On CNN, Matalin claims, "Climate change is a fake issue"
October 23, 2009 1:49 pm ET
From the October 22 edition of CNN's The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer:
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
-
-
MacDonald response to Hardy's statement that "the government invented ... the Internet": "No, Al Gore did"
November 21, 2009 11:48 am ET -
Weinberg, Hardy smack down Forbes' and MacDonald's IMAC rationing fearmongering
November 21, 2009 11:32 am ET -
-
Hannity falsely suggests Democratic health bills would only insure "12 million" people
November 20, 2009 9:58 pm ET -
-
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
by Simon Maloy - November 20, 2009 -
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
by Greg Lewis - November 20, 2009 -
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
by Jamison Foser - November 19, 2009
|
|
||
Connect & Share
© 2009 Media Matters for America. All rights reserved.
  |
||
I will accept man made when I see man stop a hurricane.
And, your last statement is inane.
Second, I believe they're numerous journals entirely devoted to explaining why it is widely believed that humans are accelerating a natural phenomenon due to industrialization and the subsequent fossil fuels.
So, I'm not going to try and convince you. I just suggest that you (heaven forbid) read about it rather than allowing conservative media to tell you otherwise, because it is more convenient to believe that we do not have to change our way of living than look at the facts.
[I superimposed those words into their mouths:D]
Don't follow that logic? I don't either, but rugger69 will help you out.
JULY
Summer in the North and winter in the South.
Please explain why it wouldn't be cold in some parts of New Zealand in the winter of July?
It is certain that there is a fairly uniform layer of iridium at the K-T boundary (65 million years ago) over most of the earth.
The asteroid caused the extinction. But it's still not clear which mechanism was set into motion by that incident that caused the extinction. We know the what, but not the how.
A recent theory that is gaining ground is that the asteroid set off world-wide firestorms. Everything not able to escape underground, or underwater was fried. This is still being investigated.
Links below to some interesting info on this.
http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/article.php?q=07090609
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/dinosaur_death_040526.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0415_050418_chicxulub.html
Ice ages are likely related to Milankovitch cycles:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Milankovitch/
http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter16/graphics/71_Orbital_Fluctuations/A_71.swf
"I'll accept man made when I see man stop a hurricane." That's like saying you'll accept that a person can cook a hamburger when you see a person UNcook it. You are an idiot.
And the Stupid Post of the Day Award goes to...
To wit...
I most certainly do not support the disgusting expansion of government that seeks to intrude upon just about every aspect of my life especially as it will affect the opportunities afforded my 3-year-old son and burden him with tremendous debt. AGW takes our eyes off and resources from the real environmental issues we are facing. And for the "common good" many of the measures taken to control CO2 will actually hurt the environment. Take the mandate of CFL's (thank Mr. Bush for that one). How much more mercury pollution will there be once that is in full swing (never mind the Super Fund site that will be your house if you are unfortunate enough to break one).
And your answer, Mr. Social Liberal? Less government regulation. Brilliant.
Do the rocks in your skull make noise when you walk?
Please find me the quote where I say "maybe we need to do something about global warming." That's your first strike because I never said that. The alarmism perpetuated by AGW sheep like yourself is the real man-made threat.
Strike two. I am all for investing in alternative energy. Here's a little poorly-held secret you are apparently unaware of: private investment in alternative energy is currently at an all-time high and looks only to be trending upward. It dwarfs government investment. Translation for dimwits like you: the government doesn't need to insert itself in its always overly dramatic fashion yet again in the free market with its inefficient bureaucracies.
Stupendously selfish? Strike three. Selfish is allowing the government to spend at a ridiculously unsustainable rate and jumping on board with its planned over-reaching "solutions" with no regard for the tremendous debt that imposes on everyone. Oh and by the way, the feds do such a wonderful job already of managing our money. Let's give them more of it and invite them further into the tent. Good luck on your Animal Farm Utopia.
Stunningly stupid? Mirror moment for you (you're out of strikes). The amount of resources that will be put toward AGW will absolutely draw funding from many environmental issues that could be impacted upon with almost immediate results. If the government is to make investments to help the environment, they should be directed toward those issues, not some cap-and-trade AGW fiasco that will have little to no effect on the environment.
Do your knuckles hurt when you walk?
Pat wasn't concerned with Katrina, however, or the fact that Gloria nailed New Jersey and New York.
Here's your yellow card:
After all, you've only seen images, and they can be faked, right?
And you certainly can't go by what others tell you. }:-b
Climate is the measure of average weather patterns over a long period.
Man stopping a hurricane would not be a change in climate, that would be a change in weather.
Logic, folks!
As I have said many times before, I am a practicing environmentalist. If I had to proclaim a religion, you might be surprised to learn that it would be nature-based (I am agnostic). I care deeply for life and the environment, but not for huge government bureaucracies that seek to control us so much on an individual level and on so many levels.
I have said this before many times as well, but while we are talking about going to these extreme measures to control CO2 (that in my opinion has very little to do with climate change), so many other environmental issues get back-burner treatment. That is a travesty.
Deniers continue to promote the false notion that the IPCC is somehow a conspiratorial organization bent on a new world order as dictated by the UN. And Elvis is at the head of the organization. ;-)
Here's another version of this "conspiracy":
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11653-climate-myths-its-all-a-conspiracy.html
Here's how this "secret society" works:
http://www.ipccfacts.org/history.html
(But they run this url, so it's not all that secret.)
Other useful links:
http://logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092614.stm
Page 13: 23. [Recalling Article 3, paragraphs 1 and 5, and Article 4, paragraphs 3 and 7 of the Convention, developed country Parties shall not resort to any form of unilateral measures, including countervailing border measures, against goods and services imported from developing countries on the grounds of protection and stabilization of climate.]
Pages 18-19: 38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:
(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.
(b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts, including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, (c) a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.
(c) The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; (c) a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange.
Page 43: 41. [Providing financial support shall be additional to developed countries' ODA targets.] [Mandatory contributions from developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in Annex II should form the core revenue stream for meeting the cost of adaptation in conjunction with additional sources including share of proceeds from flexible mechanisms.] [This finance should come from the payment of the adaptation debt by developed country Parties and be based principally on public-sector funding, while other alternative sources could be considered.] [[Sources of new and additional financial support for adaptation] [Financial resources of the "Convention Adaptation Fund"] [may] [shall] include:
(a) [Assessed contributions [of at least 0.7% of the annual GDP of developed country Parties] [from developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in Annex II to the Convention] [taking into account historical contribution to concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere];]
(b) [Auctioning of assigned amounts and/or emission allowances [from developed country Parties];]
(c) [Levies on CO2 emissions [from Annex-I Parties [in a position to do so]];]
(d) [Taxes on carbon-intensive products and services from Annex I Parties;]
(e) [[Levies on] [Shares of proceeds from measures to limit or reduce emissions from] international [aviation] and maritime transport;]
(f) Shares of proceeds on the clean development mechanism (CDM), [extension of shares of proceeds to] joint implementation and emissions trading;
(g) [Levies on international transactions [among Annex I Parties];]
(h) [Fines for non-compliance [of Annex I Parties and] with commitments of Annex I Parties and Parties with commitments inscribed in Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol (Annex B Parties);]
(i) [[Additional ODA] [ODA additional to ODA targets] provided through bilateral, regional and other multilateral channels (in accordance with Article 11.5 of the Convention).]]
Page 58: 7. Mitigation commitments by developed countries are distinct from mitigation actions by developing countries in the following way:
(a) Mitigation commitments by all developed countries are legally binding economy wide and absolute quantified emission reduction commitments;
(b) Mitigation actions by developing countries are voluntary and nationally appropriate actions, supported and enabled by technology, finance and capacity-building, which reduce or avoid emissions relative to baseline.
Page 122: 17. [[Developed [and developing] countries] [Developed and developing country Parties] [All Parties] [shall] [should]:] (a) Compensate for damage to the LDCs economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees; (b) Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of response measures.
Page 133: Alternative 1:
An assessed contribution from developed country Parties based on the principles of equity, common but differentiated responsibilities, respective capabilities, GDP, GDP per capita, the polluter pays principle historical responsibility of Annex I Parties, historical climate debt, including adaptation debt, amounting to [[0.5-1][0.8][2] per cent of gross national product] at least [0.5-1 per cent of GDP]].
Page 137: 22. The COP shall appoint a board, which shall function under the authority and guidance of and be accountable to the COP, to manage the financial mechanism and the related facilitative mechanism, funds and bodies, which shall have an equitable and balanced representation of all Parties within a transparent system of governance, to address all aspects of the means of implementation for developing countries, for both adaptation and mitigation.
Nothing to see here. Move along. Nothing to see here.
You'd be more productive if you just stepped aside, and let the grown-ups try to solve this problem.
And just what does Al Gore have to do with the reality of AGW?
Science has proven AGW. Politicians and ignoramuses still "debate" whether it's man made or not.
Just stick to the science. Gore's not a scientist and neither are you, apparently.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
Global atmospheric temperatures have been cooling since 2002.
Polar ice is increasing. Antarctica with 90% of the worlds ice had the
most ice ever recorded in 2008. There is very little loss of global polar ice according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, when adding sea ice at both poles.
Your text to link here...
The oceans are not warming, they are cooling.
Global hurricanes and their intensity are at historic low levels.
Polar bear populations are the largest ever recorded, with 25,000 bears today compared to 5,000 in the 1940s
CO2 can not cause more than 1.5C of warming by itself even if the levels double. This is indisputable. For CO2 to cause warming it must cause more Cirrus (heat trapping) clouds to form, and observation shows that this does not happen. Man made CO2 is only .001% of all greenhouse gases. There were three ice ages with more CO2 than today, one had five times more, and one had ten times more.
Your text to link here...
FAIL!
As for tripling the deficit, that is not really Obama's fault. Much of the debt has come from the necessary stimulus and the policies of Bush. Obama's contribution is like a drop in the bucket.
I also love how she reacts when the guy says "No global warming?" She apparently doesn't like people questioning her positions. I also love how she states that the Earth has cooled these past 11 years. My only question to her is 'What about the 100 years before that?'
http://www.studentsonice.com/blog/?p=1403
And you can't just look at the weather.
http://www.savethefrogs.com/why-frogs/index.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Check this one out....
"Antarctic sea ice is growing despite a warming Southern Ocean".
Simply put, ice can only be growing if it is getting colder. And if it is getting colder, in spite of rising CO2 levels, then perhaps CO2 does not have much impact on temperatures, and natural forces do.
I believe we cause global warming because I read it in a flyer. The pictures really scared me. I used to think I could simply live my life to the best of my ability, but not after reading that flyer. It’s been about a week since reading the flyer, and since then I have already punched three non-believers in the face. If the flyers opened my eyes so much, imagine how big my fists opened their eyes.
But I don't understand why climate change can not be debated. Anyone with an opposing view is smeared and labeled a right-wing extremist that is under control of the big corporations.
There still remains scientists that disagree with the hypothesis of man-made climate change. Perhaps more scientists would emerge against man-made warming if there wasn't this stigma and attack campaign geared towards disagreers.
Also, it's important to look at what the environmental movement has to gain. Using the fear of armageddon, "man-made climate change" can only be stopped with sweeping regulations and taxes aimed at corporations and wealthy western powers. This new revenue can then be spread to other nations and peoples in need, mirroring the start of a socialist world government.
Truly, this is possible and not some extreme viewpoint.
Economically, the success of the environmental movement will lead to a general decline in world prosperity with decreased productivity and higher costs. Not only will the rich become poorer, but so will the middle and lower classes.
For those that accurately point out the cyclical aspects of the climate, they inevitably jump to the conclusion that man is merely accelerating the process at an unstoppable rate. But what evidence is this based on? Many scientists attribute the rapid warming to sun-spot activity, which would seem to me to be far more influential. Also, scientists have stated that once CO2 reaches a certain threshold, adding more will not significantly change the environmental effects. Just think, 18,000 years ago much of North America was covered in miles of ice. It seems hard to believe that scientists are capable of predicting the changes in climate 100 years from now, but still can't predict the weather accurately three days from now.
Simply put, the debate over the causes of climate change is not over. Many people just like to conform to what's popular, and then attack those that disagree.
I'm anxious to see if people respond to the issues, or try to characterize me personally.
Lady with the bob haircut and Joan Rivers-esque skin, go back into the cave you crawled out of!
Now, now. Don't let it get to you. The children are just throwing a tantrum because they can't get their way. ;-)
Here's a good link on "just a theory":
http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html
Your text to link here...
You AGW supporters, in what year did natural forces stop working and man made ones take over? Why did natural forces just stop?
Was there a date when this happened, like July 23rd, 1981. Did someone just turn one switch off and turned another one on or something?
It has been cooling since 2002, so I suppose maybe the switch is now broken. Wonder if there is a warramty.