Drudge links Barcelona snowstorm to Gore's "doomsday" global warming "rhetoric"
March 09, 2010 6:52 am ET by Media Matters staff
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
- County Fair is a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary, breaking news and rapid response updates to major media events from Media Matters senior fellows and other staff.
-
Ann Coulter: "We Have Socialist Health Care - They're Called Emergency Rooms"
February 10, 2012 10:42 pm ET -
Sean Hannity Might Not "Believe It" But A Majority Of Catholics Do Support Contraception Coverage
February 10, 2012 10:24 pm ET -
Fox's Bolling: $25 Billion Foreclosure Settlement Is "Heist" For "Deadbeat Homeowners"
February 10, 2012 5:50 pm ET -
Cavuto: Accommodation Over Contraception Coverage Has A "Pontius Pilate Feel To It"
February 10, 2012 4:43 pm ET -
On Fox, David Webb Repeats Discredited Claim That "1.2 Million People Have Left The Work Force"
February 10, 2012 1:59 pm ET -
|
|
||
Connect & Share
© 2012 Media Matters for America. All rights reserved.
  |
||
"Jacoby does note in the piece that Gore is willing to take examples of heavy snowfalls as further proof of climate change due to human contributions to atmospheric CO2 levels"
Who the heck cares what Gore thinks?
Denialist rants about Gore has absolutely nothing to do with the evidence supporting AGW/ACC.
From my point of view, 'Denialist' seems to be fading from the vernacular. Categorizing dissenting viewpoints and reasonable skepticism as ranting or worthy of censure seems close-minded and in fact just the kind of thing that scientific publications have been willing to do in recent years in order to present the issue as settled.
Faulty claims about Himalayan glaciers, the ice caps, and what proportion of Europe is below sea-level does have to do with the purported evidence supporting AGW.
SP,What would you call an example of some reasonable skepticism being deemed worthy of censure ?
Dr. Phil Jones to Dr. Michael Mann regarding two published dissenting articles in Climate Research: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
In science, as you know, nothing is factual until all other explanations can be ruled out. Not dismissed out of hand, but empirically proven false. If science is the pursuit of truth, politicizing the major issues does poison the well, and one is wise to view all of this with healthy skepticism, no matter our inclinations. I don't like pollution. I enjoy the great outdoors. I even fully believed in AGW for a time. But I've come to really question the science, and moreover, the larger political issue of using the data to tax people.
FWIW, the Phil Jones e-mail, was a private e-mail in the midst of a conversation. He said things he didn't really mean in the heat of the moment and it is important to note that both of the papers he was speaking of WERE included in the IPCC report.
And regarding "the snow being proof" meme: It is high time the general public grasp the difference in the concepts of "proof of" and "predicted by the models". It's important to understand the difference.
Posters here would be well-served by learning the difference too. (not you, but others)
According to denialists, only they can be skeptical.
We're the "believers" and "alarmists"!
Of course, never mind that by its very nature, science is, well, skeptical. ;-)
Check this out. A great definition of what it is to be a "rational skeptic".
http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto.html
I'm still getting a laugh out of the deniers who decided to start calling themselves "skeptics".
BTW, I had an off-topic question for you, if you don't mind, and I don't want to add it to the threads here. I understand if you don't, but I'm not selling anything, honest. :0).
blacky_oblivien@yahoo.com
Try going to this site.
"When dissenting articles have been published in scientific journals, AGW supporters such as Dr. Tom Wigley suggested they get the editor 'ousted.'"
Got any specific examples of any papers that were "ousted", just because Wigley didn't like them?
Or are you just throwing things out there, in hopes of getting a reaction.
Which is it? Either provide evidence, or look silly.
Eh, denialist is only fading from the venacular of the denialists.
Nothing wrong with being a skeptic, but it's not good enough to declare ones self a "skeptic". That's too easy. A real skeptic is a rational skeptic?
Al Gore has nothing to do wit the evidence of AGW/ACC. A rational skeptic knows that. But, an irrational denier likes to use ideological rants to push their agenda. After all, they don't have any science to back their claims. Just ideology.
"A real skeptic is a rational skeptic."
According to Rutgers University the the Northern Hemisphere 2001-2009 had the most snow cover on average ever recorded, even beating the very cold and snowy 1960s and 1970s.
In February 2010 North America had the most snow cover ever recorded and the Northern Hemisphere the second largest.
This is not due to global warming. It is snowing in areas where it usually does not snow, because temperatures are colder. Instead of rain, it is snowing.
According to NOAA, U.S. temps in February were the 24th coldest in 116 years and also the 47th DRIEST in the last 116 years. So the snow was not from more humidity, but simply from colder temperatures.