Limbaugh: DC snowstorm more proof that "man-made global warming" is an "ongoing hoax"
February 09, 2010 1:04 pm ET
From the February 9 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
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.
Why don't you stuff your head in your refrigerator. Then, you can tell everybody there's global cooling.
It's fairly obvious to all (including scientists) that global warming is a cyclical event that man-made contributions are only that ... contributions. Man-made chemicals are not causing global warming, just adding to what happens naturally. Can anyone give me a percentage of "cause" that man-made chemicals are responsible for? I can certainly give absolute proof (and the percentage of cause) of natural occuring global warming. How about one of you fearmongers step up to the plate and provide some absolute proof of your own.
Do you go around destroying your house out of laziness and greed or the ignorance of others?
The fact is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and will warm the planet between 2 and 4.5 degrees Celsius when you double its concentration in the atmosphere--all things being equal. The only sort of climate changes on that scale are ice ages--and we know those take thousands of years to make similar changes in global surface temperature. At current emissions trajectories we will double the concentration of CO2 by around 2080 or so--perhaps even sooner.
Meanwhile, what we have witnessed in the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st is well within the bounds of what we expect to see as the planet warms...but things will get much worse without emissions reductions.
Just where is the downside to commen sense pollution control.
I remember the same type of arguments against doing anything abou the acid rain problem years ago,
seems to me we have done a pretty good job of getting that under control without ruining the ecomony, running everyone out of business etc.
Where is your absolute proof for us to peruse?
And if somebody pushed you off a cliff, they wouldn't be causing gravity, just taking advantage of it.
The debate should not be dumbed down to "global warming is a myth vs. The world's going to end." We know that homo-sapiens have caused this rapid rise in CO2, because there is no other statistically significant event that could have caused it (the only other real possibilities being the sun getting 2% warmer, or a massive volcanic event.)
Systems science is extremely complicated, and figuring out the highest probable outcomes is what climate science is trying to do.
And no, the sun does not "cause" global warming, at least in our lifetimes. The sun varies only half a percent in the 11 year solar sun spot cycle, and has stayed relatively constant over the past couple of billion years.
Now I'm seeing more than a few of the Denial Cultists going really primitive... " Duhhhh... I think the Sun is making warming.. because the Sun is big and hot..."
The record-setting snows along the eastern seaboard actually are PROOF of global warming or climate change. They are unusual weather events which indicate a change in climate. Learn the difference, whatever your name is today.
For instance, we have NEVER had a blizzard in West Texas where I live in recorded history, but we had one on December 24. That represents a change in climate, most likely related to global warming.
They MAY be a sign of it. Or they may not be. Temps have been pretty normal - it's might just be one of those things that they're having a lot of snow.
Please don't again confuse the issue by ever saying that ANY weather event or even series of weather events are ANY sign of climate change.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-2.1.html
See, it doesn't matter what ANYBODY says, El Rushbo has spoken!
Um, seahags -- Gore has more than a high school education. Sorry.
Gee, great point. I'd suggest you give knowledge a try. Why don't you sift through the mountains of information compiled by the world's most respected climatologists? Most of them are NOT considered morons (except perhaps by deep thinkers like Rush L) and they have reached a consensus that the current warming is largely caused by greenhouse gases...
I know you're kidding, Dave. None of the Denier Cult Zombies seem able to understand the simplest comments on this thread. I wouldn't expect a lot of improvement from them going through the scientific evidence.
Wow! "Largely" That should set everyone's mind at ease knowing these scientists who have all the knowledge can state emphatically that "mainly, we think, global warming is caused by pollution, it's just we don't know to what extent." Those are great scientist you got on your side. So, the problem remains, you rely on brilliant scientists who use "largely" and "consensus" as represented FACTS leading to the end of humankind if they aren't listened to!
Whatever floats your boat. Sorry if I don't jump on board that flimsy boat you got. Get back with me when you can provide facts as opposed to "we generally think".
There are 9 SC justices that decide various cases. It can be assumed they are all "experts" in their field, yet they often disagree with each other. How can experts disagree with each other if they are such experts? Obviously, there is more than one answer but you are demanding I listen to just your version of that answer. Personally, I would prefer listening to all experts. Not just your cherry-picked "consensus" that you've developed.
By the way, there is dissent among climate scientists, but those that disagree fall into one of two camps; disagreeing on the actual amount of man-made impact (small margin), and those that disagree with the man-made impact altogether (tiny fringe and/or not real scientists). So, if you really are listening to "all experts" as you claim, and of course if you can go with something that's not 100% certainty but close, then you would have realized which "side" is correct.
Accepting the risk of doing nothing is irresponsible to say the least. Too bad it isn't a risk like attempting to finance health insurance for everyone. Funny how something like that is real scary but an out of control climate isn't.
As clear as you state this (repeatedly) to Denial Cultists trying to use them as proof that GW is not real, they really seem stuck on the idea that you're stating these are proof of Climate Change ( as opposed to "symptoms").
I've tried , unsuccessfully, to get a few of them over this hump. They seem to hit the wall on that point.
Something like 200 million years of carbon sequestration, returned to the atmosphere in about 2,000 years.
[of course, we all secretly know the Earth is only 6,000 years old]
What are you talking about? There is NO proof anywhere that the earth is 6,000 years old. Even the religious can't say with certainty how old the earth is. You see, there is no 'time stamp' after "let there be light". And, there is no time stamp at the point man appeared. But, if YOU are the only one making this claim, I think you make yourself look pretty ignorant by making statements you can't possibly expect people to believe. Oh, wait, that's what you do with global warming ...
Wow, what an interesting statement. Do you mean OUR sun is burning warmer than before? How much warmer will it get? According to ALL the research I find, indications are that our sun will get much hotter before disintigrating. How will man have any effect on that? Can Al Gore stop the sun from warming? If not, then why would I invest in his carbon credit fiasco? I guess only stupid people will invest in something as dumb as that. See my thumb? ....
From the article:
Early in the Earth's history, the Sun's output would be only 70% as intense during that epoch as it is during the modern epoch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
From the article:
Early in Earth's history the sun emitted only 70% as much power as it does today. With the same atmospheric composition as exists today, liquid water should not have existed on Earth. However, there is evidence for the presence of water on the early Earth, in the Hadean[7][8] and Archean[9][7] eons, leading to what is known as the faint young sun paradox.[10] Hypothesized solutions to this paradox include a vastly different atmosphere, with much higher concentrations of greenhouse gases than currently exist[11] Over the following approximately 4 billion years, the energy output of the sun increased and atmospheric composition changed, with the oxygenation of the atmosphere being the most notable alteration. The luminosity of the sun will continue to increase as it follows the main sequence
YOU MIGHT WANT TO INVEST IN THE CARBON CREDIT FIASCO BECAUSE WE ARE REINTRODUCING A LOT OF CARBON THAT WAS REMOVED FROM THE ATMOSPHERE INTO A PLANET THAT HAS A HOTTER SUN. You see, the sun does impact climate, just not in the way deniers would like.
(and I write this amidst a seemingly unending snow falling in Chicago today!)
The reason you don't see the connection is because you are a moron. The reason you are a moron is because you are ignorant.
Learn some facts, and then you'll see a connection. As long as you rely on Fixed News and el Fathead, you will remain a moron.
You're not an imbecile, but you are a moron. You're ignorant, your arguments are foolish and useless. You are a moron.
Yes, the earth's climate has never been static; there have always been cyclical changes in the earth's climate. The difference is that THIS cyclical climate change has been ACCELERATED by man's lack of respect for the environment. I don't know anybody who is claiming that global warming/climate change was 100% CAUSED by man, but only that man's irresponsibility is ACCELERATING it.
Keep up, whoever you are today.
Yes, seahawks has made a breakthrough. It's the Sun !!
Just as Toyota is recalling cars based on that BS about brake problems, when the obvious culprit is the property of momentum. It's all so simple when you start to think like a right wing genius.
Brilliant!! Now, how will buying carbon credits stop the sun from shining? Better yet, how will carbon credits stop the sun from warming this planet? Gee, you're right, it's so simple when you stop thinking like you fearmongers that say man causes global warming.
Here's another one for you ... if man stopped all forms of pollution this very instant, will global warming stop too? If we're past the point of no return, then why worry about it? If we're not past the point of no return, what effect will stopping pollution have on global warming?
Sometimes people write intentionally ridiculous things to make fun of the things you believe. When you can't see this, and take these things seriously, it makes you appear very thick.
If you have a normal adult around, or a bright child, call them over to your computer and ask them to point out irony and sarcasm for you. That way, you can avoid looking like an idiot..
Good luck !
Which bridge are you referring to, seahags? The "Bridge To Nowhere"? Sorry, not interested, even if your neoKKKon heroine Sarah Palin was for it {before she was against it} . . .
seahawks reason for supporting Beck ? He felt he was overtaxed.
Good luck getting this one to understand some basic science.
The ARtic oscillation cycle is pulling a lot of cold air toward the southern jet stream which is fired up by an El Nino. Also lots of warm exaporation off some nearby ocean is feeding into the whole thing.
Yes its an example of unstatic weather patterns. It also shut down our capital. Imagine if Bin Laden or a progressive extremist group got together and made a bomb to do that. You would be out for blood I am sure. You would want to do just about anything to prevent it!
The people who study this for a living as whole feel that we are taking something that they never claimed was static and gave it a strong kick in the nuts. Its the power of nature and if you think anything has ever survived long being indifferent or arrogant to nature, you are in for a surprise. unfortunately we all might be.
This does not mean the recent near-record snows in the east are necessarily caused by "Climate Change," but it does mean your argument about more snow meaning NO Climate Change is bogus.
All these are symptoms of global warming.
Please, if you don't understand what the science is all about, go learn. Otherwise, you end up muddying the issue when people who *do* know what they're talking about speak on the subject.
Two weeks ago the temperature in DC was above 60 degrees F.
More likely, they'll just stop talking about it until winter . . .
It really does seem to be an inconvienient truth.
Sorry, I usually don't like to copy & paste that much material, but occasionally these wingnuts use a source so ridiculous it makes their usual sources seem downright credible.
Much of the denial is based on religion.
Come on, saying that we have more trees today than we did 30 years ago is because of Carbon is such a blatant lie... perhaps enviornmental policy that required tree farms for the lumber industry over fear of clear cutting forests has more to do with the trees in the US.
I know that Yosemite has re-routed some of its roads because the trees have been dying.... but according to this guy, all this carbon is helping the growth of trees and plants, meanwhile, deserts are growing in Africa causing massive starvation and tribal wars.
I don't know why any self-respecting scientist would accept funding from the Discovery Institute... it's like a man dying from lung cancer working for the Tobacco Institute.
I wonder if these goofballs realize that every laughable source they throw against the wall just puts another dent in whatever tiny shred of credibility they imagine they have.
I'm not sure if you're willfully ignorant, or just full of it.
Frank Luntz believes in global warming, BTW. It's just money to him.
I hope you don't mind me doing some proofreading and corrections for you, BJfan.
The problem with the right is that they think it's a belief (just like intellectual design), when it's just science.
Science isn't perfect and people make mistakes. But when evidence is peer reviewed and studied and tested and then re-introduced and studied and tested... we come to a scientific conclusion that has withstood the rigor of the scientific community.
Wishing it doesn't make it so...
Their opinions, however, are shared by God. Which makes them right. Yours are shared by Al Gore, which makes them wrong.
Please cite exactly WHERE it was debunked as a "hoax" -- SCIENTIFICALLY.
By scientifically, I DON'T mean Limpballs, Becky, Fox news, or hate radio.
I'll wait . . .
No, no. It's been debunked ideologically.
Denialists use ideological evidence, not scientific evidence.
All that sciency stuff is just too complicated for them.
Well, at The Discovery Institute, for one . An organization that proudly admits is tries to clear away any messy science that gets in the way of accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. And by "debunked", of course I mean that they said it was debunked.
You are basing your opinion on a very small group of people.
It's just he right wingers believe God and Jesus talk to them.
The thing about it is . . . it accurately describes the effect of global warming. And, interestingly enough, Luntz believes it exists.
It's a lot like the Establishment Clause, and the confusion caused by propagandists insisting that it meant one particular denomination of Christianity wouldn't be promoted over others by the government.
The phrase "separation of church and state" was lifted from other writings to make it easier to understand, for those having trouble.
Sure enough, to this day, you'll see the zombies demanding others point out the words "separation of church and state" in the Constitution.
Specifically, Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists (pulled from memory because of the often reference in various politheoic discussions)
I never new that it was Luntz who coined Climate Change...
Amazing how this argument has evolved in 10 years...
10 years ago President Bush was backpedaling on the issue, looking for ways not to look weak...
...today the right has a full on attack against science and the belief that there isn't a scientific consensus is more prevalent than ever.
all this GOP sound and fury and signifying nothing...
I didn't see anywhere that definitively said that Luntz believes in the effects of global warming, but I would completely understood if he did... It's like starting a rumor and then having that rumor come back to you as fact... you'd be amazed and frightened at the same time
-r
Luntz is creepy. He actually admires the concept of doublespeak from Orwell's 1984.
You admire the smarts but hate the results.
Johnnie Cochran may forever be remembered for "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit" as well as getting OJ a not guilty verdict.
It takes skills.
If global warming is true and we don’t move to correct it, what have we lost? A PLANET.
Atmospheric temperatures have been cooling for 8 years.
Anarctic sea ice is the largest ever recorded.
Antarctic atmospheric temps have a 30 year cooling trend.
Polar bear population is today the largest ever recorded.
Solar activity has changed, solar activity caused the slight warming and is now causing the cooling we are experiencing.
If you want to see why the man made global warming theory is false, then take a look at this link.
http://isthereglobalwarming.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Copy_of_sjsbishop.3444128.pdf
GP
Anartic sea ice is not the largest ever recorded. NASA photos show that it is fact decreasing in size.
Anarctic Temps are not in a 30 year cooling trend but are increasing along with the rest of the planet.
Polar bear population today is larger than it was in the 1960s because of hunting restrictions that were imposed in the late 60s. And that study only accounts for Polar bears in Northern Canada, not worldwide.
Solar activity has not changed enough to cause warming or cooling.
>>Anarctic sea ice is the largest ever recorded.
Antarctic atmospheric temps have a 30 year cooling trend.
>>Solar activity has changed, solar activity caused the slight warming and is now causing the cooling we are experiencing.
That is all wrong. The article you link to is not peer reviewed science; it is a power point presentation by a propagandist. The peer reviewed science shows that global warming is real and man-made:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
In regards to the antartic, see:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16988-why-antarctic-ice-is-growing-despite-global-warming.html
For the record, Luntz believes in global warming.
Your source for this?
And anyway, I didn't even bring up the temperature one way or the other. It is a fact that 2000-2009 is the warmest decade on record.
I also pointed to the *peer reviewed* science, which is all that matters. There are no peer reviewed articles that refuted AGW.
Do they realize that, by their own logic, someone else can say, "there were record hot temps in july, so therefore global warming is real".
Now I know why you believe Luntz's talking points memo. You have difficulty with comprehension.
Spare us your projections, highliter. Those that believe in Global Warming do so because of scientific consensus, and do not claim that any single incident is proof. Rather, that's what your side does all the time--grabbing onto single events and claiming that they somehow disprove the entire theory. Needless to say, that's why there are so few, if any, reputable scientists that are Global Warming deniers.
People on here often cite the actual evidence of global warming, such as the fact that this is the hottest decade on record.
My question is why? Why do you doubt the scientific community?
Do you doubt the theory of evolution?
The theory of gravity?
A typical person who unfortunately gets cancers would be referred to an oncologists and after confirming the diagnosis the oncologist would reccomend a course of action.
Being skeptical or just not knowing enough, that person may do some research and go to another oncologist for a second opinion...
The next doctor confirms the cancer diagnosis and recommends a similar course of action, but there's small variance in the treatment.
The denier takes that variance as evidence that he doesn't have cancer.
Okay he just relieved us from all our fears. We can sleep good at night.
*FACEPALM*
Antarctica did have the most sea ice, ever recorded, in 2008. This is according to satellite data, the only reliable measurement of polar ice. Check it out.
Antarctic temperatures have been cooling for 30 years according to the UAH, and satellite data. Check it out.
Global polar bear populations are today, the largest, ever recorded. About 25,000. There were only 5k-10k in the 1960s. Check it out.
Solar activity has changed. The AP index, that measures the Suns internal magnetic field, that impacts sunspots and measures solar activity, was a 2 last month, the lowest level ever recorded. That's ever. Low solar activity has caused cooling temperatures in the past, and we have observation of this since 1610.
Check it out.
And as for peer reviewed research, are you talking about the peer review like the CRU does, you mean, censorship.
This is a huge hoax and people are going to go to prison for this.
Right now, the Sun is struggling to climb back up to the peak of its magnetic cycle, which will probably occur in 2013 or later, given how slow this has been — which you might want to keep in mind if some crackpot or scammer is trying to sell you on the idea that solar activity will destroy the Earth in 2012. When the Sun is at its peak, the magnetic field is at its strongest, and we see the most sunspots. However, the strongest solar flares and other explosive events tend not to happen until well after the cycle peaks, so it’ll be late 2013 or 2014 before we see the most vigorous activity, if the Sun holds to its previous behavior.
Includes video of sunspot activity at: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/02/08/looks-like-the-sun-is-in-its-teens-again/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BadAstronomyBlog+%28Bad+Astronomy%29&utm_content=Google+Reader