Right-wing media seize on snow at Copenhagen conference to deem climate change a "fraud"
Right-wing media have highlighted recent snowfall during the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen, often suggesting that the winter storm is evidence that climate change is, in Rush Limbaugh's words, "a fraud." But climate scientists reject the notion that short-term changes in weather, let alone individual storms, bear any relevance to the global warming debate, and several major climate data centers have said that, thus far, 2009 is one of the warmest years on record.
Right-wing media falsely suggested snow during Copenhagen conference disproves climate change
Limbaugh: "God dumps a snowstorm on 'em, all over this manmade fraud." During the December 17 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show, Limbaugh said: "So just when [Al] Gore and all these enviro-wacko Commies and phony scientists reach the height of deceit, God dumps a snowstorm on 'em, all over this manmade fraud. ... Denmark has not had a white Christmas for 14 years. All of a sudden, God, with his sense of humor, gives us a blizzard on loan from him, right in the middle of these wackos getting together for their little conference."
Hannity claimed snow during climate change conference is God's "sense of humor." During the December 17 edition of The Sean Hannity Show, after Accuweather.com senior forecaster Joe Bastardi cited the snow in Copenhagen, Sean Hannity replied: "God has a sense of humor, there's no doubt." Bastardi replied, "Who the heck scheduled this climate conference for December over there?" Bastardi went on to claim that a "triple crown of cooling" is occurring, and that he is just as "concerned" about a possible "ice age" as "anything else." Hannity later asked Bastardi if climate change is "a hoax, as I have been saying."
Drudge Report: "Blizzard Dumps Snow on Copenhagen as Leaders Battle Warming." From the December 18 edition of The Drudge Report:
Fox Nation: "Obama Flies to Copenhagen as Blizzard Hits." From the December 18 edition of Fox Nation:
Climate scientists: Individual storms have no relevance to global warming debate
NASA climatologist: "Weather isn't going to go away because of climate change." A March 2, 2008, New York Times article reported that climate scientists -- including at least one who has disputed aspects of the scientific consensus on global warming -- completely reject the notion that short-term changes in weather, let alone individual storms, bear any relevance to the global warming debate:
Many scientists also say that the cool spell in no way undermines the enormous body of evidence pointing to a warming world with disrupted weather patterns, less ice and rising seas should heat-trapping greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels and forests continue to accumulate in the air.
"The current downturn is not very unusual,'' said Carl Mears, a scientist at Remote Sensing Systems, a private research group in Santa Rosa, Calif., that has been using satellite data to track global temperature and whose findings have been held out as reliable by a variety of climate experts. He pointed to similar drops in 1988, 1991-92, and 1998, but with a long-term warming trend clear nonetheless.
[...]
Michael E. Schlesinger, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, said that any focus on the last few months or years as evidence undermining the established theory that accumulating greenhouse gases are making the world warmer was, at best, a waste of time and, at worst, a harmful distraction.
Discerning a human influence on climate, he said, ''involves finding a signal in a noisy background.'' He added, ''The only way to do this within our noisy climate system is to average over a sufficient number of years that the noise is greatly diminished, thereby revealing the signal. This means that one cannot look at any single year and know whether what one is seeing is the signal or the noise or both the signal and the noise.''
[...]
Some scientists who strongly disagree with each other on the extent of warming coming in this century, and on what to do about it, agreed that it was important not to be tempted to overinterpret short-term swings in climate, either hot or cold.
Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist and commentator with the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, has long chided environmentalists and the media for overstating connections between extreme weather and human-caused warming. (He is on the program at the skeptics' conference.)
But Dr. Michaels said that those now trumpeting global cooling should beware of doing the same thing, saying that the ''predictable distortion'' of extreme weather ''goes in both directions.''
Gavin A. Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan who has spoken out about the need to reduce greenhouse gases, disagrees with Dr. Michaels on many issues, but concurred on this point.'
"When I get called by CNN to comment on a big summer storm or a drought or something, I give the same answer I give a guy who asks about a blizzard,'' Dr. Schmidt said. ''It's all in the long-term trends. Weather isn't going to go away because of climate change. There is this desire to explain everything that we see in terms of something you think you understand, whether that's the next ice age coming or global warming.''
Major climate data centers indicate that, thus far, 2009 is among the warmest years on record
NOAA: 2009 "tied with 2007 as the fifth-warmest January-through-October period on record." NOAA's National Climatic Data Center stated in its October Global Analysis that "[f]or the year to date, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 14.7 °C (58.4 °F) tied with 2007 as the fifth-warmest January-through-October period on record." Similarly, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies found that 2009 year-to-date global temperature ranks fifth warmest out of 130 years. The BBC also reported on November 24 that "[t]his year will be one of the top five warmest years globally since records began 150 years ago, according to figures compiled by the Met Office." The BBC further reported that "[o]ther sources say it could even be the third warmest."
Wzwriter: Right-wing media outlets have no relevance to reality.
Keep on denying, folks. Go right on ahead. Hopefully, the vast majority of us, who are aware that this is in fact a serious threat to how we live on this planet, will get it turned around, or at least slowed, before it becomes irreversible. Don't worry about those pesky facts.
For example choosing 1940 to 1970 you get global cooling but with weak correlation - remember all the concern about the coming ice age in the 70s? If you choose 1970 to 1998 you get global warming but the R value is 0.06 which means that the correlation is very very very weak.
On this basis people who claim either way warming or cooling are 50% probability of being right but claiming Co2 as the bogey and that it is "settled" really is not justified in my opinion. The science is weak, but the hype is strong. Nobody doubts CO2 is a greenhouse gas and nobody doubts the climate changes over time but saying CO2 is the major driver really is not justified. The statistical confidence is just not there and the data is not supportive.
Apparently, you've bought into the false ideological premise.
Being anti-preservation of our earth isn't conservatism . . . just dumb.
I was simply making an observation on how touchy this whole issue is to some. It's not the end of the world if someone makes a joke about a snowfall during a global warming conference, for crying out loud.
The problem is these are not meant to be "jokes" at all. They are a coordinated effort to mislead the public. The public, which by and large does not understand the difference between weather and climate, is being completely misled by the very groups they turn to for real information. On top of that, the right-wing is manipulating religion to mislead people (i.e. saying "God" brought this snow to punish those evil liberals) on climate change.
What you see as just a joke, the rest of us see as purposely lying to the public and distorting religion for their own political purposes.
Oh for crying out loud.
That's how I react to virtually everything you post here.....
Even if/when delivered humorously, this "it snowed so global warming is a hoax" bit is deeply embedded and taken as a serious argument by the uninformed. It is a talking point I frequently see forwarded in all seriousness. So yes, not the end of the world, but dishonesty as usual from the likes of Fox.
Well, what about uninformed liberals who put their faith in pandering liberal politicians who tell them that their every ill and injustice will be banished from earth if only they vote for them? What about those uninformed people? Ha, it's in your best interest to keep them uninformed, isn't it?
Now if those on the other side would just turn their ear towards the liberal gospel, all would be right in the world.
I make no such claim.
"Well, what about uninformed liberals who put their faith in pandering liberal politicians who tell them that their every ill and injustice will be banished from earth if only they vote for them?"
Please give one example of a liberal politician who says that...
"What about those uninformed people? Ha, it's in your best interest to keep them uninformed, isn't it?"
You mean the uninformed people in your fictitous scenario about the liberal politician who claims all ills will be banished from the Earth?
"Now if those on the other side would just turn their ear towards the liberal gospel, all would be right in the world."
More tilting at strawmen.
"Well, what about uninformed liberals who put their faith in pandering liberal politicians who tell them that their every ill and injustice will be banished from earth if only they vote for them?"
What about them?
Don't confuse ignorance with stupidity.
Ignorance is just not knowing. We're all ignorant about something.
Stupidity can be the desire to not learn what one is ignorant of. For that to happen, it takes effort on the part of the stupid person.
I'll tolerate ignorance on either side of an issue. But I'm not tolerant of stupid people who waste everyone's time acting like they know the facts, when the obviously don't.
Someone who acts stupidly, like a denier, just looks foolish. Like a spoiled child throwing tantrums.
"Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance." -- Will Durant
Ignorance is just not knowing. We're all ignorant about something.
Stupidity can be the desire to not learn what one is ignorant of. For that to happen, it takes effort on the part of the stupid person.
For my bumpersticker version,
Ignorance is curable, stupidity is terminal.
Good bumper sticker.
They should pass them out at the next teabagger rally.
I'd be willing to bet none of the teabaggers would even catch on that the bumper sticker was about them.
As momma used to say, "Stupid is as stupid does."
You're a funny person. Remember, lighten up!
"dittoheads that blindly buy everything that the LEFT WING TALKING heads toss out and don't even bother to check if they are being deceived."
I think it's funny how your posts implies anyone who disagrees with you is a "dittohead."
Getting good laughs out of you. This "dittohead" thinks your a riot.
I certainly can't take what you post seriously.
Lighten up!!! Ha, ha! :-)
The only side I'm on in this argument is life as we know it. I don't give a rip what "side" said life is on, right or left.
Limburger: "all these enviro-wacko Commies and phony scientists reach the height of deceit, God dumps a snowstorm on 'em, all over this manmade fraud"
Yep. I think it's hilarious how Limburger and the rest of the denialists fat-headed idiots think this is proof that some magical being dumps snow on them.
Who knows, maybe Limburger will think the tooth fairy will drop teeth on them next.
"scientists reach the height of deceit"
If you believe in a magic being, then why not think all science is deceitful? After all, it's easier to believe in something that makes one feel comfortable, than to deal with facts that may make one re-think their religious views -- just like denialism.
Denialists are stupid, idiotic fat-heads. Dead from the neck up.
Remember, lighten up!
And this is why the fanatical advocates get poked fun at. Amp down your insults and you may not get it back.
I'm just stating my opinion. How is that any different from Limburger??
You say, "lighten up" when that fat buffoon talks, so lighten up when I state my opinion about denialists.
"Amp down your insults and you may not get it back"
Like it hasn't happened already? The denialists come to this site and spew their insults with little regard to anyone. They're losers.
Denialists don't waste a moment declaring anyone who believes the experts as idiots, so now it's a problem when the shoe is on the other foot?
So, now I'm calling the kettle black.
Get used to it, and lighten up.
That's why people who have made this into an ideological argument get called "stupid, idiotic fat-heads who are dead from the neck up."
Lighten up!!! Be mindful of your own words.
I'm calling deniers stupid fatheads, because:
1. They don't know the facts, but act like they do.
2. Not knowing the facts, they also refuse to accept the agreement of the experts that DO know the facts (over 95% of the experts agree - AGW is real, and it's caused by us).
3. They refuse to educate themselves beyond their own pre-conceived notions about the facts.
So, if that doesn't define "stupid fatheads", then what would YOU call it?
Remember, lighten up!!!!
PS - I'm not here to win anyone over to the realities of AGW. Deniers have no desire to let go of their religious views. They're dogmatic zealots.
But because you believe you are 100% right and there should be no debate or questioning, then you feel you are completely justified in using whatever derogatory slur against the "deniers" you wish. But they need to be more respectful, you don't.
I appreciate your concern about my welfare.
"don't shrink away or cry foul when you're made fun of, or poked fun at"
They've already done what you claim they will do. Any attempts to reason with these idiots is over.
Don't confuse skeptics with deniers.
I'm a skeptic. Skeptics don't mind learning new things that may change their view.
Deniers love to wallow in their ignorance. Why treat them with respect that they don't deserve? They certainly don't respect themselves, or anyone else.
BTW - I'm still trying to reconcile the apparent concern about my welfare from someone who says this:
"I am not surprised the analogy went over DollyLuSue's head..."
Who's "DollyLuSue?"
I haven't seen anything that indicates anything worthy of banning from DellDolly.
I have see attacks on DellDolly, though.
I'm a true skeptic who is open-minded, but willing to concede there are experts who know a whole heck of a lot more than me on certain subjects. So I'll have to side with the experts (95% of them) who say AGW is real, and caused by us.
If you can't trust an expert, who can you trust?
Deniers hide behind the label, "skeptic" in an attempt to make themselves look open minded. They aren't. They pretend to know the facts, when they obviously don't. Deniers just call the experts frauds and conspirators. That's the ONLY way their dumb belief systems work. Yeah, right. And little green men fly UFOs.
"Believe one who has proved it. Believe an expert." - Virgil, AeneidRoman epic poet (70 BC - 19 BC)
If my explanations have been clear enough, just watch this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU&feature=player_embedded#
Beyond that, it's up to you to understand the difference.
I can tell the difference, even if you can't.
Something like that.
Only the light the denier sees is the on-coming train of truth.
Jump out of the way, or get run over!!!
Remember, lighten up!!!!
Just a few examples....
People who say that they hate being forced under penalty of law to wear a seatbelt, because if they had an accident where their car was on fire, they'd prefer being thrown free or not being stuck in the car and burning up or being plunged into a lake and drowning, and so they should have the freedom to go without a seatbelt. They ignore the much greater risk of getting hurt in any other kind of accident - a risk that experts tell them is much more common.
People who say that they don't believe in mandatory vaccines because there are some people who have bad reactions or side effects from vaccines. They ignore the fact that, for the general population, the risks from the disease are much worse than the risks from the vaccine! Experts tell us that, but they ignore them.
People who latch onto conspiracy theories about 9/11 and the WTC tower's collapse. They select one tidbit of info that supports their case and reject all the tons of factual info from experts that debunks them.
People who reject Manmade Global Climate Change. 'Nuff said.
DumbDolly is a sheep. She puts her faith in her leaders and will do as they say.
Never fails.
Religious beliefs like denialism is a hard thing to let go of.
But, it's either let go of it, or be ready to be fitted for your straight jacket. That time is coming soon.
You are being marginalized, like the flat-earthers of old.
Deniers are such dufuses.
The brains of sheep like Dolly the Dolt, and professor SLRXT, aren't built for turning issues over in their "minds." DumbDolly simply repeats everything said on mmfa, and professor SLRXT looks up definitions and quotes, and is good enough to regale us with them after explaining why everyone's an idiot but him (or her).
Call me what you want. It doesn't matter how many times you tap your heels together and say "AGW is not real, AGW is not real,..." -- It IS!
Too bad, the facts aren't on your side. Better luck next time. I heard they still need the denier types to prove UFOs are piloted by little green men. Sounds like an opportunity!
Deniers, when they feel threatened and impotent, often resort to name-calling, because there's nothing to their so-called proofs.
They get their proofs from bubble-gum wrappers and cereal boxes.
Their religion claims that all science is a fake. None of our technology should work, because scientists have all faked the results to some political ends.
It's a conspiracy!!!!! {:-O
Deniers are such idiots and a total waste of time.
My point exactly. Rightwingers who reject expert's advice are stupid.
Like people who won't wear a seatbelt. Stupid.
I find your retort to Dell hilarious, because basically it looks like you're admitting that you accept experts view on global warming, but don't want to do anything about it because 'you don't want to be told what to do.'
What are you, five?
I could care less if you decided to stop wearing your seatbelt, but you're sure as hell not going to keep me from wearing mine.
In much the same respect, this 'debate' about global warming is denying me my seatbelt.
Read the headline here.
Right-wing media seize on snow at Copenhagen conference to deem climate change a "fraud".
People who reject AGW by grasping on to insignificant tidbits and reject the full body of scientific evidence. Like people who reject seatbelts or vaccines! Or like people who buy into conspiracy theories when an overview of the full evidence available debunks the little snippets they pulled out!
Actually, I am about as on-topic as one can be.
And you, again, simply are draining any semblence of credibility you once had by making a foolish personal attack against me!
That reminds me of people who (having apparently never had any experience/education in Debate) believe that the idea is to "win over the other side". Nope, the intent of actual debate is to sway the 'undecided' (audience?) to your side.
I think I may have mentioned a friend who supports Capital Punishment who was forced to take the "anti" side.. and won! (He also pointed out the weaknesses of the "pro" side after the debate was over)
Hi pot, I'm kettle. I have been chuckling to myself for the past few minutes reading the comments of the "enlightened" calling anyone who doesn't believe what they do "stupid fatheads." This behavior is exactly what you rail against the so-called deniers for doing. If a denier is a "dogmatic zealot," then so are you. You have become so entrenched in your own beliefs, which you view as "fact," that you are not willing to even consider someone else's point of view. I will not hurl insults, call names, or spew vitriol as I have seen some in this thread do. I will simply state that the "facts" are probably not as clear cut as you'd like to believe. Based on the comments I've seen, I would be willing to bet that most of you who are in support of the theory of AGW have little or no formal training in science or statistical analysis. I'm guessing that you find an information source which lines up with your pre-formed opinions and then view the information you receive from them as "fact." I'm not here to tell you that AGW is absolutely a hoax, but I definitely lean toward that conclusion. Actual facts, things like the fact that many of the weather stations which are used to collect long-term data were located in rural areas 40-50 years ago, but are now in or in close proximity to urbanized areas and are being affected by urban heat-island effect. There are other things to consider, such as the fact that some of the tide gauges which are used to monitor sea levels around the world have been located in areas where subsidence is known to occur. For example, the tide gauge data from Hong Kong are used heavily in determining sea level change, but Hong Kong is and has been sinking for a while. There are plenty of experts out there who are crying foul over the use of such data as a means of proving that climate change is occurring.
Also, some are saying that deniers are being deceived by big companies who only want to destroy the earth for their own monetary gain. Statements like this first give you away as having at least some anti-capitalist leanings, and second, show that you are blind to the fact that much of the AGW and environmental movement is driven solely by monetary gain. Environmentalism is big business these days. Take a look at the Copenhagen summit. All you hear coming out of there is how the smaller and developing nations are telling the rich nations to give them money to curb global warming. Just how much of that money do you think will actually be used toward climate change? We're talking about nations whose corrupt leaders withhold food aid from their people, and you expect that if we throw money at them for clean energy that they'll actually use it in that way? This whole thing is a huge money-grab. If you are a climate scientist doing research, then your data had better line up with AGW, or your funding is cut off. Please do not tell me that the data can't lie.
Now, the last thing I'll say before some start telling my that I'm "dead from the neck up" is that I have a degree in Environmental Science and have worked as an ecologist now for going on 10 years. That probably makes me more of an expert than many of the posters here who claim to know the facts. If you have actual facts, I assure you, I will be happy to look at them objectively. If you are a liberal arts major who feels guilty about the lifestyle you enjoy in this country, and therefore feel that it's your duty to tout AGW, please do yourself a favor and don't respond to this post. You may become upset by the FACT that you don't know squat about the "facts."
That's not at all comparable to a climate change convention in Copenhagen in December getting a snowstorm. Snowstorms in December in Copenhagen are very common and not unexpected at all, and aren't an indicator at all that the people who assert there's manmade global climate change going on don't know that they're talking about.
But in either case, the sinkhole or the snowstorm wouldn't be 'caused' by the sinkhole convention or the global warming summit!
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/simple_proof.pdf
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/index.htm
http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar
http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/75628-2/
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=1E639422-7094-4972-83AF-EE40EE302D41
To characterize God as magical is a deliberately insulting way to put the statement to cause outrage. I have faith in God and you have faith in global warming-- belief in evidence of things not seen, or more forcefully, belief in the unprovable. Dont get all hostile-- proof that establishes scientific law would require repeatable experiments, which lacking a spare earth and sun can not be done.
Snow falling in Winter is an extremely common occurrence, especially in Scandinavia and Northern Europe.
Don't you see the difference???
It would be more shocking if it DIDN'T snow in Copenhagen in mid to late December.
Trying to use snow in Scandinavia during Winter as some kind of God-given attack on climate change scientists is the height of lunacy.
More proof the left has no sense of irony or humor.
Denmark has 9 days of snow on average in December. They have 14 days below freezing on average in December.
http://www.myforecast.com/bin/climate.m?city=60104&metric=false
But you never will.
Remember, YOU are the one who called it "ironic" that snow is falling in December in Copenhagen during a climate conference. I was merely disputing your claim and showing that snowfall is actually common, so there was no irony.
And for someone who wants everyone else to "lighten up", you sure are angry about this topic and very quick to throw around insults like "fanatical" and "religiously thin-skinned".
Perhaps if you just laughed and shrugged off our comments on this page, you wouldn't feel the need to argue with us so much. :-P
As for my descriptions "fanatical" and "religiously thin-skinned" also being angry, you are just proving they are accurate.
On top of that, you choose to spend all this time on a liberal website arguing with people. You even chose the screen name "right ON" to clearly display your idealogy to the liberals you seek to argue with.
Maybe you don't realize how angry you are, but it comes through in your posts.
I was simply trying to argue the point about the snow in Copenhagen, and look how you have tried to turn it into a battle of personal attacks. Sorry to disappoint, but I really don't care if you insult me. You're still wrong about there being irony because it snowed in December in Denmark during a climate conference.
Take it as an insult if you wish if you can't defend it. Because it's ridiculous.
And he doesn't exactly "choose" to spend his time here. I believe it's his paid job. In 4 months here since my accident I've never seen him post on the weekend, and he's almost always gone by about 6:45 PM Eastern time. Unpaid posters appear and disappear and don't have set times that they stop posting every day, and visit on the weekends too to post.
Pfffft, soda spew cleanup on aisle 1. Ahh, I remember years ago when the first lie a buddy of yours gave to cover for your reincarnated screen name was that you had a "stroke". You're just mad I am on to you.
You've been through some tough times Suzy. lol :)
But we're all "on" to you, and it really chaps your hide.
Too bad, so sad.
Try listening instead of hiding yourself behind false ideological barriers. It'll be good for you.
"global warming alarmists"
Better watch that name calling.
You're starting to sound like one of them stupid, fathead deniers.
And, you aren't a denier, are you? ;-)
Remember, lighten up!
I never called you a fathead, did I?
I called deniers fatheads.
If you aren't a denier, why take offense?
Name-calling from you doesn't sound like you aren't lightening up enough.
Remember:
"Amp down your insults and you may not get it back"
and
"don't shrink away or cry foul when you're made fun of, or poked fun at"
Your words, not mine.
If someone decides to object to using a derogatory term for a 'group', they are defending that group, usually because they consider themselves part of that group, therefore 'taking it personally'.
e.g. I tend to be a Centrist, bintx is a Conservative, etc. Using a generic term such as 'liberal' for the other side is intellectually lazy, using binary logic and ignoring 'fuzzy' math.
And this is the type of response we should expect to get from someone who self-righteously stated:
"Amp down your insults and you may not get it back"
Save your crocodile tears.
More proof the RIGHT has no sense of irony or humor.
Maybe you don't know the defintion of ironic and irony. You might want to look that up. It's not the same as coincidence.
Irony - an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.
There's no irony in a snowstorm in northern Europe in December.
Saying that the "left has no sense of irony or humor" is completely irrelevant to this conversation.
It is ironic that someone who expects to be taken seriously misuses words.
And why would you continue to use a word incorrectly when it's been demonstrated that you are misapplying it?
Lighten up!!!!
Remember, deniers are idiotic fatheads, incapable of separating fact from fiction. Most are stuck at a 3rd-grade level of education.
I'm sure you agree!
So, lighten up!
Crazy liberals, understanding words have meanings.
It's soooo cute when the conservatives refuse to learn anything and go merrily along with their world view regardless of new information presented.
Psst... it's not "new information" it's the same information over and over again which you apparently can't assimilate into your thought process.
But to you, it new information everyday. Kinda like your stuck in a "Ground Hog Day" situation.
Let me know when you turn that corner.
So adhering to actual meanings of words is "parsing"?
Happy Groundhog Day!
See that's for the month of December. It snowed in December (it's not Christmas yet right?). So there is no "irony" about having snow in a month where almost a third of the days it snows.
See how you can't assimilate new information into your thought process?
Happy Groundhog Day!
Check back in a week and if the snow is gone, you win.
1) Make a ridiculous statement
2) Get shown it's inaccuracy
3) Come back with - we'll see next week!
Now, go forth and assimilate.
I am sorry if you can't wrap your palm from your face around that, I cannot help you.
Happy Groundhog Day!
http://web2.airmail.net/danb1/european.htm
(look about halfway down the page.)
New Delhi hardly ever gets snow, it would be unexpected, so that WOULD be ironic.
See the definition I posted.
"Our" definitions don't change with the weather. You're the one who's messing up the definition of Irony and ironic. The way you're using it is NEVER correct, and isn't an alternative definition.
That's where he gives himself a little trophy. Stay the course, righton !
Actually, I think it is ironic that a freak snowstorm would hit Denmark during a climate conference.
Get it? Freak snowstorm.
Sounds like extreme / changing weather patterns to me.
Let's see, massive flooding in England a couple months back, extreme winter weather in China,....
Yep. Looks like were getting into a pattern of extreme weather!
Maybe you don't know the defintion of ironic and irony. You might want to look that up. It's not the same as coincidence.
Irony - an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.
There's no irony in seeing snow in Copenhagen in December. It's not an outcome that's unexpected. About 1/3rd of all days in December, on average, sees some snow in Copenhagen! This conference has lasted multiple days - it'd be really strange for them to see NO snow during that time.
And there's news that Obama has reached a meaningful consensus/agreement with multiple countries in Copenhagen. What do you want to bet that it gets spun by Hannity, et al as the USA ceding control to India, China and South Africa?
So thanks for playing, but your analogy is a dud. See, that's what happens when you take a point of view that is actually indefensible, you find yourself having to STRETCH to find ways to defend it. To wit, comparing sinkholes large enough to swallow buildings, which are scarcer than Liberal Republicans, to snowfall in Copenhagen, which is as common as Republicans who cannot find suitable analogies to defend climate change denial.
Randy
Odd how doing nothing about Saddam Hussein was equated to that position once long ago in 2003, based on a "consensus" of information generated by George Bush and Dick Cheney (anecdotal, cherry-picked information), but now that we have a consensus view from a BASTION of climatologists based on DECADES of research, that just doesn't cut the mustard. It all goes back to Al Gore, doesn't it. Hate the messenger so you disregard the message. If the face of climate change was George Will, you'd be onboard in a heartbeat. My position would be as it is today, with the facts, not with my passions.
Randy
Randy
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/country_guides/results.shtml?tt=TT003490
Textbooks are wrong.
Teachers are wrong.
Professors are wrong.
Scientists are wrong.
Economists are wrong.
Everyone is wrong.
Who is right? The conservatives...
It is not just a matter of complaining, but the bigger picture of refusing to accept fact, preferring to go by GOP hunches instead.
I havent seen info on whether a lot of economists have an opinion on global warming. The ones I read are evenly split on the science and agree on the wisdom of diverting resources
Economy in the pooper? Don't listen to any plan accepted by Democrats. It was made by agenda driven liberal economists.
Global Warming may be bad for business? Don't listen to those liberal agenda "scientists"...
There is no more compromise with the right. There is no more cooperation in helping this nation. There is only the dragging of feet, which is counter productive and doing more harm to America.
Weather = current events.
There's a difference . . . look up the definitions of BOTH.
Not too long ago, it was actually cold in December, as well as September, October, AND November. The longest stretch of cold weather this year seems to have been a week. Those easily distracted by snow storms are idiots.
-----------------------------------
The Midnight Review
~
The study of golbal climate does not end 200 years in the past. Climatalogical cycles are included in todays climatological research. The suns cycles also are included. The study of the history of the universe has been a current topic since it, the universe in a modern sense, was discovered.
You give no reason for belief in your post so far. Why believe your conclusion?
The deniers can't even be consistent within the same paragraph!
Mixing weather and climate? Stupefying ignorance at its finest! It's weather! No, it's climate! No, it's weather! Like watching a bad ping-pong game.
"Never mind that there is only 200 years of temperature data"
Ever here of PROXY data? Um, I guess not. It's too inconvenient for deniers.
Then from there, the post just devolves to an incoherent jumbled mass of random words.
The god of denialism is dead. The denialists are getting desperate. They can't even formulate a coherent rant anymore. The religion of denialism is winding down. Soon the windows of the church of denialism will boarded up. Maybe they can turn it into a soup kitchens for the poor denialists.
Sad, sick people. No brains. No hope.
The proxy data says that there has been climate change since, well, forever. Does not help you.
Yeah, you are right, "denialism" is dead. Thousands of cult followers gathered in Denmark and accomplished absolutely nothing because the real motive was to extract cash from wealthy nations. Climate gate did not help you either. Sorry, it is over. Don't worry, some other communist will develop another plot to take down the wealthy nations.
One day you will feel embarassed for how naive and impressionable you are. Some might call you a useful idiot.
Now were calling other people morons.
Tsk, tsk. Watch it. You may get banned.
Don't know the difference between climate and weather?
Is that concept too confusing?
If a denier can't get that simple concept, then what's the use in even reading their baseless rants?
Going just by their own words, we can see that deniers are stupid, idiotic fat-heads. Refusing to educate themselves about anything. Complete, total time-wasters.
I couldn't care less what happens in Copenhagen. That's just a bunch of self-serving politicians who don't have the backbone to do what's needed.
"One day you will feel embarassed for how naive and impressionable you are. Some might call you a useful idiot."
Well, time certainly not on the denier's side. After all, the flat-earthers were all smug in their certainty, and we've seen where it got them. Obscurity. And that's were the deniers are heading - obscurity.
"Climate gate did not help you either."
Oh, quite the contrary. I believe it's done wonders to put the spotlight on this - especially the deniers baseless claims. We're still in the first chapter of this saga, and already conservative media has proclaimed ACC is real, and it's caused by use. Also, the AP's findings have turned up nothing. More feedback to come. It ain't looking good for the deniers. Now everyone is seeing how bogus the deniers' claims are. May want to re-think your position on that one.
Soon deniers will start to feel more lonely and isolated, wondering where all their friends and family went. Well, it's simple. No one wants to associate with a loser freak, who won't shut up about total nonsense.
Better get fitted for that straight jacket now, and avoid the rush.
"Well, you got climate in my weather"
/snark
Always there for a good laugh. :-)
So, we can call it either weathmate, or climather.
All the same to deniers.
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/12/08/cnn-poll-public-cools-on-global-warming/
Believe what you want, when you pray to your god of stupidity and ignorance. All bow to the great god of the morons. Denialism is a dead religion.
There's still that one cherry you deniers just don't want to pick - 95% of the experts agree ACC is real. Wow. How will you deniers ever get over that one?
Oh, that's right. All these experts are involved in a mass cover-up to delude humanity into thinking ACC is real! Face it. That's the ONLY way the religion of denialism can even work.
Maybe Santa will visit YOU this year. Maybe you'll get that lump of coal you've always wanted. Oh boy! Thanks, Santa! More fossil fuel!
Just be sure to leave him a bowl of your selected cherries. Yum! Yum!
http://www.petitionproject.org/
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/
That bogus petition project is a farce. My dog's already signed up, and they'll never catch it, because they're more interested in numbers than accuracy. Heck, even you can do it! Give it a whirl! Sign up as a "scientist!"
Deniers can't tell fact from fiction.
I can send a Nigerian Prince your way. He says you just need to wire him $2000 to get $500,000. It takes about as much faith to think you'll ever see the $500,000, as believing all the scientists are colluding to make your day miserable.
Deniers are idiotic simpletons. Heck, Terry Schaivo had higher brain function just before she died, than all the deniers put together.
Consider: AGW doubters (less inflammatory than 'deniers') will accept anyone as a 'scientist' in the Project, however, if someone fakes a voter registration, ACORN should be considered 'criminal'.
I encourage everyone to sign up their pets. Then, after they are on the list (you can check on line), let people know about it.
It'll expose the project as the fraud it is.
Yep. I am cute. Thanks.
Go jump off a 1000ft cliff, then come back to tell us if science is wrong about gravity. They're wrong about everything else. Why not be wrong about gravity?
Like using that computer? That technology came from science. It's allllll booooogguuusssss!!!! OOOOOOO!!!! Sure enjoy that little bit of science, don't 'ja?
Deniers can rant all they want. Anyone who either purposely keeps themselves ignorant due to sheer laziness to get an education, or they think they know more than those who DO have at bit more education, are either delusional, or just plain stoopid. DUH-OH!
What size straight-jacket do you need?
Your no fun anymore. :-(
Just be sure to come back any time when you are absolutely, positively certain you know more than the climate experts!
Werent some making noise that katrina was proof of global warming?
"Nice insulting rant sure to persuade someone."
And who would THAT be? YOU? HAH!
Denier trolls act like victims when you poke them real hard.
I hear a violin playing just for them.
Boo hoo.
It is not like a bunch of random things occur and we call it weather. There is a system and numerous factors have an impact, and one force is man. Everything is effected by everything, but man is a large contributor.
The kids growing up in Stockholm today have nowhere near as much snow as I did growing up. And I'm just 21!!! It's getting warmer alright.
Today, I saw pansies that hadn't finished dying back. On Thanksgiving we had new roses on the bush. Yes, the climate has changed since I was a kid.
Nothing to see here people; move along.
Frankly Boeing bears more responsibility than the GOP for September 11, 2001. A sturdy locking door in a bulkhead would have mad ethe whole plan worthless.
If the Bush administration really believed that we needed dates and times of potential attacks in order to prevent them, then what the hell would the purpose of warrantless wiretapping be? All the people would have to do is to avoid mentioning the actual date and time in communications, and the government would be unable to do anything about it. The simple use of codes would make attacks unstoppable.
Ultimately, how are we supposed to find out the supposed date and time of an attack without investigating those who might be involved in it?
How many times can the same argument be made before people realize how phenomenally stupid it is?
I wonder if these yokels can explain this:
The most active season for hurricanes or tropical storms was 2005, during which 28 tropical cyclones formed, of which a record 15 became hurricanes. The least active season was the 1914, with only one known tropical cyclone developing during that year.
SINCE 1914! WTF! And that they to argue with snow being the answer! LOL!
Wasnt 1901 the worst loss of life from a hurricane?
This is a common problem with proxy data. There could have been 50 storms of hurricane intensity in 1500, but no one would know.
"Glenn Beck's show could transfer over to the Comedy Channel without changing one thing."
Jon Stewart's already done that.
And you're right. It's just as funny on CC as on Fox.
Beck's a total moron. We don't laugh with him, we laugh at him.
After all, he considers himself a rodeo clown!
I disagree. Stewart knows reality and utilizes an ironic sense of humor to illustrate it. His audience is very well informed as a result.
Beck rarely exhibits knowledge of the facts and seeks to misinform his viewers, who remain poorly informed of the facts. The Soviets called this disinformation.
Please take the time to review the attached scientific study from a very well funded and reputable Danish research group. We definitely need to take action on a larger scale than what the Copenhagen treaty will accomplish. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKoUwttE0BA I don't believe that putting these vast resources in the hands of the same banksters responsible for the timed detonation of western currencies as much of a solution. Why would anyone want to discredit and silence 40,000 reputable scientists who support the same research?