Quick Fact: Quinn falsely suggests that no one believes that "the last 10 years were the hottest 10 years on record"
In a segment attacking former Vice President Al Gore as the "the Bernie Madoff of carbon," right-wing radio host Jim Quinn falsely suggested that no one believes that "the last 10 years were the hottest 10 years on record." In fact, scientific organizations have determined that the decade from 2000-2009 was the hottest on record.
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.
Quinn: "Gore is still maintaining that the last 10 years were the hottest 10 years on record. Is there anybody out there that would agree with that?"
From
the March 1 edition of Clear Channel's The War Room with Quinn &
Rose:
QUINN: I mean, it's absurd. Carbon dioxide is doing nothing to the Earth. There is no global warming, and Gore is still maintaining that the last 10 years were the hottest 10 years on record. Is there anybody out there that would agree with that? I mean, you know, maybe he spent the last 10 years in Bali, but I didn't.
Fact: Scientific organizations agree that 2000-2009 was warmest decade on record
NASA: "January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record." GISS stated on January 21 that "January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. Throughout the last three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade." GISS also said that 2009 "was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest year on record, and tied with a cluster of other years -- 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 1998 and 2007 -- as the second warmest year since recordkeeping began," according to a NASA analysis of global surface temperature. From GISS:
NASA states that "[t]emperature anomalies are computed relative to the base period 1951-1980."
NCDC: "The 2000-2009 decade is the warmest on record." In its 2009 "Global Analysis," NCDC stated: "The 2000-2009 decade is the warmest on record, with an average global surface temperature of 0.54°C (0.96°F) above the 20th century average. This shattered the 1990s value of 0.36°C (0.65°F)."
Met Office: 2000-2009 "has been, by far, the warmest decade on the instrumental record." The U.K. Met Office stated on December 7, 2009, that "[t]he first decade of this century has been, by far, the warmest decade on the instrumental record" and that "despite 1998 being the warmest individual year -- the last ten years have clearly been the warmest period in the 160-year record of global surface temperature, maintained jointly by the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia."
Michael Timberlake is an intern at Media Matters for America.
Wiz
-----
You trying to make a point? Did you actually look at the charts?
What about this?
How we gonna stop all that heat from these pesky things warm'n our oceans...tax'm?
wiz
---------
Your "hit and run" tactics only make you look silly.
You aren't making any sense. Did you take your meds today?
I have to figure that anyone who listens to this, uh... stuff, has some serious issues that need to be addressed.
In other words, anyone with any sense does not listen to Quinn if they are looking for any kind of facts on global warming/climate change.
P.S. He thinks of himself as a weatherman. He is probably better at guessing the weather than host a listen show.
P.S. When can I post freely again
For these extreme measures that algore and other climate truthers say we must do, the snap shot of 25 years over millions is hardly worth destroying the worlds economy over.
When green can beat cost and btu output of available energy, then it might be worth it. In the meantime, drill baby drill, or do your best Fred Flinstone and pedal your way back to the stone age!
That's a nice rant. Oh yes, the Soviets would have taken us over!
If you lived during those dreary years, you'd remember his introduction of 'national malaise', high inflation and mortgage interest rates. He along with the leftys the believed that detente was more of a hope of keeping up with them rather than burying them like Reagan did. Gee, how'd that turn out?
Another rant, which has nothing to do with the argument that had we adopted his energy saving polices, we would be better off.
(By the way, I doubt Carter had much to do with the problems with the economy. That's a whole other argument.)
Right click on the image. Open in a new window.
Easy.
Or, is the problem that you don't trust science, so you don't believe in the internet either?
http://www.thepoliticalcarnival.net/2010/03/video-rachel-maddow-and-her-must-see.html
carter called energy independence a matter of national security. but the republicans and all the mouthbreathers like limbaugh prefer to keep us hooked on expensive foreign oil. i will never understand why people inisist it's such a good deal to be driving cars that get 12 mph, when we could just as easily be saving loads of money and getting double the mileage with little effort. maybe you can explain it to me.
mileage standards Your text to link here...
Reagan, a man with intellect, a strong conservative backbone and vision to bring this country back from the brink. Let's hope we find another one to show up in the next presidential election.
Another rant. That's a nice polemic. Now do you care to address the article without waxing nostalgic for the president who had alzheimer's disease and traded arms for hostages, and who waged a war on Central America that supported torture and killed over 100,000 people, at least according to human rights reports?
Did you happen to notice who brought us to the brink? (Hint: it's more likely to be people with power than people without power.) How many of them did you vote for? Can you trust yourself to vote again? The next conservative will just dupe you like Bush did.
Fixed.
Ya skipped Clinton. The philandering partier who had more fiscally conservative sense than Reagan and both Bushes ever had. (see chart posted above)
Damn Democrats and their fiscally conservative ways!
Oh really? You might want to check what real scientists say about such an absurd claim.
and engineers
There must be something wrong with your lonely little windmill. The two near me are damn near silent. And the huge wind turbines I've traveled to look at were not all that noisy either.
A FOIA reveals the Department of Energy turned to George Soros and to wind industry lobbyists to help cover up two economic studies pointing to the failure of European wind energy programs.
Looks like you have a problem...
wiz
--------
Looks like you have the problem.
You keep shifting your rants. You're proof that all loons don't live in lakes.
Is it climate science you have a problem with?
Or is it the policies and ideologies you have a problem with?
If it's the former, cite papers to back your claims.
If it's the latter, I'm not interested in chasing you down that rat-hole.
Appears you already have ;-)
wiz
------
Oh, and BTW funnyman, there are a few other sources of clean energy you neglected to mention. Hydro, methane recovery (biological), etc.
For example, I bought a used car in 1992. It was a 1989 model. It got 54 MPG. It was not a hybrid. If we could do that then, why can't we do it now?
Oh yeah... THERE WON'T BE and YOU'RE FULL OF IT.
There is no economic collapse pending over environmentalism. Merely one technology pushing out another. You're either brainwashed by or just whoring yourself out to the interests that are invested in the status quo.
Those are the only people who face any kind of fiscal threat. And to them I merely say: DIVERSIFY.
--------------------------------------------------------
Do you people EVER try to confront ANY problems with anything other than FEARMONGERING about any and all solutions? It's pathetic.
So there you have some of the costs of green energy, it costs more jobs, money, land area, and even wildlife. Without a huge leap forward in technology it will continue to cost more. While it won't destroy the entire world's economy the developed nations will have their economic base destroyed while the third world nations will still be burning their cheap fossil fuels and advancing their economies.
That is a complete fabrication. Hansen made no such claim.
There are many different ways to measure temperature rise (ice cores, for example). I need to remind you that the National Academy of Science affirmed the accuracy of the hockey stick.
I'm glad you place such faith in your own voodoo economics, but none in the peer reviewed science.
The 'hockey stick' is probably better entitled the 'hockey puck'.
Do you even know what you are talking about? Now you are just throwing out words that sound good?
You made a wild claim that Hansen stated we only had data accurate from 1980. He never came close to saying that. That would be major news. Do you care to back up your claim or are you just going to post nonsense?
Again, the hockey stick has been confirmed multiple times by different scientists. Are you saying we shouldn't trust science?
"The 'hockey stick' is probably better entitled the 'hockey puck'."
When denialists bring that old, tired crap up, they're saying the "hockey stick" somehow invented global warming. How ignorant.
Check out this timeline I'm putting together.
The "hockey stick" as you call it, didn't appear until Mann's 1998 paper.
So, how can you explain all that work done before Mann's paper that already came to the conclusion that global warming was happening?
Got any ideas there, ace? Care to find ways to deny all that? Hmmmmm? We're waiting.
Why do you refer to Al Gore as, small letters, algore? Is there some significance to it or is it just another silly right-wing illiterate thing like calling the Democratic Party the "Democrat" party?
Please feel free to use this for 'cutting and pasting' as needed.
ic
Translation: I'm a troll because I don't know how to argue intelligently.
Um . . . not so much. I've actually always thought it made the person using 'algore' and 'democrat party' look a little illiterate myself.
Waxing al-a-gore-ical again I see.
You say a lot, but never seem to have any proofs to offer.
Still devoid of any links that back your silly claims.
Come on! You can't be taken seriously unless you can back up what you say.
I know. It's so hard for you to know the difference between religious beliefs like denialism, ideology vs science, and Al Gore from a climate scientist.
Is it cooling? Is nothing happening at all? Is it warming, but not by us?
It's soooooo hard for you denialists to get anything straight. Poor dears. So confused.
See your local witch doctor. He may have some special meds for that mental condition.
Denialists can't prove anything. Even when they think they "gotcha", their "proofs" fall flat. So, they resort to ideological rants: Al Gore, IPCC, emails, etc.
See my response to poproxx77 near the bottom of the page at:
http://mediamatters.org/research/201003020002#757845
I'm waiting for the response. Let's see what happens.
Usually, when they see they cornered themselves with the own "wits", the run for cover.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201003020002#757845
Good to actually discuss facts with a skeptic!
See, discuss the facts, and leave the ideology to the politicians. It's simple.
BTW: Anyone who refers to the former vice=president as 'algore' obviously obtains their vast knowledge of this issue from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Of course, they are the first people that I would go to if I wanted to learn something about the climate and climate change--NOT!
"Even Hansen admits that his data can only be accurate since 1980"
His data? Can anyone make a more ignorant and incorrect statement? You're lowering the bar for denialists.
However, what I have noticed is a change in my garden. Flowering plants that would never 'winter over' have survived and are seeding themselves every year. I am not sure what it means, other than the frost is not able to permeate long enough,and deep enough to effect them.
Just an observation.
Again, anecdotal, but interesting nonetheless.
It's hard to believe that you didn't deliberately exaggerate what the poster said in a feeble attempt to reduce his/her argument to an absurdity rather than responding with a rebuttal of your own.
There are snow storms in washington, therefore there is no global warming. Parts of the US may have had one of the coldest winters of all time... but I can tell you.. I am originally from Perth, Australia and I still have family there, and they just experienced the hottest and driest summer on record ever! What does that say?
By that logic....If I look out the window, the world looks flat, the sun and the moon look the same size, and trees appear to be non-living...Is there any reason I shoudl "believe" otherwise?
"Then what's happening between 1940 and 1980?"
The answer:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature4.php
Just use some facts & they scatter.
I guess I found the active ingredient in this:
For those of you still extolling the virtues of "Mann's Hockey Stick Graph" you should realize by now that it's been thoroughly debunked, even warmists don't believe it anymore. For one thing, it doesn't show the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) with temperatures higher than today. Professor Edward Acton (The boss of Phil Jones from East Anglia CRU) recently publicly acknowledged the MWP and admitted they didn't understand why it occurred.
The fact that "Mann's Hockey Stick Graph" doesn't show the MWP, that his proxy data from the Bristlecone Pines is severely flawed, and that if you feed his graph generating algorithms with random data you still come out with a "hockey stick" all point to this graph being nothing but warmist propaganda.
You see... in science, when someone publishes a paper, it gets peer reviewed by the entire scientific community. And yes there may be one person with a questionably funded study that will refute the story, but when the majority of scientific proxy studies confirm the conculsion, it beomes a scientific theory.
When science points to a study as evidence, that study has been reviewed and re-tested by its peers.
When a denier points to a study, it's a lone study without peer review.
That's the difference between deniers and science. One is looking for evidence to support a narrative, the other takes evidence to formulate a conculsion.
Actually, most everyone in the appropriate scientific discipline. Having biologists reviewing a physics paper would not be appropriate.
Other than that -thumbs up.
[I hate someone introducing themselves as 'a scientist', I'd rather know their field of study]
"I hate someone introducing themselves as 'a scientist', I'd rather know their field of study"
Amen.
Denialist crank "expert": "I'm not a climate scientist, but I play one on the blogs, and in my own mind." {:-b
Hockey stick, schmokey stick.
Check out this time line.
Mann's paper was published in 1998.
Kinda puts this all into perspective, huh?
Can you please explain all that made up stuff preceding Mann's paper?
We'll wait for the reply.
I was responding to someone who made the claim that Mann's paper was debunked and I was explaining that it hadn't been debunked, but validated many times over.
And it does show the MWP if you understand how Mann's original graph worked and how standard error works. It was the MEDIA who stripped out the gray shaded standard error from the graph, not Mann or any other scientist.
Check out this timeline.
You denialists keep acting like this is all recent stuff.
It ain't.
So, if you are so smart, please explain how all that stuff in the past was made up before the IPCC or the "hockey stick".
Feel free to take your time.
It's probably 10 or 20% of the most uninformed and misinformed Americans telling themselves they're a majority, or at least the only Real Americans.
The biggest fear is the melting of the glaciers. The photos don't lie.
To be accurate, that statement should read:
"Gore is still maintaining that the last 10 years were the hottest 10 years on record. Is there anybody out there [who listens to my program] that would agree with that?"
The answer would be "no".