Bolling: Snow "breaking Al Gore's heart because" it's "burying his global warming theory"
From the February 10 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
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.
Previously:
Brain Freeze: Conservative Media Still Using Winter Weather To Attack Global Warming
Politico serves up some Al Gore/global warming Drudge bait
Limbaugh calls winter snowstorms climate change "nail in the coffin," asks "Where is Al Gore?"
Beck on winter snowstorm: "If we don't find Al Gore by 5 o'clock, I'm starting an Amber Alert"
Fox Nation: "Sen. Inhofe's Family Builds Igloo for Gore"
In successive tweets, Fox News' Bolling begs McCaskill to "VOTE NO" on health care, mocks global warming
Quick Fact: Bolling revives debunked climate email claim in attack on Mann


















-------------------------------------------------------------
...A course of action which will eventuall result in disaster.
NOT weather change.
Who is saying that weather was peaceful, predictable or stable before man? No one on this thread. Another strawman, I see.
In a number of links over the last few days people - including me - have taken the time to explain to you why your hypothesis about lots of snow meaning no Climate Change was flawed. They didn't even use big words.
Do you just not read them? You certainly haven't offered any scientific, thoughtful, credible rebuttal.
Are conservatives really this stupid?
The answer, I'm afraid, is a resounding: YES!
Again- the theory is that if you repeat something often enough, no matter how absurd, it becomes fact. Or at least, it becomes fact to Seahawks, Right On, Jose2 and the other drooling idiots who pop in here every so often to repeat what they heard on Fox.
And putting Al Gore's book in the snow - to quote Andy Samberg doing Rahm Emmanuel - what are you, 14?
No, this is a weather pattern, also known as el nino. Global warming is a widely agreed on theory(aka fact) that uses decades of data, not just from a cople weeks. This greater than normal precipitation is caused by el nino and yes, global warming.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100210/hl_time/08599196229400
Yeah, that's what I thought...
And as the Colonel says, don't expect to hear anything about global climate change when it's 85 degrees in April in NYC.
Interesting how one of the denialists champions is wrestling with trying to explain how things got so warm last January.
He's content with blaming it all on El Nino.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
But, denialists using their typical "arguments", switch positions back & forth, deflect, and throw ideological rants into the mix.
From Spencer's own posts, it almost looks like he's beginning to re-think his position, and his association with these nutcases.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/RFK-79834057.html
In Virginia, the weather also has changed dramatically. Recently arrived residents in the northern suburbs, accustomed to today's anemic winters, might find it astonishing to learn that there were once ski runs on Ballantrae Hill in McLean, with a rope tow and local ski club. Snow is so scarce today that most Virginia children probably don't own a sled. But neighbors came to our home at Hickory Hill nearly every winter weekend to ride saucers and Flexible Flyers.
In those days, I recall my uncle, President Kennedy, standing erect as he rode a toboggan in his top coat, never faltering until he slid into the boxwood at the bottom of the hill. Once, my father, Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, brought a delegation of visiting Eskimos home from the Justice Department for lunch at our house. They spent the afternoon building a great igloo in the deep snow in our backyard. My brothers and sisters played in the structure for several weeks before it began to melt. On weekend afternoons, we commonly joined hundreds of Georgetown residents for ice skating on Washington's C&O Canal, which these days rarely freezes enough to safely skate.
Meanwhile, Exxon Mobil and its carbon cronies continue to pour money into think tanks whose purpose is to deceive the American public into believing that global warming is a fantasy.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/RFK-79834057.html#ixzz0fBw3M6yQ
"I unfairly generalized conservatives"
I disagree. FOX has unfairly generalized conservatives.
You're just reacting to that unfair generalization. ;-)
What... how... why would this debunk or even prove anything concerning climate change? Really? Its a snow storm in winter. When did anyone say that all snow storms would cease to exist this quickly with climate change?
Its just so sad how this is supposed to be journalism, when it all just sounds like school yard bickering and play ground name calling. I'm just out of college, and I feel more mature than these "newscasters". If you disagree, at last through up facts. You know, those things that journalists are supposed to use to make their point. Don't just point to a snow storm in one small section of a continent in the dead of winter as proof of anything.
Did they even touch on the fact that Vancouver is warm enough that there's no snow on the ground for the Winter Olympics, and that they have to ship it in? If a single snow storm can disprove global warming, what does the situation in Vancouver mean?
NOT weather change."
Cold...Hot, Warm...Cold
Record breaking temperatures predicted.......Record breaking snowfalls and deaths due to cold
Himalayas snow disappearing shortly...not disappearing shortly
Scientists agree on climate change...Scientists pressure to agree
Scienctific data supporting report....Scientific data destroyed
Scientific data peer reviewed.....Scientific data from magazine
World warming since '98'.....World actualy cooling....
Semantics.....
The following is from: http://www.livescience.com/environment/070131_climate_change_history.html
1896 (Al Gore is -62)
Arrhenius publishes first calculation of global warming from human emissions of CO2.
1897 (Al Gore is -61)
Chamberlin produces a model for global carbon exchange including feedbacks.
1930s (Al Gore is about -20 to -25)
Global warming trend since late 19th century reported.
1938 (Al Gore is -20)
Callendar argues that CO2 greenhouse global warming is underway, reviving interest in the question.
1945 (Al Gore is -3)
U.S. Office of Naval Research begins generous funding of many fields of science, some of which happen to be useful for understanding climate change.
>>> Al Gore born in 1948 <<< (I added this - not from site)
1956 (Al Gore is 8)
Phillips produces a somewhat realistic computer model of the global atmosphere.
Plass calculates that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will have a significant effect on the radiation balance.
1960 (Al Gore is 12)
Downturn of global temperatures since the early 1940s is reported.
Keeling accurately measures CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere and detects an annual rise. The level is 315 ppm.
1963 (Al Gore is 15)
Calculations suggest that feedback with water vapor could
make the climate acutely sensitive to changes in CO2 level.
1967 (Al Gore is 19)
International Global Atmospheric Research Program established, mainly to gather data for better short-range weather prediction but including climate.
Manabe and Wetherald make a convincing calculation that doubling CO2 would raise world temperatures a couple of degrees.
1968 (Al Gore is 20)
Studies suggest a possibility of collapse of Antarctic ice sheets, which would sea levels catastrophically.
And so on...
So by 1968, when Gore as a mere 20 yrs old, he'd have to cultivate this quite a bit. That's a lot for a kid to do. Looks like he accomplished a lot, even before he was born. He should get another Nobel Prize for accomplishing something that has never been done before!
Nice timeline, SLRTX. I think it would be in the Denial Cultists best interest (not that I feel the need to give them advice on improving their propaganda campaign) to try to rein in the Al Gore references every time they come up with a new angle.
Mentioning Gore might be effective at keeping the most ignorant and partisan on the Denier trolley, but if they're trying to get fence-sitters into the Cult, I think the Gore obsession probably hurts them by making it more obvious that the cult is more about politics and Ad Hominem attacks than it is about science.
Denialists just keep ignoring the science, in favor of ideological arguments. No matter the ideology, science has proven climate change.
How we deal with the scientific evidence, is a matter of policy. Science and policy are connected, but separate. We hope the sane, rational policy makers are driven by the scientific evidence, and not the rantings of the conservatard denialists cranks.
Denialists can't separate science from ideology. Seems like every time I "debate" this issue with a denialist, they end up going after Al Gore, the IPCC, or Obama. Big deal. That's not scientific evidence. That's ideology, based on irrational fears. (They call US alarmists, but they act like alarmists when they scream about higher taxes, killing jobs, etc.)
Climate change marches on, whether the denialists wish to "believe" in it, or not. After all, climate science is based on evidence - which proves ACC is real. Believing ACC isn't real (like any belief system) doesn't require evidence.
Now, how long will it take for Galatardo to respond? (It has a thing for me.) Wait for it... Wait for it...
I know people in Australia, and many other parts of the world, are extremely concerned with the politics of climate change in the US. It's comforting to know that all Americans aren't represented by the Big Brother Fox.
Apologies to you all for exporting Rupert Murdoch.