Y, hlf-wt! t's snwng n Flrd. Y hystrcl cntrl frks nd t gt ff tryng t frc yr mythlgy n vryn ls nd cm t grps wth tr mrtlty.
[Editor: ignore=off]Yo, half-wit! It's snowing in Florida.
It's amazing how someone can so totally expose their ignorance with so few words.
[shaking head]
Posted by snark at November 22, 2006 05:59 AMAnd the Republicans won the Governor's race in California despite a nationwide pro-Democratic election outcome. Not to mention, the GOP lost the nation's governorships 22-28.
Posted by eriposte at November 22, 2006 06:08 AMOf course I shouldn't.....
Snark, at this point I just chuckle at him.
Bendito,
Once again, I extend my invitation for you to intereview my wife, an actual climate scientist and we can post a link to email exchange for all to see (it would have to be delayed until the 1st of the year as she is in Antarctica and out of email contact at the moment).
But you won't, because you are only about picking up that paycheck for posting ignorant dribble. Seriously, you are clueless...that is c-l-u-e-l-e-s-s. At least have the decency to buy a vowel. I beginning to think that even you don't believe half the sillyness that you post.
Posted by Simp at November 22, 2006 06:11 AMgt t. Wthr nmls, whch s wht wthr s ll bt, cn nly b ppld t blstrng th fbls nd mnpltv schms f th dmntrx lft. Thnks fr th dctn, flls.
[Editor: ignore=off]A religious fundimentalist complaining about mythology and fables after citing an example of a weather anomaly as evidence that global warming is not a reality.
And a return appearance!
We must have touched a nerve.
Why such a proclivity to support the continued degredation of the planet I wonder? What rationale could one have for not wanting to improve the way we treat the planet? Especially from one who so publically claims the mantel of moralist.
A unique form of perversion I will never be able to understand.
Posted by snark at November 22, 2006 06:38 AMSimp, can you send me an email? I'd possibly be interested in an interview...Thanks.
Posted by eriposte at November 22, 2006 06:49 AM"I hope CBC will consider providing the video on YouTube."
I agree this looks like an interesting documentary.
There's actually some good reasons not to put a video on YouTube, at least if you're the creator of that video. For one, the YouTube legal agreement gives them rights to redistribute your property in any electronic format without compensation to you. Some of YouTube's competitors at least offer compensation to producers based on the ad revenue.
Posted by AltHippo at November 22, 2006 07:19 AMbendodo's "spirit" inhabits a hopeless poisoned brain; one might as well attempt to "educate" a baboon about climate (no offense to baboons intended).
Whether or not the earth is effectively destroyed will be decided by America in the next 5 years. If this issue is not removed from partisan politics, and addressed as a pollution problem that must be immediately reduced, then the typhoon will have been sowed and we (the Florida fools especially) will simpy be awaiting the deluge.
This is a crisis for humanity, and an even greater crisis for the world's creatures who are unfortunately completely dependent upon our "good stewardship".
It's very difficult to have much hope that America can rise to the challenge---how many millions of utterly poisoned bendodo-brains (reveling in their pig-stupid short-sighted ignorance) have been created by the vile "conservative" movement?
Posted by euzoius at November 22, 2006 07:43 AMYo, half-wit! It's snowing in Florida. You hysterical control freaks need to get off trying to force your mythology on everyone else and come to grips with true mortality.
I couldn't resist!
Yo, half-wit! In AZ 2005-06, we went over 140 days without rain in the fall and winter! Old record, 92 days! That's called shattering a record, bendejo!
This month, the high temp. here is supposed to average in the 70's. We have had 3 days with (high) 70 degree marks, everything else has been in the 80's, mostly high 80's!
No global warming! Try the record breaking winds in the typhoons the Pacific had this year!
Posted by Seven of Six at November 22, 2006 07:47 AMEmail sent Eriposte.
Benditto,
No, it is no just about weather anomolies...and your refusal to actually become educated on the subject speaks volumes.
Its not all about "Global Warming" maybe it would be easier if you just start with "Global Climate Change"
There are going to be a *lot* of wild fluctuations in weather systems, more extremes and anomolies at both ends of of the spectrum.
You are an idiot if you set up that wall and refuse to learn or ask reasonable questions. Why doesn't it suprise me that you simply mold reality to fit your ideology?
Please feel free, if you aren't going to ask questions, to send long your links and sources that support your conclusions. I'd love to read them.
BTW 60 minutes is in the process of producing a segment (possibly a special) on Climate change. It won't air till at least March, but the wife may be involved with it. I'll keep you posted.
Posted by Simp at November 22, 2006 08:44 AMHey! bendejo posted twice, and on the same thread no less!
Posted by Seven of Six at November 22, 2006 10:09 AMThis might enlighten people - it is just a small sample of the many mistakes in the Fifth Estate piece:
Fred Singer corrects the record
If you would like more on their errors, let me know.
Please, Mr. Harris -- I for one am all ears.
Because on its own Singer's National Post piece seems really very remarkably, even pathetically, weak as a response to the Fifth Estate broadcast. It makes no actual substantive response at all, at least that I can see, to the documentary's claims.
I don't have time to engage in the kind of line-by-line (psycho)analysis Singer's screed probably deserves, but will merely mention that in this very brief, stream-of-consciousness tract (a) he spends more time talking about tobacco than climate change and (b) he appears to be pulling a classic Richard Perle with the following confused and rather tragicomic passage:
But Mr. Grandia won't budge. So I am forced to hire a lawyer to get Mr. Grandia to retract his slurs and apologize. After many letters back and forth, between my lawyer and his, I am now faced with a choice: Do I sue for defamation? The costs can be considerable, both financial and in terms of precious time. Mr. Grandia seems especially keen to engage in legal battles with climate scientists. Who pays his lawyers? Grandia, Hoggan, Oerestes, the fifth estate, Fenton Communications, a Washington environmental PR firm of which Mr. Hoggan appears to be a clone -- all have the same agenda. They aim to undermine crucial scientific debate on what some have termed the most important problem facing mankind in this century. Certainly, drastic policy actions based on wrong science would waste massive resources and hit the pocketbook of every citizen.
I wouldn't blame a reader who got lost among the non-sequiturs of that rambling paragraph. But does anyone care to place bets on the odds that Mr. Singer will actually end up "suing for defamation"?
Posted by KM at November 22, 2006 01:46 PMTom,
Its really entertaining how you are skeptical of the mountains of evidence from actual scientists but buy every flippin' cherry picked distortion by a known liar who has a vested interest in skewing reality.
Feel free to provide all that you'd like. I'll do my best to hold your hand through the ugly realities.
Also, tell me, how many actual climate research scientists have you talked to personally. How many universities have you visited and asked people to show what they are working on, and/or answer any questions as to their published papers.
Also, feel free to ask about the peer review process and how intense it is.
You have no clue. You simply read propaganda that fits your worldview. Ya see, its really easy to poke at anomolies and cherry pick data points to support your view, unfortunately scientists are bound by the scientific process to provide the entire picture.
The argument is over. You can try to poke holes in bits of research, but the overall argument is settled you nitwit. The big discussion is turning to mitigation.
My wife did mention one other interesting bit of info the other day. One researcher she knows is working specifically on figuring out why climate models have not improved significantly over the past 3 to 5 years. Resolution is improving but not at the rate previously expected. The net result of this slow progress is that it still allows a pinhole for pinheads like Singer and George Taylor to spew nonsense.
Again feel free to visit RealClimate
and in particular this post
Again, if you have any specific questions, please feel free to ask.
Posted by Simp at November 22, 2006 02:08 PMI suspect Al Gore personally wrote the op-ed. Now, imagine George Bush writing ANY kind of response - that's almost as scary as the damage he's done to the environment on his watch. Imagine having a President that can actually think intelligently and write books ... sigh.
Posted by jra at November 22, 2006 02:55 PMHow about if we "balanced" the two "sides" worst case scenarios, eh, Tom?
Deniers worst case scenario: the First World is forced to substantially reduce its profligate use of irreplaceable fossil fuels, needlessly invests in alternate renewable fuels and public transporatation and unnecessarily requires consumers to purchase (and manufacturers to make) more fuel efficient vehicles when they wanted to buy (and make) gas guzzlers. Some jobs in fossil fuels and automotive industry lost, some job gains in other new energy industries.
Warming worst case scenario: ice caps melt, coastal areas inundated, millions of innocent species eradicated forever, millions of humans killed, enormous investment in world coastal infrastructure utterly destroyed, seasonal rainfall patterns all over the world completely and unknowably altered, world economy thrown into historic depression at best, destroyed at worst.
Yeah, let's risk it, eh!
That's certainly the sensible, rational thing to do thing to do in these circumstances---the world's scientists usually get their specialties all wrong, don't they?
Posted by euzoius at November 22, 2006 04:16 PMFor the cost of one year's OECD compliance to Kyoto, we could build wells that would supply fresh drinking water to Africa's poorest thereby saving most of the 5,000,000 people a year who die due to contaminating water on the continent. But you folks think "stopping climate change over the next century", something that is certainly impossible is a better use of scarce resources - amazing logic there.
I guess you haven't seen the Copenhagen Consensus - if you have, what above climate change on the list would you bump down in priority to bump climate change up? I asked Greenpeace protesters this outside of Lomborg's talk in Ottawa last year and of course they had no answer but still went back to their loud protests against Lomborg (apparently hoping no one else in the audience had thought of this axiomatic question). Here is the link to the Lomborg consensus if you feel so inclined to look at it: Copenhagan Consensus. Note he is a 'believer' in AGW science and he STILL ranks climate change very low.
Posted by Tom Harris at November 23, 2006 11:09 AMThe First World Right's latest gambit--after doing everything they could for over a decade to deny the existence of man-made warming, now we're told that stopping climate change "is certainly impossible" and that other items on the public agenda certainly should have priority. Great "transitioning".
Funny how the First World Right could never be found on the side of aiding African poverty before (we could have commenced saving those 5 million any year had there been a world consensus)---but now the Left is supposed to "choose" between aid for drinking water and saving the Earth's 11,000 year old stable climate.
And as though a government can just "buy" green house gas reductions using public funds the way one can "buy" water wells in Africa. What cynicism and misdirection.
Posted by euzoius at November 23, 2006 05:22 PMGlobal climate has never been this worst for the past 500 years. Based on scientific studies, harmful emmissions from plants, cars and other fuel burning machines are the major culprit to the rapid climate change. This phenomenon called global warming has been felt in several parts of the world and is noticable in the abnormal behavior of thyphoons and tidal waves.
it is everybodys responsiblity to help maintain the environment and save mother earth.
You might find this sites useful:
Alternative Fuels
Future Cars
Hybrid Cars
"Global climate has never been this worst for the past 500 years."
My goodness, would you rather be alive during the Little Ice Age which lasted from about 1350 to the end of the 19th century? That was a period of regular famine, disease, etc. for humankind.
Posted by Tom Harris at November 30, 2006 09:29 PM