Attacking Bill Nye, Beck falsely claims "nobody's saying" that snow in DC disproves climate change
February 12, 2010 10:52 am ET
From the February 12 edition of Premiere Radio Networks The Glenn Beck Program:
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:
Beck on D.C.'s snow: "I believe God is just saying, 'I got your global warming here, eh?' "
Bolling: Snow "breaking Al Gore's heart because" it's "burying his global warming theory"
Washington Times: February snow storms "undermin[e] the case for global warming one flake at a time"
Limbaugh: DC snowstorm more proof that "man-made global warming" is an "ongoing hoax"
Say it ain't snow: Media suggest snowstorms cast doubt on global warming
(and I wasn't even drinking milk!! weird, huh?)
Beck has an agenda to influence polices he's not intelligent enough to understand. He does understand who'll benefit if those policies are defeated.
And he has followers who are smarter than he is, but he's convincing them to work against their own economic interests for the benefit of Beck and his masters.
Hypocracy is alive!
GOP University: Graduates Of Propaganda
So, it's wholly untrue, Beck, that nobody says stuff like that.
Glenn Beck will have to pull out his blackboard to explain this one...
Boy, I can't believe I doubted Becky Boy when he said he 'reads a lot.'"
I'm sure he does - comic books and cereal boxes.
Nobody's saying that the recent snow disproves climate change? Glenn, you're correct if you meant:
no climatologists
no liberal media
no journalists
no one with an understanding of the difference between weather and climate
However, you and many on FOX Propaganda have made much hay of the recent snow, using it to try to disprove global warming. You've all failed, of course, and now you are trying to back away. How long will that last? Until the next big snow storm? By the way, it's wintertime in Canada, but it no longer looks like the Great White North. Why aren't you covering that, Glenn? Could it be because you are just another denier?
In truth, Beck is much closer to being a televangelist than a journalist, and it is scary when I realize this may be part of his appeal.
Moron.
More signs of global warming. You have to be kidding.
data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
you are looking at short term fluctuations rather than looking at the long term trends. rather disingenious of you.
NOT YET!
I only heard this fact reported on fox News!
The twist to 50 states now have snow, snow on mountains in the states where no snow is falling.
PS
the Weather Channel ( 6:12 pm 2/12/10 ) just reported 49 states with Snow...
Yada, yada, blah, blah.....
Can't come up with anything new, can you?
Gawd! Your cherry-picking is pretty bad. Who taught you to google?
Your cherry-picked chart is a small, tiny part of this chart waaaayyyyy to the far right. On the top part of this chart.
Keep trying. Maybe you'll randomly hit on something new.
"There is really no intellectual discussion to be had." Not with you there isn't, because an intellectual discussion requires at least two intellects.
Sorry to sound like a snob, but there's only so many minutes in a day, and you aren't worth any more of mine.
Oh, and global warming/climate change isn't a political ideological issue. It was framed as such by Frank Luntz in that memo.
Do you have any idea how incredibly naive that is? There is no consensus, just self-serving politicians, a complicit media, and useful idiots creating a concensus facade. The scientific community has not the first clue about the vast universe that we exist in as the proverbial pimple on the elephant's behind. Your supposed concensus only proves the existence of an ancient philosophical principle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism
The scientific community has a couple of clues about the vast universe and to deny that would be to deny science as a whole.
Do you have any clue as to how many times evidence has been provided ignorant loons like you on this very site, with absolutely zero results? Even a simpleton like you should be able to click and view conversations from JUST THIS WEEK filled with links and information about global climate change. You are either too STUPID to look at it, or too STUPID to understand it, or (most likely, in my opinion) your goal is to draw people into "conversations" which consist of you being handed information, and refusing to accept it and demanding more.
So congrats, I've given you a few more seconds of my time. You must feel like you've accomplished something today. Not a common occurrence, I'm sure.
Second, I'll counter with a question of my own: how do you explain the fact that we are coming out of a solar minimum that was the lowest in the last dozen or so cycles, but we aren't having colder than normal winters or milder than average summers?
Frank Luntz, the framer of the BS talking points that you believe, believes that global warming aka climate change is real. He was just trying to get Republicans elected with his Orwellian doublespeak.
Who cares what luntz says or thinks? I have never based any of my opinions based on anything he's says. I've never taken him serious.
The only "Scientist" questioning climate change are the ones who have been hired by the Big Oil corperations to spread misinformation. And many of these "scientists" are the same one that was leading the misinformation campaign for the tobacco companies.
He is one of the leading "scientists" denying Global Warming exists.
Now there's a guy who you can trust!
Politicians do not have as much sway as you think either. I am sure NASA and NOAA reports during the Bush years did not make the anti-AGW admnistration folks too happy. According to your reasoning they should have been fired. They weren't.
The truth of the matter is that government and university professors are much more likely to be independent and conservative about their reports than those on Big Oil's payroll.
There really is no comparison between the two. One is purely for profit and the other one is independent.
If you are going to argue the government/universitis are not independent, you will need to demonstrate (without resorting to mind-reading and/or speculation) how universities frequently employ AGW skeptics and the government famously employs scientists whose reports contradict the political views of the administration.
I know a few. They are very knowledgeable in their fields. Many of the "real scientists" denying mans effect on climate are commenting outside of their area of expertise.
Only someone who is an accredited Climatologist is qualified to give an opinion.
I'll grant you this much though, at least you're not giving us links to The Discovery Institute or a Liberty University study on climate change.
YET!
No one has said that the climate has not changed throughout history. It is how rapid it is changing that has climatologists worried. Theories are based on scientific research and evidence. There is evidence that humans are in fact causing the climate to change by polluting the atmosphere.
It may well be to that point where it would be like the analogy you provided, but does that mean we should not even try to reverse it?
It can be demonstrated in a laboratory that certain gases trap heat and can raise temperatures. Among those gases is CO2. Human activity generates CO2. Therefore human activity causes temperatures to be above the natural baseline temperatures. That is AGW theory in a nutshell. What part of that - specifically - do you disagree with?
Secondly, not long ago, skeptics were (falsely) claiming that AGW wasn't based on any repeatable experiments that could be performed in a lab! Now you try to turn it around, as if repeatable lab experiments mean nothing at all! Too funny!
The age of the earth is 6,014.
It's birthday is October 23. I'm hoping you send a nice card.
Did you know that the current theory regarding why Earth transitioned out of ice periods, such as snowball Earth, involves changes in the content of the atmosphere due to organic processes? Primitive organisms gave off methane (an even more potent greenhouse gas than CO2) which eventually caused the Earth to warm. This occurred over vast periods of time. If billions of microorganisms can change the Earth's climate over a million years, billions of humans can do so over a much shorter period of time.
it is clear from the millions of years of evidence
You are wrong on this point.. millions of years of evidence
Everyone KNOWS the EARTH is only 10 thousand years old!
Wink! Wink!
You don't have to believe in the science of global warming to know that it is not good to pollute the earth. If you don't believe in global warming then what about the air pollution, even right wingers have to breathe. I don't understand how people call themselves CONSERVATIVE and refuse to conserve. By definition, conservatives should preserve existing conditions.
Maybe you should turn off Beck for a while and read. It would make you less "common."
And, no, they are not the same thing. Global warming is part of climate change but that doesn't mean they are the same thing.
They mean the same phenomenon.
People may use them interchangeably now but they are still different. If global warming means the same thing as climate change then I can also say global cooling means the same thing as climate change. If that's the case then global warming means the same things as global cooling. It doesn't.
"no one claimed that Luntz coined the term"
bintx: 'Frank Luntz coined the phrase "climate change"'
The Luntz Memo
The Right wing denies this or outright lies and says we are cooling.
Cooling? Based on what? Based on ignorance or deception.
Either way the debate is over. The right wing loses. AGAIN.
According to a book I'm reading, people in America are distrustful of scientists in America because there is absolutely no one making, or even having the platform to make, a good case for the science. The last "charismatic" scientist was Carl Sagan.
I think Bill Nye could take up his seat, absolutely.
The right says that snow storms are proof global warming is a hoax....wrong.
But the left soulds even sillier...
If it snows to much = global warming
If it does snow enough = global warming
Mudslides = global warming
To much rain = global warming
Not enough rain = global warming
and on and on and on
They cant have it both ways and I think that is what the right tries to point out (incorrectly with the snow storm examples)
The list looks just about right.
Climate change (of which global warming is part) can indeed cause all that.
So thanks for stating the facts. Keep up the good work!
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
-------------------------------------------------------------
These people are sofa king stupid.
Still up to your old, tired, worn out, arguments.
I see your antarctic ice, and raise you arctic ice.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html
Aw heck, I'll throw in the argument that you are pointing out ice "extent" and not thickness.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
And, a little bit more info:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/01/21/eco.warmingantarctic/index.html#cnnSTCText
So, I call your hand. Got anything that's not old, tire and worn out.
Give it up. We've seen your hand before.