About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Hannity: "[T]here's now pretty much consensus that we're in a period of global cooling"

May 20, 2009 2:06 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Previously:

Media promote claims of global cooling despite overwhelming consensus to the contrary

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by the Grey Path (May 20, 2009 2:17 pm ET)
      1  
      And ... who are these experts? My grandmother still claims the earth is flat.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by neon desert (May 20, 2009 2:33 pm ET)
        1  
        My grandmother, likewise, is on the fringe "flat earth" side of the argument. But we need to remember that there are those on the fringe "round earth" side of the argument too, and we can't begrudge them their views, for without them, we would never get to the truth which lies somewhere in the middle.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (May 20, 2009 2:57 pm ET)
          2  
          we can't begrudge them their views, for without them, we would never get to the truth which lies somewhere in the middle.


          What's the middle ground? The Earth is an oblate spheroid? That's much closer to "round" than "flat".
          Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (May 20, 2009 2:24 pm ET)
      2  
      I saw a Republican on HardBall last night, and he got away with repeating the myth that Greenland was Green 1000 years ago, implying that there was no ice. (I've actually heard Limbog say that there was no ice) I kept hoping Chris would challenge him on it, but he didn't.

      Eric the Red called it Greenland because he wanted to attract settlers. The ice has been there about 500,000 years, give or take.

      But, you must remember... we're dealing with people who still believe that Dinosaurs and Man walked side by side in the Garden of Eden.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by the Grey Path (May 20, 2009 2:47 pm ET)
        1  
        Meanwhile ... These same people fail to address the statements in genesis that Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel were the only people in the world, yet when Cain was exiled from Eden he went to live with the other people.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (May 20, 2009 4:01 pm ET)
          1  
          I've even seen literature produced by these morons which offers a mathematical formula to "prove" that man has only been on earth for 6,000 years. They claimed that, if man had been here a million years, there would now be 500 billion people on the earth, or some such nonsense.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (May 20, 2009 3:01 pm ET)
        1  
        Actually, when Greenland was settled by Vikings it was a little green on the coasts. This was because the Earth was at the tail end of a warming period that had lasted several centuries. Unfortunately for the settlers in Greenland, a new cooling period called "The Little Ice Age" kicked in and they were wiped out.

        Greenland was likely not completely green since before the continental drift brought North America near its current position.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by dmhack (May 20, 2009 2:26 pm ET)
         
      Global cooling? Like an ice age?
      Looks like we're screwed either way.
      Thanks to the "thousands and thousands scientists" for the warning. Are you polar bears happy now?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Kirt Griffin (May 20, 2009 2:39 pm ET)
        4
      Well Sean is correct on this. Only a mediam atters afficiando would read a chart going down and see it going up. From Jan 07 to Jan 08 there was a 0.7degree C drop. It recovered a bit but is still low. If all you read is the newspapers anf major media (and media matters) you will never learn anything but what they want you to know. I have 4000 hrs of research into this from both sides and the warming has stopped. If somebody out there has done their homework and has more knowledge than little old me, take your best shot. In our recent paper I cited the IPCC rules (available on their web site for all to read) that they adjust the science to eliminate anything that the policymakers agreed to in the Summary for Policymakers. Negative comments are mostly rejected. Some science. If you don't believe this check for yourself but that would be way too much for a lib to do. The Sun which the IPCC dismisses is taking a snooze. They only looked at the TSI which is otherwise known as the Solar Constant. Of course it doesn't change!! We are in for a deep cold cycle and I really hope you all freeze your ---- off when it comes. You heard it here first. Do the work!!! Media Matters, bought and paid for by Hilary Clinton.
      Kirt
      Report Abuse
      • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (May 20, 2009 3:17 pm ET)
        1  
        No, we aren't. Your post was rambling and incoherent. If you have peer-reviewed science to refute a global warming trend, then please present it. Of course, it doesn't exist so we won't hold our breath.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Kirt Griffin (May 20, 2009 3:34 pm ET)
            2
          OK, you won't like it but if you go to the Heartland site or the International Climate Science Coalition site you will find more peer reviewed papers than you will ever read that have real data, observational evidence. No GCM's (For those of you from Rio Linda that would be mathematical models that have never worked). When you have read half of the papers, respond back. The IPCC and Al Gore say there should be a hot spot in the troposphere at the equator to prove GHG warming. It is not there. The inverse exponential relationship of CO2 to temperature means there is no warming left. It's not THERE!!!!

          Ever wonder why Al Gore, your hero , has refused to debate the subject on two occasions in the past month. Lord Christopher Monckton and Dr. Vaclav Klaus to be specific. These guys flew over here to do that and Al Gore was among the missing. COWARD!!!!He would have been destroyed and he knows it. Did you know he invested $5million in a sea side condo in San Francisco just 6 ft above sea level? Hmmm
          YOU HAVE BEEN DUPED!!! GET OVER IT!!! You can no longer say there are no peer reviewed papers on the sceptics side. I have reviewed a few myself and my comments were accepted. How many have you reviewed?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by nerzog (May 20, 2009 4:05 pm ET)
            1  
            Are you a peer?

            A peer that laps up Rush Limbog's propaganda (Rio Linda gave you away). We're honored.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by robyn20094113 (May 21, 2009 1:15 am ET)
                1
              that and the Media Matters bought and paid for by Hilary Clinton
              more of his spittle
              Report Abuse
              • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (May 22, 2009 3:53 pm ET)
                   
                Hilary paid for it? Was that why she was $10 million in debt after her campaign? Ha!

                What a stupid attempt at a critique.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by SFnomad (May 20, 2009 6:11 pm ET)
            1  
            The condo Al Gore bought was at 3rd and Mission, nowhere near the "sea side", but almost 7 miles from the Ocean, about a 1/2 mile from San Francisco Bay. But let's not let facts get in the way of your rant.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by LuvLuLu (May 21, 2009 12:00 am ET)
            1  
            Yeah, you're an expert in the field with plenty of evidence to back your statements up, Kirt, but you fail to provide even a single link to anything?

            You may have just fallen off the turnip truck, but we didn't.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by robyn20094113 (May 21, 2009 1:17 am ET)
               
            and how much do they contribute to the Republican party?
            Report Abuse
      • Author by peace4all (May 20, 2009 3:33 pm ET)
        1  
        i would like to see the research paper you are talking about but you provided no link to find it. i will say though that if you helped write it i hope it's a little more readable than your post here
        Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (May 20, 2009 3:49 pm ET)
        2  
        Maybe you can save us some time and cite the "rule" that says "they adjust the science to eliminate anything that the policymakers agreed to in the Summary for Policymakers".

        I mean, since you did a research paper and all, it must be right there on your hard drive.

        I'd love to see it.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Kirt Griffin (May 20, 2009 5:07 pm ET)
            2
          I am not near my hard drive or I would have given you a bunch but here are a few references you could have found if you had googled what I wrote but NO, you are too darn lazy.
          http://www.climatescienceinternational.org
          Here is where they say they evaluate how man is causing warming, not if.
          http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm
          And here are the IPCC procedures:
          http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a.pdf

          No I can't read them for you. Understanding, can't help you. But it's doubtful.
          Happy reading!
          Report Abuse
          • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (May 22, 2009 3:55 pm ET)
               
            Happy reading!


            Those sites probably require a reading level above the 4th grade, something few global warming deniers possess.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by neon desert (May 20, 2009 4:01 pm ET)
        1  
        Here Kirt, go to this link: LINK

        You should be able to find lots of 1-year drops in average temperature to further your cause. And it's realiable, because it's NOAA, whom you - as an accomplished amateur scientist with over 4000 hours of study (that's like, two years worth of 8-hour days from both sides) - surely revere as a scientific authority.

        Let me know how your research is going, and keep us apprised of any ice-age alerts.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (May 20, 2009 4:17 pm ET)
          1  
          I wonder... does listening to Rush Limbog count as "research"?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mary59 (May 20, 2009 5:06 pm ET)
            2  
            He does. The Limborg is a fountain of knowledge and we welcome this new insightful Kirt to enlighten us all about real science, not that sissy stuff that NASA and the National Science foundation puts out.....
            Report Abuse
        • Author by Kirt Griffin (May 20, 2009 5:09 pm ET)
            2
          There has been no increase in temperature as predicted by the pols at the IPCC since 1998. Your guys not mine.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (May 22, 2009 3:56 pm ET)
               
            You are wrong. But deep down, subconsciously you probably know that even if you are unable to admit it.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (May 20, 2009 2:51 pm ET)
      1  
      Hey Sean,

      There is no such consensus.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by deeznuts (May 20, 2009 4:06 pm ET)
        2  
        B-b-but...he said "pretty much"!

        That's good enough for me.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (May 20, 2009 5:18 pm ET)
      1  
      The only thing cooling are HANNITY'S few remaining brain cells.
      Report Abuse

Most Popular Tags

Feed IconRSS Feeds

Get personalized rss or email alerts

Connect & Share

Facebook Twitter Digg YouTube MySpace