Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Climate-Change Debate Is Heating Up in Deep Freeze
By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: February 11, 2010 . NYT
WASHINGTON - As millions of people along the East Coast hole up in their snowbound homes, the two sides in the climate-change debate are seizing on the mounting drifts to bolster their arguments.
Skeptics of global warming are using the record-setting snows to mock those who warn of dangerous human-driven climate change - this looks more like global cooling, they taunt.
Most climate scientists respond that the ferocious storms are consistent with forecasts that a heating planet will produce more frequent and more intense weather events.
But some independent climate experts say the blizzards in the Northeast no more prove that the planet is cooling than the lack of snow in Vancouver or the downpours in Southern California prove that it is warming.
The biggest boosters of contrarian views of science, ''Rush Limbaugh and other conservative commentators'' who make ''light of'' science along with ''Matt Drudge, who delights in tweaking climate-change enthusiasts,..'' should answer the latest question from the booboisie...''What science is being mocked?''What science is being mocked?
The amusing part is there are many leaders on the right who agree the science ... the sad part is the contempt they have for the public evidences in their cynical attempts at inflaming public opinion and playing on ignorance.The biggest boosters of contrarian views of science, ''Rush Limbaugh and other conservative commentators'' who make ''light of'' science along with ''Matt Drudge, who delights in tweaking climate-change enthusiasts,..'' should answer the latest question from the booboisie...''What science is being mocked?''What science is being mocked?
because when the leaders of wingnut nation will eventually back down and say that they weren't criticizing all climate change science...only the parts that allowed them political capital and capital that laughs all the way to the bank.
You are being force fed a diet based oon bull shit and cow manure.
Yet, my question still remains unanswered.The biggest boosters of contrarian views of science, ''Rush Limbaugh and other conservative commentators'' who make ''light of'' science along with ''Matt Drudge, who delights in tweaking climate-change enthusiasts,..'' should answer the latest question from the booboisie...''What science is being mocked?''What science is being mocked?
because when the leaders of wingnut nation will eventually back down and say that they weren't criticizing all climate change science...only the parts that allowed them political capital and capital that laughs all the way to the bank.
You are being force fed a diet based oon bull shit and cow manure.
It's easy to mock frauds who've been gaming the data, to the point that virtually everything, up to and including UFO sightings, is due to anthropogenic causes.Climate-Change Debate Is Heating Up in Deep Freeze
By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: February 11, 2010 . NYT
WASHINGTON - As millions of people along the East Coast hole up in their snowbound homes, the two sides in the climate-change debate are seizing on the mounting drifts to bolster their arguments.
Skeptics of global warming are using the record-setting snows to mock those who warn of dangerous human-driven climate change - this looks more like global cooling, they taunt.
Most climate scientists respond that the ferocious storms are consistent with forecasts that a heating planet will produce more frequent and more intense weather events.
But some independent climate experts say the blizzards in the Northeast no more prove that the planet is cooling than the lack of snow in Vancouver or the downpours in Southern California prove that it is warming.
Then there is what the old Senator from Hawaii is doing...building an igloo in DC and mocking science.
Many here and in Washington remind me of the booboisie in Mencken's columns and in the movie Inherit the Wind. Why?
Because mocking science has proven time and time again to show the booboisie for what thewy truly are...idiots!
The effort is to de-legitimize charlatans, and dilettantes like you who fall for their chicanery.All science and scientists.
The effort is to de-legitimize science. In spite of the fact that the absorbtion spectra of CO2 and CH4 were established before our Civil War, the wingnuts still insist that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has nothing to do with the heat retention of the atmosphere.
Strawman. No one is arguing spectral properties of bonds.All science and scientists.
The effort is to de-legitimize science. In spite of the fact that the absorbtion spectra of CO2 and CH4 were established before our Civil War, the wingnuts still insist that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has nothing to do with the heat retention of the atmosphere.
Strawman. No one is arguing spectral properties of bonds.All science and scientists.
The effort is to de-legitimize science. In spite of the fact that the absorbtion spectra of CO2 and CH4 were established before our Civil War, the wingnuts still insist that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has nothing to do with the heat retention of the atmosphere.
Idiot.
What is being mocked is fraud, scams and charlatans. What is being mocked is the new apocalyptic religion.
And when the northern ice cap is gone, and the arctic is outgassing significant amounts of CO2 and CH4, you are going to say, "Well, there were billions of years in which we had no northern ice cap".
Science is the process of asking intelligent questions and testing the answers. People who know something is true despite all the evidence to the contrary deserve mockery.
Burach, show the contrary evidence! Come on, I have been asking you to do that for months now.
People who insist on their truth being the way despite all evidence to the contrary deserve laughter.
Look, kid. I know more about spectral properties of organic and inorganic compounds that you could ever imagine. You are out of your league.Strawman. No one is arguing spectral properties of bonds.All science and scientists.
The effort is to de-legitimize science. In spite of the fact that the absorbtion spectra of CO2 and CH4 were established before our Civil War, the wingnuts still insist that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has nothing to do with the heat retention of the atmosphere.
Idiot.
The hell you are not. You state that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is of no consequence. Yet, by that absorbtion spectra, the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more heat is retained. Were that not true, Venus would not be the hell it is.
....
Unbelievable bullshit..... You people are straight up denying the basics of physics, lying purposely about that fact that CO2 heat retention is in direct proportion to the amount in the atmosphere.
Show evidence of nothing?What is being mocked is fraud, scams and charlatans. What is being mocked is the new apocalyptic religion.
And when the northern ice cap is gone, and the arctic is outgassing significant amounts of CO2 and CH4, you are going to say, "Well, there were billions of years in which we had no northern ice cap".
Science is the process of asking intelligent questions and testing the answers. People who know something is true despite all the evidence to the contrary deserve mockery.
Burach, show the contrary evidence! Come on, I have been asking you to do that for months now.
People who insist on their truth being the way despite all evidence to the contrary deserve laughter.
Show the evidence that nothing is changing. Show the evidence that in past periods of very rapid GHG buildup nothing untoward happened.
We have now a good deal of information from paleo-climatologists. Go to the NASA, NOAA, or USGS site and see what they have to say on the subject.
Or do you prefer to get your 'scientific' information from a junkie radio jock, or a whack job like Glenn Beck?
Look, kid. I know more about spectral properties of organic and inorganic compounds that you could ever imagine. You are out of your league.Strawman. No one is arguing spectral properties of bonds.
Idiot.
The hell you are not. You state that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is of no consequence. Yet, by that absorbtion spectra, the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more heat is retained. Were that not true, Venus would not be the hell it is.
....
The fact that you conclude that they are the only variable in the climate shows such ignorance that I am still shaking my head in disbelief.
Well, let's see. There is the sun, but it has been very stable over the period that we have been directly measuring the TSI. In fact, the TSI has even had a very slight decline in that period.
And there are the normal variables of cycles within the ocean, but we have now had enough of them to see that the heating is larger than the variables.
What is left? How about a 40% increase in CO2, a 150% increase in CH4, and a significant amount of industrial GHGs?
Unbelievable bullshit..... You people are straight up denying the basics of physics, lying purposely about that fact that CO2 heat retention is in direct proportion to the amount in the atmosphere.
And, all it takes is a touch of critical thought to see that this is unbelievable bullshit.
As you've already tried some remarkable strawmen, I need to check: What exactly do you imagine my point is?Look, kid. I know more about spectral properties of organic and inorganic compounds that you could ever imagine. You are out of your league.The hell you are not. You state that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is of no consequence. Yet, by that absorbtion spectra, the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more heat is retained. Were that not true, Venus would not be the hell it is.
....
The fact that you conclude that they are the only variable in the climate shows such ignorance that I am still shaking my head in disbelief.
Well, let's see. There is the sun, but it has been very stable over the period that we have been directly measuring the TSI. In fact, the TSI has even had a very slight decline in that period.
And there are the normal variables of cycles within the ocean, but we have now had enough of them to see that the heating is larger than the variables.
What is left? How about a 40% increase in CO2, a 150% increase in CH4, and a significant amount of industrial GHGs?
Unbelievable bullshit..... You people are straight up denying the basics of physics, lying purposely about that fact that CO2 heat retention is in direct proportion to the amount in the atmosphere.
And, all it takes is a touch of critical thought to see that this is unbelievable bullshit.
Come on, Si. Show me some of that critical thought. All you have given so far is a line of bullshit. And insults.
You claim to be a research scientist, but present not the least evidence for your point of view. Damdest scientist that I have ever seen!
I do not claim to be a scientist, so I present articles by real scientists that work in this field. You claim to be a scientist, and present insults, and unsubstantiated nonsense.
So, 'scientist' support your point! You cannot and will not. You have no point.
Cimategate is the biggest Fraud in the history of science.
There is far far far more solid scientific evidence for UFO's, Atlantis and the Moon being a hollow, artificial satellite than there is for AGW
As you've already tried some remarkable strawmen, I need to check: What exactly do you imagine my point is?Look, kid. I know more about spectral properties of organic and inorganic compounds that you could ever imagine. You are out of your league.
The fact that you conclude that they are the only variable in the climate shows such ignorance that I am still shaking my head in disbelief.
Well, let's see. There is the sun, but it has been very stable over the period that we have been directly measuring the TSI. In fact, the TSI has even had a very slight decline in that period.
And there are the normal variables of cycles within the ocean, but we have now had enough of them to see that the heating is larger than the variables.
What is left? How about a 40% increase in CO2, a 150% increase in CH4, and a significant amount of industrial GHGs?
Unbelievable bullshit.
And, all it takes is a touch of critical thought to see that this is unbelievable bullshit.
Come on, Si. Show me some of that critical thought. All you have given so far is a line of bullshit. And insults.
You claim to be a research scientist, but present not the least evidence for your point of view. Damdest scientist that I have ever seen!
I do not claim to be a scientist, so I present articles by real scientists that work in this field. You claim to be a scientist, and present insults, and unsubstantiated nonsense.
So, 'scientist' support your point! You cannot and will not. You have no point.
By the way, the bolded section of what you quoted from me is nothing I typed in my post. I like accuracy.
Cimategate is the biggest Fraud in the history of science.
There is far far far more solid scientific evidence for UFO's, Atlantis and the Moon being a hollow, artificial satellite than there is for AGW
LOL.
The great climategate debate;
The Great Climategate Debate | MIT World
