the, er, point.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:39 pmAnd Matalin has earned her degree in science, where?
The lying sycophants of Bush&Co are seeking out any lone scientist who will be paid to back up their assertions that global warming is a false alarm.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:46 pmThey ignore thousands of scientists around the world who are in agreement.
The arrogance and hubris of Bush&Co have gotten us into trouble around the globe, and now they even claim to know more than the scientists.
“one of the, maybe THE, worst real times ever…”
Comment by katy — February 23, 2008 @ 10:38 am
Katy, I couldn’t agree with you more I actually turned it off, I couldn’t bear to watch it.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:46 pm#93
“I never thought Matalin to be stupid or possessed by an all-consuming GOP herd mentality but she is showing signs.”
The likes of Matalin are amoral egoists. Carville is a soul mate. Frank Luntz is another, and of course Rove. There is a not just a whole class of these types whose compass only points to them, they are the workers of a long established industry of political consultants whose only concern is the playing of the political game for their own benefit. The campaigns of Dems and Repubs alike are run by such people. Their continued employment is the result of mere habit, not actual merit or in terms of tangible results. Matalin and Carville would happily swap political affilitations if weither thought that they would benefit more from such a change. Each apparently has a preference for a particular side but it would appear to be based largely on circumstance. The fact that Matalin and Carville always appear together and on the same crappy network despite having been shunted to the periphery for so long speaks volumes about their real motiivations–the continuance of their relevance despite all evidence to the contrary. Their realtionship is a gimmick that sells to the rubes.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:47 pmI might believe Matalin if she could offer any proof of what she says.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:50 pmNuclear weapons are also a hoax, scientists have no idea how things work whatsoever. And the internet is a scientific hoax, yep, thats right, all the people that post on it dont really exist, its a clever ruse.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:56 pmAnd scientists dont know how to make anthrax other than it can be found on sheep. Yellow Cake is really just Duncan Hines cake mix.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:57 pmMicrowave ovens are another scientific invention and hoax as are silicon computer chips, its actually just billion of little people encased in a dielectric compund.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:58 pmmary’s kinda cute – for a knuckle-dragging, mouthbreathing troglodyte.
luckily, science, and scientists, don’t give a pinch of sh*t for anything anyone in politics has to say. mary needs to understand that she could not matter less to the scientific community.
wonder how denigrating it is to have to parrot the same hokum as disgraced bug-spray magnate turned felon Tom DeLay?
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:03 pmAnd Matalin here, she has no idea about astronomy or cycles, or of precession of the earth. Why if you want to see runaway global warmiong just look at Venus, its hot enough to melt lead on the surface. Matalin doesnt know about the haline conveyor belt or upper atmospheric doings, much less about desertification, which is what happened to the garden of Eden and the middle east. Pat Roberston said gays create earthquakes, if that is so doesn’t corruption in government and their lobbyist enablers create global warming?
Matalin knows she doesnt know and doesnt care if she knows, she only knows we need another four years of the same detrimental course we have been set upon so her team can ‘win’.
And thats a very poor way to look at our life support system.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:06 pm#29 Katy
one of the worst Real Times ever…@ 10:38 am
I stayed up to watch the show and I went from disappointed to frustrated and then angry. What the hell happened? The rightwingers were allowed to tell their lies and distortions with little if any contradiction. It was, I agree, the worst show from Maher I have ever seen.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:08 pmAfter looking at these pictures, only an idiot would say that the human population has no effect on the earth’s climate.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/NIGHTLIGHTS.html
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:10 pmLast summer I saw a lot of it here at TP, with people talking about “the hottest summer I rememberâ€, while we in the PNW were having a very pleasant season. Local weather gets used a lot to “prove†GW. The goon is mocking those comments and (excuse me while I scratch vigorously) I agree.
The fact that the goon is doing this as an ignorant denier is beside the, er, point.
Comment by gummitch — February 23, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
This is a good point. We shouldn’t use individual point measurements to prove climate change. Climate change is, by definition, a change in trends and not point samples.
But there is something to be said for measuring trends. If it snowed every winter in your region ten or twenty years ago and now it doesn’t, that is a change in climate. It’s also a change in climate if it never snowed ten or twenty years ago and now it does. Indeed, some models of climate change actually have North America getting colder due to a shift in the Gulf Stream, while the rest of the world heats up dramatically.
This is why we really need to retire the term “Global Warming.” It’s completely inaccurate.ا
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:11 pmBut why does Matalin care about government and issues if she doesnt care about our life support system, our little blue Ark that rotates our starry Sun?
Why does Matalins ability to ’see’ travel no more than her life-span?
Why does Matalin believe in destroyig humanity thru armageddon?? But not working to replenish our blue whirly marble of life as we know it?
Why does Matalin want to fill our fish bowl with toxic wastes? Does she know that car exhaust, sitting in traffic for hours, is detrimental to our health as well?
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:13 pmtoasterhead–
I agree. “Global Warming” dramatizes but simplifies. Need something else.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:15 pmComment by Godfry Daniel — February 23, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
Thats another hoax, we dont have any sattelites in orbit, just more photoshopping and political concoctions. Hydrazine is another fraud perpetrated on us by scientists.
Snarkasm on
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:18 pmI agree. “Global Warming†dramatizes but simplifies. Need something else.
Comment by 5th Estate — February 23, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
Global Climate Change works for me. It doesn’t just mean a change in temperature, it means changes in rainfall patterns, savannah turning to desert, tundra turning to temperate forest, rain forest turning to sahelian zone, and all the other predicted variations of the IPCC
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:19 pmNow theres a question, our administration is worried about 1000 lbs of Hydrazine but not about billions and billions of tons of C02.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:19 pmNow theres a question, our administration is worried about 1000 lbs of Hydrazine but not about billions and billions of tons of C02.
Comment by Xisithrus — February 23, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
Well, hydrazine has some pretty nasty health effects:
CO2 is a long-term problem. And doesn’t give the Navy an excuse to try out a new toy.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:26 pmWe can assume that this strange-looking and strange-sounding woman has been brainwashed in Cheney’s undisclosed locations. Why she is placed on our teevees is a puzzle.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:36 pmgood_golly, climate change science doesn’t say it will stop snowing in the northeast. Excessive CO2 levels have in fact destabilized our winter season. We are now getting fewer snow storms, but the storms we do get have gotten more powerful. They have begun to take on tropical storm properties, producing what we now call thundersnow. We’re not supposed to get thunder and lightning in the winter, but we are. We are also seeing a greater frequency of days with above normal temperatures in the winter. With all this, we have also seen a rise in rainfall averages. Climate change is happening.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:41 pm#119: They didn’t seem to be too worried about it when they launched the damn thing. They wouldn’t reveal anything about the payload.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:43 pmMatalin has her head shoved in a sand pile… The new Botox!
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:45 pm#117
“Global Climate Change works for me”–toasterhead
To the educated, yes that works, but it lacks “zaz” .
Just as Global Warming is derided by the simpletons every time it snows, ‘Climate Change’ can be deried thusly “of course the weather changes, you anti-american libruls! Now you want the government to interfere with the climate instead of letting the free market decide. Go back to Mexico or Russia!” —that sort of thing.
Not that the language should be compromised…I’m just struggling to think of an acronym or phrase that is both accurate and apropriately dramatic. Maybe something like “No Child Left a Future” or something.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:50 pmtoasterhead–
“exposure to high levels of hydrazine may include…”
Sounds as bad as Chlorox when used in a small unventilated space.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:56 pmI see now that Gigi was mocking those (on both sides, presumably?) who use weather reports as evidence of global climate change.
If Gigi was a more talented satirist, perhaps her clumsily-presented parody would have been clearer. Maybe we sholdn’t blame Gigi that her philosophical and political compatriots tend to make the exact arguments that Gigi advances as satire, only they are serious when they do so.
So… no one on the wrong wing wants to tackle my question of why science has become a partisan issue?
February 23rd, 2008 at 2:01 pm#119: They didn’t seem to be too worried about it when they launched the damn thing. They wouldn’t reveal anything about the payload.
Comment by Godfry Daniel — February 23, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
Well, usually the fuel in satellites gets dispersed while it’s on orbit. When they come down after 10-20 years of operation, the tanks are empty. This one failed immediately after reaching orbit, and was going to come down with a full tank.
I don’t doubt that there was some other reason this had to be deorbited now – sensitive technology they didn’t want landing intact in Xinjiang or Turkmenistan or wherever. But the hydrazine excuse is at least plausible in my mind.
With all this, we have also seen a rise in rainfall averages. Climate change is happening.
Comment by Dragonmetal — February 23, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
Right. Now whether we can attribute every single observed change to anthropogenic causes is still open to debate. There are many factors that cause changes in climate РEl Ni̱os and La Ni̱as and Milankovitch cycles and whatnot.
We need to look at human-induced factors as another layer on top of all these other naturally-occurring climate changes, and a factor that’s going to potentially wreak havoc on all these other cycles in a way that the planet hasn’t seen in 55 million years.
February 23rd, 2008 at 2:06 pmWe need to look at human-induced factors as another layer on top of all these other naturally-occurring climate changes, and a factor that’s going to potentially wreak havoc on all these other cycles in a way that the planet hasn’t seen in 55 million years.
Comment by toasterhead — February 23, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
Excellent point, TH.
The principal tactic of climate change deniers is to simplify the phenomenon, and the pronouncements of scientists who study it, and then ridicule these simplifications. (This tactic is a favorite among trolls, and the Right in general).
What they never address is the underlying theory beneath the science — that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that human activity adds to the naturally occurring levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the predictable result is a warming of the atmosphere. The fact that so much of the data collected over the past few decades tracks very well with this prediction is what is alarming.
The fact that trolls and deniers are so determined to dismiss this rational application of scientific method is disturbing.
February 23rd, 2008 at 2:21 pmNOAA reported Friday 46.7 percent of the country was covered by snow, an area nearly 70 percent larger than snow cover a year ago.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/ news/ weather/ chi-mxaweatherbiggraphic022308feb23,0,312971.story
Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
Comment by good_golly — February 23, 2008 @ 11:48 am
A snapshot of a single day or location does not prove or disprove anything, which tells me that:
A.) You are in way over your head and you do not possess the intellect to engage in an adult discussion of global climate change or
B.) You know this, but it is irrelevant to your mission which is to make as much noise, get as much attention and distract as much as you can from any adult discussions on climate change…… or maybe you get paid piecemeal style….say 10 cents per post?
Btw, if this is about giving local weather reports here in the NYC area we’ve just had the first January in over 60 years with zero snow cover.
Every storm here until the one on Friday has been a mix of rain, snow , sleet, with temps sometimes rising well into the 40’s and 50’s.
Even yesterday’s storm which was the first pure snow storm of the winter had above freezing temps at the tail end and had a little rain and sleet mixed in. We’ve hit record warm temps during warm spells the first weeks of both Jan and Feb, but have had nothing even remotely close to record cold temps. I have a feeling this current snow cover won’t last too long.
Yet on the other side of the world there has been snow this winter in places like Bagdad and Jerusalem which rarely see snow.
Again isolated events prove nothing, but if you look at the overall picture, we ain’t in Kansas anymore Dorothy.
February 23rd, 2008 at 2:34 pmWhy does CNN network and many others keep seeking the knowledge of Mary Matalin on this issue?
She offers nothing of a scientific value. She is neither a scientist nor a researcher.
February 23rd, 2008 at 2:45 pmShe only can offer denial by calling Global Warming a ‘Hoax’,in line with her political party.
What do viewers learn from that, Mr. Blitzer..?
What do viewers learn from that, Mr. Blitzer..?
Comment by tarazan — February 23, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
That CNN will gladly toe the party line and allow itself to be led by idiots?
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:05 pmAgain isolated events prove nothing, but if you look at the overall picture, we ain’t in Kansas anymore Dorothy.
Comment by flavorino — February 23, 2008 @ 2:34 pm
Ummm… I thought one of the consequences of global warming would be unpredictable, explosive weather patterns, kinda like what Li’l g pointed out.
Kinda makes the point even whilst he, or she, fantasizes it’s being disproved.
Amazing.
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:08 pmconservatives are too stupid to exist. someday we’ll all wake up and conservatives will be gone.
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:13 pm.
“So… no one on the wrong wing wants to tackle my question of why science has become a partisan issue?
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — February 23, 2008 @ 2:01 pm
Hey, ralph. How’s it going? I tried to post this as captain mantastic, but I’ve been banned. If I get banned again, I want you to know that I’ve appreciated the debate here.
I’ll give you’re partisan science question a shot. (But please understand that I am warming to the idea of climate change – pun intended).
There are a lot of scientists that believe that the Earth is getting warmer. And that the warming is caused, in large part, by man’s activities.
But, there are also scientists that believe that the Earth is either not warming or that if it is warming, it is not significantly impacted by man’s activities.
Progressives often point to the scientists that support the climate change theory as unquestionable, but they characterize those who disagree with the premise as either a general charlatan or, more often, unethically supported by oil companies.
My argument is that if you want to hold scientists above reproach, because they are scientists, then the scientists that disagree with manmade climate change would, by that logic, be also accepted without question.
Additionally, where did we ever get the idea that scientists are infallible or incorruptible? There were scientists that believed we were going into an ice age just 30 years ago. And there are scientists today who disagree with the premise of global warming. They are still scientists, aren’t they? Just because someone is a scientist, doesn’t mean they’re infallible.
And corruption. You can corrupt a businessman, a politician, a priest, a teacher, a soldier and a scientist that disagrees with the premise of global warming. But, you can’t corrupt a scientist that promotes the idea of manmade climate change?
I have worked in the government (military for 10 years) and for a corporation (also for 10 years) doing a similar job. I confess to not knowing how government funded scientists get there funding, but I remember where the money came from in the military. For people that believe there is no agenda driven motivations except for those of corporations, I would just disagree. I would argue that there is a stake for scientists that are funded to research manmade climate change, in there actually being manmade climate change.
I would question government funded scientists motivations no more or no less than I would question the motivations of anyone else.
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:17 pmI would question government funded scientists motivations no more or no less than I would question the motivations of anyone else.
Comment by backup — February 23, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
the logical fallacy you keep repeating is that there is some overriding interest in scientists lying about the fact of global climate change, as opposed to the rightwing, conservative, bought-and-paid-for oil company shills whose only real interest in money and power. you are trying to equivocate scientists with charlatans, and it won’t sell. one has to be very blind or stupid to believe that 6 billion polluting, manufacturing, driving beings won’t affect the planet. I’m not saying you are, but I am saying tha the small percentage of “scientists” claiming that mankind has no effect on global climate change is made up of liars and charlatans.
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:25 pmbill – wait till AFTER the show to get high, ok? … please?
one of the, maybe THE, worst real times ever…
Comment by katy — February 23, 2008 @ 10:38 am
I couldn’t agree more. Last week wasn’t much better. I’m about to give up on this show completely.
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:27 pmMy argument is that if you want to hold scientists above reproach, because they are scientists, then the scientists that disagree with manmade climate change would, by that logic, be also accepted without question.
Additionally, where did we ever get the idea that scientists are infallible or incorruptible? There were scientists that believed we were going into an ice age just 30 years ago. And there are scientists today who disagree with the premise of global warming. They are still scientists, aren’t they? Just because someone is a scientist, doesn’t mean they’re infallible.
Comment by backup — February 23, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
First, it’s time to retire your Global Cooling talking point. There was never a widespread consensus on Global Cooling. From 1965 to 1979, there were a grand total of seven peer-reviewed studies that predicted global cooling, versus 44 that predicted global warming. So they were in the minority even in the infancy of climate science.
Second, we’re not holding scientists “above reproach.” We are trusting in the concept of consensus. The harshest critics of scientists are other scientists. The scientific method IS criticism – testing and re-testing of hypotheses and looking for holes and mistakes in your work and other scientists’ work. When 800 contributing authors and 2,500 scientific reviewers agree on a theory, that’s a very compelling argument in favor of the theory.
Not that there’s complete agreement – climate scientists are still debating the details of the theory and improving the models of how human causes will affect the environment and the climate. But they still agree on the basic theory of AGW.
The ones that come out against the consensus are, in general, not making scientific arguments. They’re making political arguments, or speculating on the motives of scientists, who often divert time from their paying jobs to devote to IPCC work. It’s very rare that climate skeptics actually publish a peer-reviewed study that challenges the consensus.
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:51 pmHey, Lefty.
6 billion people is a lot of people.
One of the difficulties I have with the idea of manmade climate change, is the size of the planet. I work as an airline pilot. If you live in New York or Los Angeles it would be pretty intuitive that man has a great impact on the planet. I believe that local environment is very significantly impacted by man.
But, if you fly from New York to Los Angeles, you realize that probably less than 1% of the land between is populated. There is alot of nothing down in ‘flyover’ country. And the area is vast.
Additionally, if you fly from Los Angeles to Hawaii, it’s 5 hours at 8 miles a minute of nothing but water. And that only gets you about a third of the way across the Pacific. The world is 3/4 covered with water. No people, no factories, no cars: water.
Manmade climate change is a very real possibility. But from that vantage point, it’s difficult for me to imagine that even 6 billion polluting people, can have that much impact.
I have heard, that if you could take the entire Earth’s population and stand everyone shoulder to shoulder, front to back, in a square, they would occupy 20 square miles. I haven’t figured the conversion, but I believe the earth has 510,000,000 square kilometers of land surface. And the land is only 29% of the total earth surface.
What’s more intuitive to me than man warming the planet, is the size and energy of the sun in relation to the earth.
It is possible that mankind is polluting the planet to an extent that the planet is warming. It is also possible that the issue is being exaggerated by those that want to control policy.
I’m keeping an open mind.
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:53 pmHow can her husband(Democratic pundit James Carville) possibly stand her? I mean, she’s an idiot. A complete kool-aide lush.
I think the only thing that keeps them together is that the sex must be REALLY hot. Even with that, she’s not worth it.
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:56 pmBut, if you fly from New York to Los Angeles, you realize that probably less than 1% of the land between is populated. There is alot of nothing down in ‘flyover’ country. And the area is vast.
Comment by backup — February 23, 2008 @ 3:53 pm
And much of that land is agricultural, which is just as polluting as urbanization, if not more so. Commercial agriculture is fossil-fuel intensive, soil-depleting, and kills trees and other plant life that normally scrubs carbon from the atmosphere. So your “flyover country” argument is bunk.
As is your solar argument – solar output has not changed measurably in the past thirty years, while the climate has.
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:58 pmUncle Ho,
It’s most likely an S&M relationship!! I don’t know who beats who and who the submissive victim would be in this marriage!! Maybe they switch off!!
It’s pretty disgusting!!
February 23rd, 2008 at 4:08 pmtoasterhead. I’ve got to split, but I wanted you to know that you’re making great points (i.e. scientists refining the models, peer review, damage of commercial agriculture, etc).
I still not convince the sun is not responsible for variations in the Earths temperature.
And something else, I’ve heard: Due to reforestation, there are more trees in America, now than there was before Columbus. Is that possible counter to the commercial agriculture concern?
February 23rd, 2008 at 4:14 pmThis is from the same people who don’t believe in evolution or in the spherical nature of the earth.
February 23rd, 2008 at 4:42 pmDoes anyone have any information on what has caused the warming and cooling periods before man arrived and reasons why the current suspected warming trend is different from past cycles and most likely attributable to man?
February 23rd, 2008 at 4:48 pmShe reminds me of the greasers in High School who used to drink and chew gum excessively, screw football players and other greasers, hated nerds and hippies, and when they tried smoking pot, they would completely freak out and start screaming they were losing their minds.
This Matalin is a complete Half-Wit, and it should be entertaining watching these Bushie/Neo-Cons in January all consuming each other.
February 23rd, 2008 at 4:59 pmThis is from the same people who don’t believe in evolution or in the spherical nature of the earth.
Comment by Bobwurst — February 23, 2008 @ 4:42 pm
I believe in evolution wholeheartedly. In the God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins, he explores the evolutionary basis for man’s egocentric propensity to believe that it is his actions (and not happenstance) that are the cause of events (i.e, we (man) has sinned, so God was angered and flooded the Earth; or we need to sacrifice to the gods or raindance so the gods will be please and send much needed rain, or a group of people have suffered tradegy, they must have displeased God, etc)
Although the current climate change debate has nothing to due with god, I think it is possible that the same egocentric propensity of man as cause, may be at work (if only subconsciously) to skew rational thinking on the matter.
Only a possibility.
February 23rd, 2008 at 5:08 pmDoes anyone have any information on what has caused the warming and cooling periods before man arrived and reasons why the current suspected warming trend is different from past cycles and most likely attributable to man?
Comment by backup — February 23, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
Before man, the primary cause of climate change was Milankovitch cycles – variations in the Earth’s orbit and tilt that cause long-term cyclical changes in climate.
After man, Milankovitch cycles still occur. However, we’re causing almost unprecedented change. Whereas historically Milankovitch cycles warm the oceans which then release greenhouse gas and cause the planet to warm even more, we are releasing the greenhouse gas first. What that will do to the climate is what scientists are using models to predict, and what
The only comparison we have of the current situation to an event in Earth’s history is the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. This was a period of sudden runaway climate change that occurred between 55 and 54 million years ago. Over the period of a few thousand years, ocean temperatures warmed 5-8 degrees Celsius, ocean and atmospheric circulation shifted, and there were mass extinctions on land and in the oceans. It took another 100,000 years for the Earth’s temperature to stabilize and return to a normal level.
Scientists still have no idea why this happened. It’s a chicken-and-egg problem right now. They believe that huge amounts of methane gas were released from under the oceans that caused the warming, but something had to warm to cause those deposits to be released. But we do know what they caused.
Now, we know the reason why millions of tons of greenhouse gases have been released – us. We’ve drilled them out of the ground and burned them, or we’ve bred cows to become living fermentation vats to produce them.
And instead of over several thousand years, we’ve done it in less than 200.
See the difference?
February 23rd, 2008 at 5:13 pmtoasterhead. Honestly, a fantastic explanation.
How do you feel the natural causes of gas emissions (ie, volcanic eruptions) compare to man cause emissions. (I agree that humans are responsible for the methane emissions of the domesticated animals).
Some suggest that man’s emissions are insignificant when compared to natures.
February 23rd, 2008 at 5:24 pmFrank, War has always been a creation of the elite for land and/or riches grabs. Nothing more….Nothing Less.
Comment by Brain From Planet Arous — February 23, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
Actually Brain From Planet Arous,
Most death, destruction, war and opression has been forwarded to us by completely useless male-dominated religions all around the world.
Especially the abuse of women and children at the hands of most all mainstream religions!!!
The rich use religion (or intolerance of others) to control their wealth…just like Ameica now!!!!!
February 23rd, 2008 at 5:33 pmI work as an airline pilot. Comment by backup
If this were indeed true you either:
a) are very young
or
b) are a seasoned veteran who could easily attest to the increased haze in the Worlds atmosphere over the last 25-35 years.
The World may look like it’s sparsely populated from 29,000 feet, but gases (especially from jet engines) tend to expand, disperse, move and linger.
(I agree that humans are responsible for the methane emissions of the domesticated animals). Comment by backup
Yet you have nothing to say about the incredible amount of pollution produced by many older engine designs (non high-bypass turbofan) still in use around the World?
February 23rd, 2008 at 5:59 pmHey backup,
In your wordly travels (I cannot believe someone with the lack of depth of understanding is a worldly traveler) have you seen any of the floating continents of garbage in the Pacific?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6N-4NYBMNJ-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=390ec52b434a24a548c99caaeef21e18
http://ivan.newsvine.com/_news/2007/10/22/1041012-giant-garbage-patch-floating-in-pacific
I wonder what NATURALLY occuring process creates PLASTIC???
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/12/are-there-reall.html
http://aycu31.webshots.com/image/44310/2002349957564733502_rs.jpg
Fu(king dork
But, its Ok, because no Scumbag Neocon will get hurt.
February 23rd, 2008 at 6:04 pmDieforPeace and 99Luf. Australia once, India once, up and down the coast of Africa a few times, Hawaii and Europe several dozen times, South America a dozen times and North and Central America for years.
I have not been to Antarctica.
I care about the planet as much as any progressive, but I honestly don’t see increased pollution levels (I’m actually in Los Angeles now and the air quality is vastly improved from when I lived here 15 years ago).
I also don’t see floating continents of garbage. I guess it’s possible they exist, but my point is the pollution levels don’t seem to me to be as significant as many environmentalists suggest. It’s just a personal observation.
February 23rd, 2008 at 6:48 pmWell back’emup,
February 23rd, 2008 at 6:54 pmIf you think humans are responsible for the “methane from animals” would that be BEFORE or AFTER humans decimated the buffalo population that was so vast, that many considered that herds covered whole states. So, do you think that the methane from those animals was more or less than from the ani-buisness? Hmmmm? And are not humans responsible for BOTH? Do you think that the unchecked burning of vast amounts of coal (think steam locomotives) for close a century not contribute to VAST amounts of CO2 entering the atmosphereI literally DEPSISE talking to the likes of you. I would rather just slit your throatsa and watch you all bleed out, as you are not human, you have no feeling, not even for your own kin. You are devoid of life.
“I literally DEPSISE talking to the likes of you. I would rather just slit your throatsa and watch you all bleed out, as you are not human, you have no feeling, not even for your own kin. You are devoid of life.
Comment by 99Luf Balloons — February 23, 2008 @ 6:54 pm”
Wow, and I was hoping we could hook up for a beer.
I could be wrong about global warming and climate change (and although you won’t believe it, I believe I am slowing adapting to the idea). But, just because I don’t currently believe what you believe, doesn’t mean that I don’t care about the planet. Think about it. We both breath the same air and drink the same water. But we see the issue from different vantage points.
Just because you disagree with someone, doesn’t mean you have to kill them. Take care and try not to take things so seriously.
February 23rd, 2008 at 7:07 pm…
Some suggest that man’s emissions are insignificant when compared to natures.
Comment by backup — February 23, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
This is the most dangerous type of Climate Change denier troll. He pretends like he’s trying to have an intelligent debate on the subject and like he’s on our side overall. In fact, he’s an absolute enemy of the environment that, when pushed, will whine on about the dangers of a carbon tax far more than he’ll whine on about the real danger that exists because of climate change worldwide. Beware!!
February 23rd, 2008 at 7:16 pmHow funny. My last post crossed with his (#158). This one totally proves my point! This guy is not our friend. He’s as bad as Rush Limbaugh on the issue, only not as open about his true beliefs.
February 23rd, 2008 at 7:18 pmMatalin’s been inhaling too much of Delay’s bug juice.
February 23rd, 2008 at 7:32 pmOr swallowing it.
How funny. My last post crossed with his (#158). This one totally proves my point! This guy is not our friend. He’s as bad as Rush Limbaugh on the issue, only not as open about his true beliefs.
Comment by Vinnie — February 23, 2008 @ 7:18 pm
Yeah, no one could possibly believe that people have an effect on the environment and we need to take steps to limit pollution without also believing that disaster is imminent and we must immediately institute carbon taxes. Anyone claiming such belief is lying and is the enemy. ;)
February 23rd, 2008 at 7:33 pmNah, but I would have followed the link, had he provided it. I don’t follow the threads much anymore – too busy with lawyering these days for much more than a few minutes in the morning…which I split between here and The Zoo.
February 23rd, 2008 at 7:34 pmHey buffoon backup,
You said: “because I don’t currently believe what you believe, doesn’t mean that I don’t care about the planet.”
You do not even understand the planet, forget about caring for it. I am amazed that you didn’t think you’d fly your plane off the edge o’ the world.
It is not that I am unwilling to have a conversation with someone regarding this issue, it is that someone (term used loosely) is unwilling to understand the findings of others on this issue, and is not so entrenched into the, “well, I haven’t seen what you say with my own eyes, so I will not beleive it, NA NA POOPOO” mentality as the Wrongwing is doing on this issue.
You wrongwinged schmucks think all of the goings on over the last 7 years have been a little game. And you think all will go back to the pre-bush times of bipartisanship after the traitorous scumbag mutherfuker is out of office. NEWSFLASH, it ain’t buckeroo. You will be sought down and dragged out of your cushy militaristic job, and plunged into siberia along with the other knuckledraggers and father rapers. So, you can fu(k around all you want, it only prolongs the agony that is to come.
February 23rd, 2008 at 7:58 pmOh the whining will be so enjoyable. I can hear the first little fukwad PNAC’ers crying now.
I don’t care for you and yours, cause, in the back of you teeny, tiny brain you know that there is alwways the hope of you being “raptured” that keeps you thinking the stupid way you do. You do realize that what you are thinking is antithetical to all the concepts (theories) that keep you and your plane aloft (Anti-gravity and shiit) but deep down you think that Jebsus is gonna come down, just in the nick of time, and swoop you shiits away up to heaven for the rapture, and that is why you take the stupid positions you do.
You know it, admit it.
Fixed your heading for ya:
Global Warming on Matalin: ‘A Largely Unscientific Hoax,’ A ‘Political Concoction’
February 23rd, 2008 at 8:08 pmScary looking Matalin apparently doesn’t worry about her kids or give a damn about their future. She’s got to stick to the Party Line, so she keeps broadcasting her bs.
Newsflash: The polar ice cap is melting, no matter what Matalin says.
February 23rd, 2008 at 8:13 pmOK Warmmongers and Pinheads, Here is a partial list of the “deniers” or what I like to call the climate realists:
Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: “the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998 … there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment, let alone human-caused warming.”
February 23rd, 2008 at 8:14 pmVincent R. Gray, coal chemist, climate consultant, founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition: “The two main ’scientific’ claims of the IPCC are the claim that ‘the globe is warming’ and ‘Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible’. Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed.”
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists : “models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view”.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: “Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity…Ascribing ‘greenhouse’ effect properties to the Earth’s atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated…Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away.”
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: “[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air.”
Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison: “It’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: “That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation – which has a cooling effect. … We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly… solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle.”
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University: “global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035″
William M. Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: “This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential.” “I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people.”[24] “So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more.”
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology: “There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences.”
George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in an interview: “What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural.”
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: “About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming.”
Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin: “The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, … solar activity, …; volcanism …; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned.”
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming “is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole”
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: “There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming?”
Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide: “We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate… It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it”.
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo: “It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction”.
Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences: “So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities.”
Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: “[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. … [A]bout 2/3’s (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes.” His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries.
Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: “The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect.” “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.â€
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: “[T]here’s increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed.”
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: “…the myth is starting to implode. … Serious new research at The Max Planck Institute has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor…”
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: “Our team … has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. … most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover.”
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: “At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model …, and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. … Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge.”
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks: “[T]he method of study adopted by the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, resulting in a baseless conclusion: Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Contrary to this statement …, there is so far no definitive evidence that ‘most’ of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. … [The IPCC] should have recognized that the range of observed natural changes should not be ignored, and thus their conclusion should be very tentative. The term ‘most’ in their conclusion is baseless.”
Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris): “The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content.”
Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University: “[I]t is very likely that the recent upward trend [in global surface temperature] is very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record. However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3 °C. … At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models.”
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports: “I’m sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never “proof”) and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.”
Petr Chylek, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory: “carbon dioxide should not be considered as a dominant force behind the current warming…how much of the [temperature] increase can be ascribed to CO2, to changes in solar activity, or to the natural variability of climate is uncertain”
William R. Cotton, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University said in a presentation, “It is an open question if human produced changes in climate are large enough to be detected from the noise of the natural variability of the climate system.”
Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: “There is evidence of global warming. … But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done.”
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: “The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause–human or natural–is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria.”
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: “We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But–and I cannot stress this enough–we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future.” “[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas — albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed.”
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: “We need to find out how much of the warming we are seeing could be due to mankind, because I still maintain we have no idea how much you can attribute to mankind.”
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University; founder of The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: “the rising CO2 content of the air should boost global plant productivity dramatically, enabling humanity to increase food, fiber and timber production and thereby continue to feed, clothe, and provide shelter for their still-increasing numbers…this atmospheric CO2-derived blessing is as sure as death and taxes.”
Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University: “[W]arming has been shown to positively impact human health, while atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the production of more of it. … [W]e have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global warming.”
Patrick Michaels, former state climatologist, University of Virginia: “scientists know quite precisely how much the planet will warm in the foreseeable future, a modest three-quarters of a degree (Celsius), plus or minus a mere quarter-degree…a modest warming is a likely benefit.”
Thanks for clogging up the post with tons of junk. I’m sure there’s some industry-funded web site you could’ve just pointed us to.
As I always ask of trolls like you, could you provide us with a list of SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS that support your side of the argument? It’s been well documented that oil money has bought off a number of ‘think tanks’ and individual researchers. Organizations specifically dedicated to scientific inquiry (not dedicated to showing the free market economies is the best) are probably the best reference point that we have.
Below is my list. Please be the first troll of your type to actually address this list that I’ve presented a number of times on TP.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Joint science academies’ statement 2005
American Meteorological Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
The American Astronomical Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America
American Association of State Climatologists
Australian Medical Association
American Chemical Society
American Quaternary Association
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
February 23rd, 2008 at 8:32 pmBack in the late 1970’s TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) started building a nuclear power plant near our town. It was of course situated next to a river from which the cooling water would be pumped into the reactor. One of the environmental concerns was that some of the water that was a few degrees warmer than that in the river would be pumped back into the river and would kill some of the aquatic life.
Imagine…all it took was just a few degrees difference in temperature.
Now, look at that from a global perspective.
I don’t care who you are; you cannot tell me that man is not having an effect on the environment. For the past 100 years we have been warming up the atmosphere from power plants and automobiles, just to name two sources. Prior to that, this planet had a natural balance. Sure, there were warming and cooling periods, but it was all natural. But since mankind decided to open a can of industrial whoop-ass on the planet, we have been artificially affecting the balance.
We live in a closed environment, people. There’s not an escape hatch that opens into space every couple of years that purges all the sh*t we’ve been putting into the air.
And to Mr. Backup, if you are piloting jets that produce contrails, you are indeed affecting the environment. I’m sure you realize that those contrails are evolving into clouds after a few hours. I’ve read some opinions that say that at this point in time their effect on the climate and the environment is insignificant, but nevertheless we are creating artificial clouds.
February 23rd, 2008 at 8:35 pm99 ballons. If I didn’t know better, I would think you are a conservative plant here to make progressives look radical. Take another look at your posts.
What’s sad is that none of the ‘progressives’ here will call you on it. Maybe thinkprogress should re-evaluate whose really hijacking the threads.
Have a great night. toasterhead, nice work. You’re reasonable and I can honestly say I’ve change some of my views about climate change based on what you had to say.
99 balloons, I really don’t think you are representative of most of the people here, but I do think those here should call you on the verbal abuse. Makes the whole place look less than it could be.
Take care.
February 23rd, 2008 at 8:38 pmYeah, no one could possibly believe that people have an effect on the environment and we need to take steps to limit pollution without also believing that disaster is imminent and we must immediately institute carbon taxes. Anyone claiming such belief is lying and is the enemy. ;)
Comment by upright left — February 23, 2008 @ 7:33 pm
Here are some quotes from backup:
“Some suggest that man’s emissions are insignificant when compared to natures.”
“I would question government funded scientists motivations no more or no less than I would question the motivations of anyone else.”
And most everything from post 137.
Sorry, in my opinion, someone spewing this type of crap IS indeed the enemy, no matter how friendly he sounds!! I remember some of the vitriol that he entered here as Captain Mantastic. I’m just calling it like it is.
February 23rd, 2008 at 8:40 pmBackup,
You came to a progressive site spewing standard right-wing talking points on climate change. And then you complain that we’re not treating you kindly. What do you expect? Do you think we’ll welcome you with flowers? I guess we could be like the conservative web sites (i.e. RedState.com) and simply NOT allow a dialogue.
February 23rd, 2008 at 8:43 pmIf there is no science, how has she decided this? What is her rationale for saying there is no science??
February 23rd, 2008 at 8:49 pmComment by xraymike — February 23, 2008 @ 8:14 pm
The last significant snowfall we had in our area of the country (northeast TN) was about 13 years ago, when we had about an 8 inch snowfall.
Prior to that we had a couple of blizzards between 1985 and 1995 that gave us about 16 inches or so.
Other than that, the last time we had an old fashioned winter was every year…EVERY YEAR…from 1983 back to when I can remember, which was about 1972. When I was in elementary school and high school in the 70’s and early 80’s, we were out at least 10 days a year for snowfall. Sometimes we’d be out for a full week at a time. I easily recall having to go to school for half a day on Saturdays to make up the missed time. It’s been over 30 years since the county schools have had to do that.
1983 was the first time in 8 years that we got out of school before the first week of June.
My daughter is 7 years old. Since her birth, after the three snowfalls we’ve had during that time, we’ve barely…BARELY…had enough snow to build a snowman. Nowadays, 2 inches of snow is considered a “significant” snowfall.
We now enjoy 50 degree weather for weeks at a time, each month since November. The forecast for the first part of this week shows 50 degrees for tomorrow, 59 for Monday, 54 for Tuesday, and 36 (with snow) for Wednesday. During the “real” winters we used to have, we’d be lucky to climb into the 40s on any given day. Our temperatures now are generally the same as a few hours north, in the mountains of southwest VA, and sometimes the areas there are actually warmer. Normally they would be about 5 degrees or so cooler.
Thanksgiving weekend in 2005 I helped my father- and brother-in-law top a maple tree in their yard. The limbs were showing signs of new buds getting ready to pop out, with one new leaf actually emerging from one of the limbs at the top of the tree.
And summer? This past summer we had over 30 straight days of 90+ degree weather.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the climate is changing. So you can take your post and cram it, for all I care.
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:17 pmBigassed backedup said:
“99 balloons, I really don’t think you are representative of most of the people here, but I do think those here should call you on the verbal abuse. Makes the whole place look less than it could be.”
Hey Fu(kwad I could give two shits what you think. You are the enemy, remember.
“Makes the the whole place looks less than it could be”
Keep your crappy posts off our lawn and things would be wonderfully spankingly clean.
Please leach, gutter and pick up after your troll.
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:27 pmFYI The polar ice caps are melting — in record time — no matter what 99 Balloons has to say.
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:48 pmshe thinks it’s all a hoax? – well i can kind of understand how a 2 time college dropout and one-time aspiring nail technician may greet science with some degree of scepticism
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:27 pmyou don’t compromise with such idiots. they should be destroyed.
you might as well decide that 1 plus 1 equaling 2 is subject to debate as to debate the mouthings of that lying little whore.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:06 pmTwo days ago I was hit by a piece of sky as it fell to the earth. I think it was a sign that the rapture is at hand.
** roll eyes **
February 24th, 2008 at 1:13 amThe little children of the right wing, plugging their ears, while shouting “I can’t hear you, I can’t hear you.” Problem is; Momma Nature hears you loud and clear, and she’s pissed.
February 24th, 2008 at 1:45 am“Political Concoction”
Takes one to know one, Mary.
BTW, you are a hoax.
February 24th, 2008 at 3:52 amYeah, it’s a hoax, like the dinosoaurs! Right, Huckabee?
February 24th, 2008 at 4:41 amEverytime I hear mention of a comment by Tom DeLay I wonder, first, why ANYONE would give fiddlers damn what that raving a**hole thinks and, second, what is happening with the Abramoff investigation and the money laundering charges. Does anyone know?
Last I heard Abramoff was singing like a canary. Two of DeLay’s Congressional staff have already been convicted as I recall. How is it that they haven’t nailed roach killer himself??
February 24th, 2008 at 7:32 amWhat’s the SCIENTIFIC BASIS for your OPINION? Because SO FAR all we get from you TARDS are OPINION but NO SCIENCE, so CLEARLY only YOU are are the LIAR – DOWNRIGHT MORON. ;)
Comment by republicans hate facts — February 24, 2008 @ 1:26 am
It’s in your little rant above, bud. You know all those scientists that you worship? Had you read what they’ve published, you’d know that they are taking recent data and making estimates and predictions. Perhaps you are unaware that estimates and predictions have been known to incorrect. It’s foolish to think that man has had no effect on the earth. It’s also foolish to jump on the latest fad and blindly spend billions of dollars and force the whole world to sign treaties based upon such predictions. Restraint doesn’t appear to be your strong suit, though. ;)
February 24th, 2008 at 8:39 am@Vinnie,
from the AMS website:
“The team of research scientists created a peer-reviewed website, http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/, which tracks multiple changes in the Arctic environment. Compared to the 1980s, the region lost almost 40 percent of the summertime sea ice in the central Arctic in 2007. While the continued loss of summertime sea ice is the most dramatic example, changes are also seen in the atmosphere, on land, in the ocean, and in location and abundance of Arctic species.”
“September 2007 was Eighth Warmest on Record for Contiguous United States”
From the FAQ page:
“Do I have to have a degree in meteorology to become a member of the AMS?
A: No, anyone can become an Associate Member of the AMS and enjoy the benefits of membership, such as special pricing for books and journals. To become a full voting member you will need to fulfill certain educational and experience criteria.
‘If you are seeking full membership and do not have a degree in meteorology, you will want to review the “Interpretive Memorandum” for information on specific membership requirements.
Q: Do I have to have a degree in meteorology to call myself a meteorologist?
A: Technically, no, because there is no legal definition of this term. The AMS provides a guideline on the use of this term, however, that it hopes will be followed by all in the field. “What is a Meteorologist? A Professional Guideline (1990).”
Corporate Patrons:
Northrupt Grumman
Lockheed Martin
ITT
Ratheon
SAIC
February 24th, 2008 at 8:47 amSummary: The AMS has some scientists, but is mostly non-scientists, who are corporate supported, and therfore can be expected to give a corporate view of the issue, and even then they acknowledge global warming.
Two of the biggest global warming conspirators:
General Electric and British Petroleum. Those left wing anti-corporate bastards.
http://newsprism.wordpress.com
February 24th, 2008 at 9:38 pmI wonder if Matalin and her ilk ever ask themselves: “What if I’m wrong?” What are they going to say when Indian Ocean islands start submerging or New York starts flooding? Of course, the response will be that it’s just a natural phenomenon and nothing caused by man. that’s just a cop out so industry and the U.S.A. won’t have to accept responsibility for 150 years of polluting the earth.
February 25th, 2008 at 6:23 pmNot that that would matter one way or the other – the problem will still need to be dealt with
Once again, your JOB if you understand SCIENCE is to question the SCIENCE! Government MONEY is PURE RESEARCH MONEY for the most part – IDIOT! As for MOTIVATION, that’s what PEER REVIEW is set up to handle, and why REPUBLICAN ‘SCIENTISTS’ for the MOST PART refuse to PARTICIPATE IN IT! Because they’re being CORRUPT POLITICIANS and NOT asus a3000 battery,asus z91 battery SCIENTISTS! And what are you being, and IDIOT, a CONCERN TROLL, or a REPUBLICAN PRETENDING to be something other than the IDIOT HACK that you CLEARLY ARE?
October 15th, 2008 at 3:33 am