Rush Limbaugh: Climate Change Misinformer of the Year
In 1994 Rush Limbaugh declared, "There is no global warming going on," adding that scientists "admit" they "may need 20 years more data to prove it." Since then, Limbaugh has managed to shield his brain from 18 years of mounting evidence that humans are changing the climate. "Science has made enormous inroads in understanding climate change and its causes," according to the National Research Council's latest report assessing the state of climate science. "There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities," the report said.
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.
Limbaugh, whose radio show reportedly reaches roughly 14 million people per week, remains the most prominent and cocksure denier of human-induced climate change in the news industry. His unyielding belief that the world's earth scientists are perpetrating a "hoax" has led him to some interesting places this year, from declaring that the heat index is "manufactured by the government," to accusing NASA of sabotaging its own research satellite, to announcing that the National Academy of Sciences has "lost all credibility." Given his large following, Limbaugh's extreme and misguided position may well have influenced the Republican presidential primary by discouraging candidates from speaking about the threats posed by global warming. Indeed, Limbaugh made this litmus test explicit, saying "bye, bye, nomination" after Mitt Romney acknowledged the human contribution to climate change. For all this, on top of his typically bombastic distortions and obfuscations of climate science, Limbaugh wins the distinction of 2011 Climate Change Misinformer of the Year.
"Hoax": Rush Limbaugh's Intractable Climate Change Denial
Limbaugh: Global Warming "Is A Hoax ... I Get Blue In The Face Repeating This Over And Over Again." On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh said:
LIMBAUGH: Al Gore wrote in his blog, "Good for Mitt Romney. Though we've long passed the point where weak lip service is enough on the climate crisis while other Republicans are running from the truth, Mitt Romney is sticking to his guns in the face of the anti-science wing of the Republican Party." There you go. So has been Romney endorsed by Algore on his stance on global warming, which is a hoax. There is no "settled science," as I get blue in the face repeating this over and over again. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 6/16/11]
Limbaugh: "I Don't Need Scientific Proof" To Know It's A Lie. From the March 8 edition of Limbaugh's radio show:
LIMBAUGH: How did I know global warming is a hoax? 'Cause of who's behind pushing it. Liberals. They lie.
[...]
LIMBAUGH: If there ever is scientific proof -- and see, I don't need scientific proof because to me the people who are promoting manmade global warming are a bunch of frauds. They are liberals, they lie. It's not a generalization. It is an undeniable truth of life. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/8/11]
Limbaugh: The National Academy Of Sciences Has "Lost All Credibility" Because Climate Change Is "Bogus." Responding to a caller who had questioned Mitt Romney about his stance on climate change at a New Hampshire debate, Limbaugh said that NAS had "lost all credibility" and that scientists "basically made it all up" at the University of East Anglia:
CALLER: I specifically quoted from a 2010 National Academy of Sciences report. I have two quotes here; the first is, they concluded -- and by the way, the National Academy of Sciences, as you know, is considered the Supreme Court of science in this country. It was founded in 1863 by Abraham Lincoln and it is charged with giving the Congress unbiased scientific information. Now their conclusion was quote "a strong credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.
LIMBAUGH: Then they've lost all credibility, it's a bogus claim.
[...]
CALLER: I don't know where you're getting the hoax from, sir. I mean, I'm looking at -
LIMBAUGH: Well it's called the University of East Anglia at Anglian -- the Hadley Climate Center where they basically made it all up, pure and simple. It's a hoax, there's nothing true about it. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 6/8/11]
- Multiple investigations have cleared the scientists at the University of East Anglia of falsifying data. [Media Matters, 8/8/11]
Limbaugh: "Anything To Do With ... Climate Change Is Now An Official Scam." On August 30, Limbaugh said:
LIMBAUGH: And in fact all it is is a giant slush fund -- one slush fund after another, federal taxpayer dollars going to Democrat candidates, supporters, donors, what have you, under the guise of creating a new industry, "green jobs," weatherizing homes, protecting the environment, saving the climate. It's a huge, huge scam. Anything to do with energy and the environment that involves manmade global warming, climate change is now an official scam. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 8/30/11]
Limbaugh: The Science "Is Fraudulent And Is A Hoax." On November 10, Limbaugh said:
LIMBAUGH: Despite proof now, despite evidence that global warming is a political issue, not a science issue, and that the science aspect of it is fraudulent and is a hoax, we have a story here from the French News Agency: "The World Has Five Years Now to Avoid Severe Warming." That's from the International Energy Agency.
[...]
The LA Times said it, and others have said that there's no warming. It's all over the place here. But they won't let this die. It's a political issue and it's an international left-wing hoax, this whole notion of manmade global warming climate change. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 11/10/11]
Limbaugh: Global Warming "Is A Religion ...There Is No Evidence." Discussing a government initiative to recognize schools that make efforts toward environmental sustainability, Limbaugh said on May 17:
LIMBAUGH: The plan is for the U.S. Department of Education, the EPA, and the Council for Environmental Quality to develop the criteria this spring and summer and to issue the call for applications early in the fall. All based on a hoax. All based on a fraud. All based on global warming, which by the way, is a religion. It's proponents cannot prove it. Belief in global warming requires faith because there is no evidence. There is no evidence of manmade destructive climate change, global warming, what have you. The evidence that we have suggests that the whole thing has been a hoax and a fraud. And yet, the left marches on, not educating but indoctrinating. And so now schools will be indoctrinating children to be good environmental citizens, which means wards of the state. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 5/17/11]
Limbaugh: God Would Not Create Humans "In Such A Way That We Would Destroy ... Our Own Planet And Environment." From the February 2 edition of Limbaugh's radio show:
LIMBAUGH: When you have a bunch of bureaucrats with the power guiding them that says greenhouse gases constitute a danger to the public health and welfare, there's no limits on them. I mean, when you're fighting danger, when you're fighting elements harmful to the public health and welfare, you can define anything you want however you need in order to exercise unchecked federal power. Martial law based on a hoax is one way of putting it. Now a greenhouse gas - one of them is what you exhale. Carbon dioxide, greenhouse gas, you exhale it and somehow we've gotten to the point where that is destroying the planet.
I happen to believe in God. I believe in a loving, brilliant - I know that this - there is no way, I don't want to sound simpleton here, but there is not - it is not possible that we would be created by a creator in such a way that we would destroy by virtue of our created existence our own planet and environment. It just doesn't compute and yet that's what these people are trying to tell us. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 2/2/11]
"I Live In Realville": Limbaugh's Climate Conspiracy Theories
Limbaugh: "A Majority Of People Have Been Paid To Say That Man Is Causing The Climate To Warm Up." On June 22, Limbaugh said:
LIMBAUGH: See, and these are the smart people, and there isn't any science in the global warming these people believe in. Folks, if there were science, I'd be a believer. I do not have my head buried in the sand. I'm not an ostrich. I live in Realville. I'm the mayor. I'm the town council president. I'm the police chief. There aren't a whole lot of people that live in Literalville, but I do. And manmade global warming is not science. It's a consensus. It's a guess. It's a good guess. It's a best guess. It's a vote. And a majority of people have been paid to say that man is causing the climate to warm up. And that's why there's global warming, that enough people have been paid to say so. "You can't say that, Mr. Limbaugh, you are attacking the integrity of decent --" well, they've been paid. Their entire lifestyles, their standard of living depends on their grants that they get to conduct the studies, and they only get the money if they come up with the right result. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 6/22/11]
Limbaugh: The Heat Index Is "Manufactured By The Government." During the July heat wave that impacted half of the U.S., Limbaugh said:
LIMBAUGH: They're playing games with us on this heat wave, again. Even Drudge - Drudge getting sucked in here, gonna be 116 in Washington. No, it's not. It's gonna be like a hundred. Maybe 99. The heat index, manufactured by the government, to tell you what it feels like when you add the humidity in there, 116. When's the last time the heat index was reported as an actual temperature? It hasn't been, but it looks like they're trying to get away with doing that now. 116. Drudge is just linking to other people reporting it, he's not saying it, I don't want you to misunderstand, but he's linking to stories which say 116 degrees in Washington. No. It's what, a hundred, 97, 99? It's gonna top out at 102, 103, it does this every year. We have this -- there's a heat dome over half the country, the Midwest, it's moving east. And it happens every summer. Every summer. If we want to cool things off, please, Al Gore, schedule a global warming conference wherever -- in Washington, go there. You want that 116 to get normal, it will, within an hour of Gore announcing that he's going, another ten degrees off when he shows up, plus hail and rain and maybe some high winds to really cool people off. That's all that has to happen. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 7/20/11]
- Meteorologists debunked Limbaugh's claims that the heat index is not a legitimate scientific measure. [Washington Post, 7/21/11]
Limbaugh: People Believe In Global Warming Because Air Conditioners Make It Seem Hotter Outside. During the July heat wave, Limbaugh theorized that people believe global warming is real because air conditioning has lowered "the baseline you're using for comparison":
LIMBAUGH: I have a theory about global warming and why people think it's real. Go back 30, 40 years when there was much less air conditioning in the country. When you didn't have air conditioning and you left the house, it may in fact have gotten a little cooler out there, because sometimes houses become hot boxes. Especially if you're on the second or third floor of a house in the summertime and all you've got is open windows and maybe a window fan. Or you have some servant standing there fanning you with a piece of paper. When you walked outside, no big deal, it's still hot as hell. Now, 30, 40 years later, all this air conditioning, and it's a huge difference when you go outside. When you go outside now, my golly, is it hot. Oh. Global warming! It's all about the baseline you're using for comparison. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 7/26/11]
- An alternate theory: temperature measurements. [NASA, 4/18/11]
Limbaugh Speculated That NASA Intentionally Crashed Satellite To Preserve Global Warming "Hoax." Conceding that his theory was a "stretch," Limbaugh speculated on March 4 that NASA intentionally crashed a climate research satellite so that there would not be "any officially collected data which will contradict" the global warming "hoax":
LIMBAUGH: Now, I'm not a conspiracy buff here. The satellite -- the earlier one that ended up in the Pacific was called the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, it crashed on take-off almost exactly two years ago to the day. It was up there studying various aspects of global warming. We know global warming is a hoax, and we know that elements of NASA have been part of it. And we know that the regime runs NASA. We know that the regime has shut down the shuttle -- no more manned space flights, we know that the regime was going to turn NASA itself over to Muslim outreach. We know that the regime is dead-set on people believing that humanity is destroying the planet via climate change, global warming, or what have you. And we know that the regime is hell-bent on getting rid of fossil fuels. We know that the regime is hell-bent on creating this so far nonexistent green energy technology. We know that the regime owns manufacturing an automobile manufacturing plant manufacturing an electric car called the Volt, marketed by Chevrolet. The regime owns all of this. We also know, thanks to leaked emails from the Hadley Climate Center at the University of East Anglia, that all this is a hoax, or at best a fraud -- man-made global warming.
So, two satellites, two years apart, to the day, same kind of rocket, kerplunk -- Pacific Ocean. Why waste this money that could have gone to the poor, and to women and minorities? $424 million -- do you realize it's in the Southern Pacific now? Look at all the people it could have fed. Look at all the subprime mortgages it could have financed, look at all the affordable housing it could've bought, look at all the Chevy Volts they could've given away to people under the guise of sales. So at least, at least there will not be officially collected data by these two satellites because they don't exist, they're in the ocean. At least there will not be any officially collected data which would contradict the facts -- that is that there is no man-made global warming going on. In fact, there might not be any warming, period, going on. So that's my limited theory and it's probably a stretch. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/4/11]
Limbaugh doubled down on his conspiracy theory about the satellite on March 8:
LIMBAUGH: Now we got two satellites, two years to the day, same problem, failing -- fails to open. Satellites, instead of being in orbit are now at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean near Antarctica. You know what they were up there to do? You know what they were up there to study? They were up there to study whether or not there are naturally occurring events that might cause climate change. Well, now, they can't find whether or not there are naturally occurring things, meaning also they were there to investigate whether there is a manmade component to climate change. Well, can't find that out now. Well, who benefits? Now I don't want to go getting off into conspiracy stuff here, but two satellites, two years to the date apart, both end up in the same spot? Who benefits?
You look at -- one of my old axioms, always follow the money. One of the reasons that there is this big, never ending manmade push -- or push for manmade global warming is 'cause that's who gets the money. When the grant money comes around, if you believe manmade global warming, you get your share of it. Well, the last thing that bunch needs is scientific proof that man has nothing to do with it. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/8/11]
Limbaugh: Media Are Reporting The Weather To "Advance A Political Agenda Of Liberalism." Discussing the July heat wave, Limbaugh said:
LIMBAUGH: Did you know, ladies and gentlemen, almost no temperature records were broken in last week's "record-breaking heat"? It is remotely possible because what we got in news reporting last week was a bunch of untruths, was a bunch of lies. "Record breaking," quote, unquote, "US Heat Wave Breaks Records at Less Than 0.4% of All Stations Reporting Last Week." I was in Boston. In Boston the heat index was reported to be 110, 112. They weren't even bothering to report the temperature. I found it. The temperature in Boston on Saturday (or maybe it was Friday) hit 102 -- one degree short of the record, which -- do you know when the record of 103 was? 1926!
So the point is, there is almost nothing true in mainstream, Drive-By Media. Everything being reported today is to advance a political agenda of liberalism. Because, of course, "Record-breaking heat may last for weeks! Giant dome over two-thirds of country! No relief in sight! People stealing copper, people stealing air conditioners. It's never been seen!" All of it lies. Well, the crime reporting probably wasn't lies, but the temperature? All of it was lies so that on-air doofus TV meteorologists could dutifully follow up with global warming, and, "How about those deniers?" Media myth debunked: Almost no temperature records broken last week. Live it, love it, dig it. Whatever it takes. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 7/25/11]
- In fact thousands of records were broken that July, which was not the same as "every year." [Media Matters, 7/26/11]
"Bye, Bye": Limbaugh's Climate Denial Litmus Test
Limbaugh: "It's Certainly Not The Kind Of Thing Any Serious Political Candidate Ought To Believe In." From the June 10 edition of Limbaugh's show:
LIMBAUGH: You know, folks, belief in manmade global warming is a lot like believing in Santa Claus. It's fun. It's fun to believe in it for a while when you're a kid, when you're a child, but it's a costly myth to continue believing in as you grow older. And it's certainly not the kind of thing any serious political candidate ought to believe in. Now, I continue to be struck by just how imprisoned the so-called informed and educated smart people among us are. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 6/10/11]
Limbaugh On Romney's Global Warming Comments: "Bye, Bye, Nomination." From the June 7 edition of Limbaugh's show:
MITT ROMNEY (audio clip): I believe the world is getting warmer. I can't prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer -- and -- and number two, I believe that humans contribute to that. I don't know how much our contribution is to that 'cause I know there's been -- there have been periods of -- of greater heat and -- and warmth in the past, but I believe that we contribute to that, and so I think it's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you're seeing.
LIMBAUGH: Bye, bye, nomination. Bye, bye nomination. Another one down. We're in the midst here of discovering that this is all a hoax. The last year has established that the whole premise of manmade global warming is a hoax, and we still have presidential candidates who want to buy into it. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 6/7/11]
- UPI reported that Romney shifted his framing of global warming science following Limbaugh's comments. Romney subsequently said, "Do I think the world's getting hotter? Yeah, I don't know that but I think that it is. I don't know if it's mostly caused by humans. What I'm not willing to do is spend trillions of dollars on something I don't know the answer to." [UPI, 10/28/11]
Limbaugh Suggested His "Bye, Bye Nomination" Comment Hurt Romney's Candidacy. From the December 8 edition of Limbaugh's show:
LIMBAUGH: "Bye, bye nomination." I said it June 7th, and it is, it looks like it's just fading away out there. And you want to know? Some of you may remember this. After I said, "Bye, bye, nomination," one of the talking heads in the media -- one of the talking heads in the media said, "Thanks to Rush Limbaugh, all of these Republican candidates are terrified now of reaching out to mainstream voters."
[...]
Mainstream voters believe in hoaxes! Mainstream voters believe the lies, and so we've got to appeal to the mainstream by telling 'em we believe the lies! And now "Limbaugh is gumming up the works," and "Limbaugh is making our guys afraid to reach out to mainstream voters." These are Republicans talking! They don't want your vote!
Well, they want it, but they don't want it to matter. They don't want your vote putting anybody over the top. They don't want your vote being the difference in who wins or loses. They want your vote. But they want our people to win with these independents and moderates, and so you go out and you tell the candidate to say, "Oh, yeah, there's global warming, and you know what? I think humans are causing it." Right, go out and try to take an issue away from Obama? You wanna -- you think you're gonna get liberal moderate votes simply by telling people -- it's idiocy! [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 12/12/11]
Limbaugh Lashed Out At Gingrich: "No! ... There Isn't Any Global Warming." From the November 9 edition of Limbaugh's show:
NEWT GINGRICH (audio clip): I actually don't know whether global warming is occurring. The vast majority of the National Academy of Science says it is; a minority says it is not. Science is not actually voted on; science is a function of truth.
LIMBAUGH: Newt, Newt, Newt, Newt. No!
GINGRICH (audio clip): What I do know is that -- that if you look at exactly what's said in that ad, finding innovative new ways of getting cleaner energy ought to be something most Americans feel pretty comfortable with.
LIMBAUGH: See, this is what happens. He just went five sentences too far. There isn't any global warming. I mean, even the NASA people, they're now trying to explain why the cooling is taking place, and they're trying to come up with all kinds of lies and escape-hatch reasons why there isn't any warming, it's some temporary thing. There is no global warming. It's getting colder. The charts, the data, it all proves it. And so to say that conservatives need to be in the middle of the debate over the environment, we need to be in the middle of killing -- it is nothing more than a left-wing political weapon aimed at growing government, limiting freedom, raising taxes by blaming people for causing climate destruction, and the way you make 'em pay for it, save the planet, is to raise their taxes. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 11/09/11]
Limbaugh: Chris Christie Must Make Steps Toward Denying Global Warming "If He Has Any Hope Of Getting Primary" Votes. On the May 26 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh said:
LIMBAUGH: The last line of the Daily Caller piece: "Christie, however, has said he still believes in global warming but is skeptical that it is entirely manmade." That's another step. Ever so few but nevertheless steps that Governor Christie is making in a direction certainly he has to go if he has any hope of getting primary voters to vote for him. [5/26/11]
Limbaugh: "Frustrating" That Rick Perry Has "Some Reluctance" To Say Manmade Global Warming Isn't Real. On the September 8 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh discussed the Republican debate hosted by NBC News and Politico and stated:
LIMBAUGH: Look, okay, how did Perry bear up under the target? Romney clearly came away unscathed last night. Perry was not unscathed. Perry had problems with the climate change thing. It was very frustrating to me. This is a hoax! You got this guy Huntsman out there spreading a bunch of garbage that 98% of all scientists agree that manmade global warming is taking place? It's a hoax! It's bogus. And Perry knows it, and there was some reluctance to say so. I'm not expecting him to say it's a hoax, but there was clearly some reluctance here to say what he really thinks about it that answer, which came at the end of the debate. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 9/8/11]
Limbaugh: "Do You Realize That Romney Believes In Manmade Global Warming? ... Now, I Happen To Know It's A Hoax." On the October 12 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh said:
LIMBAUGH: Do you realize that Romney believes in manmade global warming? As governor of Massachusetts he took positions and endorsed policies that would promote the whole concept of manmade global warming. Now, I happen to know it's a hoax. I happen to know that there's no such thing as manmade global warming, not as an explanation for climate change. And that's just one thing. Sorry, folks, I see a great opportunity here. We have a liberal socialist president who is as discredited as one is ever going to be. We have circumstances that are dire. The country needs to be turned around if we're gonna preserve.
You know what? I could check out. I really could. I don't need to work anymore. I could get rid of a lot of grief, I could get rid of a lot of distractions, just punt. But it matters too much to me. When I see these yokels marching down on Wall Street, the so-called future of the country, I get scared. I know they're small in number, but I know that there a lot of people that think like that, they've been educated this way. They're gonna have to be beaten, defeated. And everybody who is responsible for them thinking what they think is going to have to be dealt with at some point if this is gonna be turned around, the 80 years of the slow creep of socialism in this country. And the answer to it is not pabulum. [10/12/11]
"We Win": Limbaugh's Climate Disinformation Machine
Limbaugh Took "Credit" For Public Misconception About "Climategate." Stating "We win," Limbaugh celebrated a Rasmussen Reports poll finding that a majority of Americans believe "some scientists" have likely "falsified research data" to support "their own theories and beliefs about global warming":
LIMBAUGH: "While a majority of Americans nationwide continue to acknowledge significant disagreement about global warming in the scientific community, most go even further to say that some scientists are falsifying data to support their own beliefs." I'm going to raise my hand and I'm going to take credit. This has been one of my pet peeve issues for as long as I've had this show.
[...]
And 69% of the American people now say it's likely scientists have been lying about their own research. We win. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 8/4/11]
- Following the 2009 release of hacked emails from a climate research center in the UK, Limbaugh had claimed that the documents showed "a lot of evidence of substantial fraud," adding: "Now we've got the hoax fully exposed." He continues to make this claim even after multiple investigations found no falsification of data. [Media Matters, 8/8/11]
Limbaugh Pushed Flawed Climate Study That Led To Resignation Of Journal Editor. Limbaugh pushed a study by his "official climatologist" Dr. Roy Spencer, claiming Spencer "proved, with actual NASA science data from their satellites, that all these computer models are bogus." In fact, Spencer conceded that his study did not prove any such thing, and MIT's Kerry Emanuel said "there is nothing in the paper that casts in doubt what the IPCC models are telling us." The editor of the journal that published the study later resigned after concluding that it should "not have been published." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 8/4/11; Media Matters, 8/1/11, 9/2/11]
Limbaugh Distorted Research To Claim "The Earth Is Facing A Mini-Ice Age." On the June 16 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh said "the earth is facing a mini-ice age within ten years due to a rare drop in sunspot activity":
LIMBAUGH: Guess what? The earth is facing a mini-ice age within ten years due to a rare drop in sunspot activity, and yet Al Gore has just endorsed Mitt Romney. Well, he didn't endorse him, but he's praised Mitt Romney for his stance on manmade global warming. Sunspots expected to disappear for years, maybe decades after 2020, and that could cause a mini-ice age. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 6/16/11]
- In fact, the authors of the study said that changes in solar activity "could counter 'global warming' somewhat," but that they "are NOT predicting a mini-ice age." [Media Matters, 6/15/11]
Limbaugh Misrepresented Climate Study To Say "We Ought To Start Burning Coal Left And Right." On the July 6 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh discussed a study indicating that the increase in sun-blocking sulfur emissions from Chinese coal use partially offset the warming effect of rising greenhouse gas concentrations. Limbaugh responded by completely misrepresenting what the greenhouse effect is:
LIMBAUGH: This is truly hilarious. A scientist set out to prove the global warming skeptics at Fox wrong, which, by the way, is the epitome of bad science. That's not how you do science is to go prove somebody else wrong. Anyway, he wanted to find an explanation for the lack of any global warming over the last ten years, so he blames China's burning of coal because that prevents the sun's rays from reaching the earth, which is exactly what they used to call the greenhouse effect, which is what they used to call global warming.
So I don't know how to accept this. The very culprit is now being cited as the savior, or the explanation for why there hasn't been any warming. So by this guy's study and reason, we ought to start burning coal left and right if indeed there's global warming going on. We ought to throw away this green energy crap right now and just go all coal, all the time. More hilarious, the study claims that temperatures rose in the seventies after nations started to take action to curb sulfur emissions. So the real culprits to blame for global warming are the environmentalists who made us cut back on our use of coal. That's what we have to conclude here. (laughing) China's coal burning stopped global warming. How many of you, seriously, ask yourself, how many of you heard for years now that coal leads to global warming? Now the temperatures didn't rise, they didn't go up out there for ten years, and they panicked, and experts at Fox were saying, "See, there's no global warming," so this yuckety-yuck had to go into action -- get into action to try figure out the explanation. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 7/6/11]
- Limbaugh failed to note that sulfur emissions have severe health effects, which is why they were regulated in the first place. [Media Matters, 7/5/11]
Limbaugh Lashed Out At Coca-Cola For Perpetuating "The Polar Bear Hoax." On the October 31 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh said:
LIMBAUGH: Coca-Cola, by the way, it's so sad, it's so sad, but it's great for my tea company. Well, they're changing their packaging. They're going to white cans. They've aligned with the World Wildlife Fund. They're gonna repackage Coke over the holiday season to go to white cans featuring an image of a mother polar bear and her cubs on the side. They're gonna try to sell Coke and Diet Coke on the basis that we're killing polar bears. Kid you not. Kid you not. Each purchase of a white Coca-Cola can supports false testimony on global warming perpetration of the myth about endangered polar bears. It's a hoax and they are raising money for a hoax through the holidays by way of the sale of Coke products in white polar bear cans. Who got to 'em? You know -- I'm thinking nobody woulda had to get to 'em.
There are plenty of stupid people in this country, in fact, running corporations and working, and they look out there and think, "Okay, the rest of the stupid people think that the polar bears are dying. So I want to sell Coke, so I'll market to the stupid people. I'll market to people who believe Al Gore. I'll change the marketing of my company and my product and I'll just aim for the lowest stupid common denominator I can find. I'll do it with the polar bear hoax." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 10/31/11]
- In fact, extensive research establishes the threat posted to polar bears by climate change due to rapid changes to their sea ice habitats. [Media Matters, 8/2/11]
Limbaugh Confused Ozone Hole And Global Warming. On the October 3 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh criticized a FDA rule phasing out asthma inhalers that contain chlorofluorocarbons, which deplete the ozone layer. But Limbaugh mistakenly claimed that global warming was the reason behind the rule:
LIMBAUGH: On Jan. 1, a new federal rule meant to make the air cleaner is going to make it much harder for millions of Americans to breathe. The Food and Drug Administration is waging war on asthma inhalers because they emit trace amounts of greenhouse gases.
Global warming, climate change. It's a hoax! It's a fraud! Does the EPA care? No. This is the regime. It's power. They haven't even acknowledged that it's a hoax. They continue to create policies to deal with global warming, climate change, greenhouse gases. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 10/3/11]
- The plans to phase out the inhalers were finalized during the Bush administration and are part of the U.S.'s actions to comply with the Montreal Protocol, a treaty to protect the ozone layer that was signed by Ronald Reagan. [Media Matters, 9/23/11] [The American Presidency Project, 4/5/88]
Limbaugh Claimed "NASA Documents" Warn Us To "Adopt Lunatic Global Warming Policies" To Avoid Alien Invasion. Limbaugh falsely claimed in August that "NASA documents" were warning that aliens "will invade us to wipe us out, to prevent us from destroying our climate." A caller later corrected Limbaugh.
LIMBAUGH: Basically you have here a crackpot leftist scientist with influence in NASA coming in the form of an actual NASA employee producing actual NASA documents warning that if we don't adopt lunatic global warming policies of Al Gore's, space aliens will invade us to wipe us out, to prevent us from destroying our climate! Here's a quote from the story. Folks, this is in the UK Guardian. This story is presented with all the sincerity of any news story that you might find on the front page of any newspaper any day of the week. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 8/29/11]
- In fact, the paper, which asked whether contact with extraterrestrial intelligence "would benefit or harm humanity," was not NASA research or produced with NASA support. Shawn Domagal-Goldman, a co-author on the paper, said he is "a lowly postdoc" at NASA and "this paper had nothing to do with my work there." [Media Matters, 8/19/11]


















Only if by winning you mean convincing more of the stupidest people on the planet like you CLEARLY are. My GOD but you are stupid.
However, if you are referring to the fact that most American are ill-informed about global climate change, then you are right, Rush is winning. That's not a great trophy Raven.
BTW, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
2BTW, I don't wanna exchanges gifts with you this year because I always get a kinky sex toy from you and it's embarrassing for my grandkids to see what someone has given me. So lets skip it this year, OK?
3BTW, for what it's worth, I believe GW is legit. I just don't agree that it's all caused by us (us meaning normal humans that is - not MMfA regulars).
4BTW, the wife makes very good pumpkin pies using actual pumpkins (not the canned stuff) and I'll give you one if you promise to grow up and vote for anybody but Obama next year. Think about it. We need a REAL president who can lead. You know, an adult.
5BTW, I seldom do the thumbs up/down thing anymore because of the MMfA software goofs - which you of course make fun of but are legit just the same.
I'm OK with skipping the gift exchange, but that rubber chicken I gave you was just a gag gift, what you did with it was your business.
Good for you for being up to speed on GW, but I don't think there's anybody thinks it's caused entirely by humans.
I don't really like pie, but thank you anyway.
If there is a better viable candidate available than Obama, I'll vote for that person. That's what I've done my whole life, vote for the best ( or least worstest) candidate. If his opponent is one of the cretins the GOP is currently waffling between, I don't think I can possibly promise you anything. I used to vote third party a lot, and I ended up with George W. Bush.
Glad to see you haven't let go of the thumb software conspiracy. That's one of my favorites.
And who is supposedly the second "grown man" AK? You? See, this is where we have the apparent disconnect. I don't consider you to be a "grown man". Growing man, maybe, but far from a real "grown man" that one could consider mature. Normal grown men don't constantly think of kinky sexual perversions or poor mouth someone's dead father - considered cheap shots to us normal folks.
Not to worry though. You'll probably grow into a normal thinking adult eventually. It would help if you expanded your knowledge base to include some normal sources of information - not just the porno sites, MMfA, and such.
BTW, I never received your rubber chicken last Christmas. Are you sure you sent it or did you decide to keep it for you own use as you've done before when we "exchanged" gifts? But PLEASE do NOT send me the one you've been using - I can imagine what it looks, feels, and smells like! No need to send me one now so you don't need to buy a new one. BTW, where do you buy them anyway? Just curious.
I was trying to be nice calling you a grown man. Until you can stop acting like a hypersensitive little girl, lighten up, and get a sense of humor about yourself, you're never really going to be a man.
I never knew your father, don't know anything about him, so I couldn't possibly bad mouth him ( poor mouth is something else entirely, another lesson in common figures of speech for you. You're welcome).
I have to go out of town ( or 'out of pocket') for most of the day, but hopefully some others will be around to coddle and educate you. Maybe Mary and JuliaJayne can set up a little tea party for you and your dollies. Have a great day.
Anyway, OK Andy. I can follow your "logic". I say you're not a "grown man" so you call me a girl - or whatever. Let's see now, what am I to call you now? Let's go with a warped classless .......…….. twerp. I'd say dysfunctional pathological psychopath you have proven yourself to be but it's too long. Oh yeah, let's not forget you are a condescending high-browed snob too.
Have a good outta pocket day. 2BTW, not my problem you don't associate with any professionals who have known for years outta pocket means not available. Actually, most folks coulda figured this out on their own but we both know you never got any formal education so lack normal deductive reasoning skills. It's not your fault you're so clueless Andy!
Well, I'll sign off by reminding you of what you said of my dad, "your father, if he was any kind of man". I realize this is not "bad/poor mouthing" to your warped way of thinking, but it is to us normal people
One last thing, I'm always amazed at how many of you MMfA regulars really don't think like us normal folks. What is it with you guys? Is there some sort of school you all go to so you get so warped in your thinking? I really mean this. How on earth can you people get by day to day? Is all the decades of smoken' weed behind your goofy thought processes? Anyone who thinks some of you are even close to being normal are not normal themselves. You people need to leave your basements once in a while to see how us normal folks think and function. I mean, you sickos accuse me being the weird one and I'm just a happily married for 45 years grandpa of 9 grandkids in my mid 60's living on a small ranch with dogs and horses. Ah, whatever. I'll probably never understand how you all got so goofy. I'm sure glad there are only a few dozen of you nutjobs living amongst us normal folks.
Here's one of many errors you made in that post. I don't think anybody else is saying the same thing as you. Most here are commenting on the articles, or having some laughs making fun of you.
You're just whining about how everybody makes fun of how stupid you are.
Please stop embarrassing yourself. You're a very, very stupid "man".
What prompts a "grown man" who claims to be married to a woman always say and think such perverted thoughts? Seriously Andy, you need to get some counseling for this because you obviously have constant perverted thoughts. I mention chickens, dogs and horses and your sick brain automatically thinks sexual perversion. I say in jest you need a good spanking because you sometimes act like a two-year-old and you think sexual perversion. I comment on winning so many quarters in our traditional holiday poker games I can hardly keep my pants up and you spin it as sexual perversion. Trust me on this, the vast majority of people do not think like you. Most folks never think about sexual innuendoes when they read innocent comments. It is only you and a few others here who constantly have such thoughts. In fact, I now wonder if you really are married to a woman as you claim. Based on your consistent referrals to sick sex activities you're probably some lonely perverted creep paying for perverted sex with whoever or whatever whenever you can save up $25 bucks for services rendered. None of my business and whatever floats your boat is fine with me. I'll tell ya though, stay the hell away from my grandkids.
And LOL, there you go with the "whining" claim again - of course while you yourself whine in most of your posts but are so oblivious and clueless you'll never see, much less accept, your obvious hypocrisy.
You really should get some help on your constant perverted thoughts Andy. Or at least be aware enough to stop posting so many perverted thoughts for everyone to see. You're welcome.
BTW, you're reduced to posting comments like kabnuts now? Stupid here, stupid there, stupid everywhere. Ha Ha. A little desperate are ya Andy?
That's not desperate, it's just stating facts.
Doughnut is trying hard for the title but he's got some contenders to fend off first. raven tries but he's not crazed enough, and boxtop only posts one liners. Of course, most of those are lame but occasionally bizarre.
Panzy has some cred but fades in the post. Gallon o lard is probably ILD's stiffest competition.
But for outstanding self immolation for lack of critical thought and inability to see context and self indulgent pitying partying, I'd give the edge to Duh!
I could go into a whole diatribe as to the lies Eric Holder has given, UNDER OATH. If this was a Republican scandal, you ALL would be calling for Holder to resign. It's a slam dunk perjury charge, not a b.s. one like with Scooter Libby.
Seriously, liberals really need to learn how to debate without calling the other side stupid, or worse yet, racist. The average Republican and Democrat's IQ is EXACTLY THE SAME. I'm sure the number of racists on each side is close to level as well. So stop demonizing the other side, while spinning your side's accomplishments and failures into something it's not.
Obama will lose next year. Nobody wants more deficits and unemployment after four years of failure.
And lose to who? The "RINO" Romney? The scumbag of Gingrich? The random assorment of idiots like Bachmann, Cain or Santorum?
Should stopped there, Ravin'. The only way people here can judge your intelligence is based on the comments you post. Are you saying that you're just writing intentionally stupid stuff, but you're really bright? Why would you do that ?
No it doesnt and your stupid comment doesnt even make sense. You are incredibly stupid. Do you understand that dropping by to say something this stunningly, mind bogglingly stupid doesnt actually fool anyone but you? You arent clever. You are stupid. You always will be. THAT is a fact
So, global warming is a hoax. It's all politics, and a religion, it's like believing in Santa Claus.
Lispy's argument for these claims; liberals understand it, and God wouldn't allow it. Politics and religion.
The mayor of RealStoopidVille maybe. Credit for sticking to his dumb guns, though, even a lot of the Denial Cultists have moved on to acknowledging that we're warming and people are contributing, they're just working on new scams to parse away at those facts. I guess those are the Reformed sect, Rush is more of an Orthodox Fundamentalist Denier.
And from here on IT WILL!!!
That is, if that audience included anybody who didn't vote Republican on reflex. When a GOP candidate tries to slip over to reality ( or Realville) even slightly, it threatens Lispy's fantasy that he's in the mainstream, that he's the leader of the republican party.
Rush needs to stick to his positions, no matter how wrong they are. That's what the dittobots want, certainty. A middle-of-the-road, potentially (R) voter might be swayed by facts. Rush doesn't like seeing that sort of thing in his party.
Rush is primarily interested in two things:
1. Himself
2. People who support his lifestyle
So more undecideds, the better. That means more people to convince to vote for legislators who support his lifestyle--the acquisition and maintenance of wealth at the expense of others.
I was talking about the more moderate, reasonable conservatives who the candidates are shooting for by acknowledging some reality. Rush doesn't like people appearing to support a Republican for rational reasons. He needs his emotion-based brand of wingnut to be the right wing mainstream.
No such thing. If you believe tax cuts for the rich create jobs, you're not reasonable. If you don't, you're not conservative. The bintx version of conservative -- agrees with liberals but likes "values" -- is semantically null.
It's all relative.
They keep MARRYING their closest relatives!
Why else do you think that they embrace the stupidest of ideas under the guise of 'family values'?
Waaaaahhhhh. Sob, sob. Hey kabnuts, hand me a tissue. Better make it several tissues. What? You don't have any? Can I use your shirtsleeves then? I really need to dry up these tears so I can post some more perverted messages.
Ha ha ha. You libbies crack me up sometimes. I swear every one of you who post here will never, ever recognize that most of you are just as guilty of the same crap you accuse us normal people of doing. In fact, you are MORE guilty then any conservative who posts here - except for bintx (you did know that bintx is a conservative from the tip of her toes to the top of her head, didn't you? I have a copy of her notarized affidavid confirming this if you'd like to see it.).
Anyway, in the year or so I've been reading and posting here, I am convinced at least half of you leftists are certifiably mentally dysfunctional. In over 50 years I've never encountered such warped and twisted people. Want an example? Read kabnuts posts, which usually get several thumbs up. This guy says the SAME crap in 98% of his messages, which must total well over a thousand, yet many of you cheer him on! For Christ's sake! How can this happen? The only viable answer is a lot of you have mental issues! I kept thinking posters like kabnuts were an anomaly - I figured I'd eventually see the majority of you couldn't possibly be so warped. I was wrong.
Ah, nevermind. I waste my time trying to get a few of you to think normally. It is pointless. Most of you are too far gone.
My 2012 resolution is to decrease my posting here and let you folks go ahead and continue with your goofy and twisted posts - of course patting each other's backs for such "profound" messages. And gather to sing kum-by-yaa every night.
In short, most of you people are just plain ridiculous lemmings.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Wow, that must suck for you, to get outsmarted constantly by a bunch of people who you call mentally dysfunctional.
You've been posting here way longer than a year, under at least three or four names, and I don't think I've ever seen you hold your own in an argument.
In fact, you're constantly caught in lies, and can rarely understand the conversation. And you call the people who are batting you around like a rubber ball "mentally dysfunctional"?
I guess that makes you... what, exactly ? "normal"?
Mime is the ONLY one I hold Andy! The wife sometimes held it once in a while back in the day but not as much nowadays. And I even got her taking the blue pill to better my odds but it doesn't seem to make much difference. Come to think of it (be careful of comments on this one Andy) I don't remember if our Doc told the wife to take the pill or did he say it is me who is supposed to take the pill just prior to us dancing the horizontal bop (recommend you're careful on this one too Andy)? We usually visit our Doctor together so we are more likely to remember what he says. Then we don't recall who is supposed to take the pill anyway. Anybody here know who is supposed to pop the blue pill?
Dang. I just realized Andy has got me talking trash about sexual innuendoes too. Sorry 'bout that!
.
He doesn't really seem able to detect sarcasm, either.
I'd guess most of his audience is the die-hard, genetic republicans who tune in just to have their confusion rationalized.
The good for that tribe is to get his audience to vote for people who work for the far-right mission: the acquisition and maintenance of wealth at the expense of others.
Evaluate each of those topics such that money can be made by a few at the expense of others or that it gets one elected to support the mission. Abortion and immigration are wedge issues that get certain people elected. Destruction of Social Security and Medicare will result in huge piles of cash for a small number of people.
Climate change is funny, because once a market/industry develops to cater to it's reversal, you will see a complete reversal of the denial and instead see complaint about how government is getting in the way of the private sector's ability to provide service that would give a few companies sky-high profit.
An example of that flip-floppines is airbags in cars. Ford wouldn't put them in their cars, because they said there was no proof that they help. People started buying cars with airbags, and Ford changed their tune, put in airbags and touted their cars' safety.
Some people will lie even when the truth would serve them better.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/_graphs3/Fig.A2.gif
Tabular data here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/_graphs3/Fig.A2.txt
After you digest that I'm SURE you'll abandon this thread. Bye bye!
Raven made a simple statement. He simply says that during the period 2002-2011 global temperatures have dropped. It should be pretty straightforward to test.
Instead, you introduce your straw man to destroy by presenting a graph that cover 130 years and has an illegible trend line for the period in question. You tell folks to look at the numbers but then offer the wrong numbers to look at.
I can help you on that front. The first thing you're going to want to do is include, but go beyond, GISS, Home of Hansen. There are other records to be had you know, and since GISS is a bit of an outlier, it's wise to gather additional data before drawing your conclusions. This is a pretty nice resource. It allows you to plot graphs using the global climate data from various sources.
For instance, let's look at GISS. I'm only testing global datasets so I select GISTEMP LOTI global mean as my first source for the trend since 2002 and here's what I get.
Now that trend line isn't probably what you were envisioning when you posted your centuries-spanning GISS graph. You can repeat what I did there for all of the global records. and come up with this. Even the extrapolated GISS record yields an unimpressive warming trend, of course, for the period.
So, returning to Raven's comment, he was incorrect if basing his statement from the GISS extrapolated trend or UAH lower troposphere global mean (GISTEMP LOTI mean is a draw as it is about as close to flat as you can get). Raven was correct if basing his statement from the HADCRUT and RSS records as they show that "the earth has cooled over the last decade."
If you have looked at the numbers again and have digested that there has been no statistically significant cooling trend for the last decade, you can now move on to areas of the discussion where you could possibly make some headway with Raven beyond the traditional hand waving.
For instance, duhtruth in his comment has finally discovered that relying on short-term trends for meaningful insight into long-term climatic projections is, for the moment, a fool's errand. He also links to a grapevined chart illustrating the problem with cherry-picking data to make his case.
But ironically he also fails to notice that kos/Romm/dana1981 are also engaging in cherry-picking by choosing the 35-year period of 1973-2008. For example. let's plot GISSTEMP for the 35 years prior to the period chosen by the "realists," 1938-1973. Oops!
See, cherry-picking 35 years from a 200-year warming trend (see LIA) and calling temps unprecedented (see MWP) doesn't really do much to sort out the AGW issue from a scientific standpoint, and certainly not the A in AGW.
Don't get me wrong. It's great for activist scientists and propagandists, but the pseudo-science of AGW is truly an ivory tower of cards (h/t Anti) built on shifting sand. Science will eventually win here as well but MMfA is an AGW stronghold. You guys won't go down easy. Certainly not as easily as the AGW Kool-Aid went down. Better luck with your future arguments.
Cheers!
Are you saying that you can discern the trend from 2002 to 2011 from your graph? If so, please do give us the figure then, and then please let us know the figure for the other major global datasets. When your done compiling, please also let us know if the trends you glean show statistically significant warming/cooling during that period.
The trend lines I provided you do a better job of creating the trend line. Go figure. Regardless, as I noted in my post, relatively short-term trends are quite meaningless (which makes the utter denial I run into on a consistent basis regarding the "pause" in rise of post-1998 global temps all the more humorous).
duhtruth was onto something with his argument but failed to notice the inherent flaws in his presentation. I'll follow-up with him a bit below if you care to follow along. And I will respond as well to your other post as it is a bit egregious as things stand.
My hope is that next time you encounter a Raven-type citing a short-term trend or MMfA citing "fill-in-the-blank was the warmest year on record" as meaningful, you will be better equipped to offer a counter-argument. Just saying nuh-uh and throwing the mob bones with "rabid conservative" speak doesn't quite cut it. Cheers!
Remember the other day when you were dismissing that EOS survey as irrelevant ? You know, the one about the scientific consensus. You thought it was useless( excuse me if I used the wrong word, I know it wasn't 'unfair', you cried about that), let's just say you thought it was 'no good'.
And you said it was 'no good' because the answers were so obvious. Of course the vast majority of climate scientists know that the earth is warming, and that humans are a significant contributing factor.
But here you are today, contradicting yourself, hoppng right on the Cooling Wagon with Ravin', and demonstrating exactly why that survey was useful. You and Ravin' are the lab chimps for a concerted industry and media campaign to convince gullible members of the public that the fundamentals of the science are being hotly debated.
Keep up the good work.
For instance, duhtruth in his comment has finally discovered that relying on short-term trends for meaningful insight into long-term climatic projections is, for the moment, a fool's errand.
Huh, that's funny ain't it? Seems to be quite the opposite of what Raven implied. I know you just "skim" my posts, but you ought to give it another read and maybe try again. Perhaps you can then offer actual evidence to back your claim that I am contradicting myself.
Remember the other day when you were dismissing that EOS [opinion poll] as irrelevant ?...[L]et's just say you thought it was 'no good'. And you said it was 'no good' because the answers were so obvious.
Not quite, and the story is quite a bit more nuanced than you imply (and I'm still waiting for your alternative questions to D&Z since you "concede" that the opinion poll questions were flawed).
[T]he fundamentals of the science are being hotly debated.
I couldn't agree more. Nearly every facet of the CAGW theory has come into question and the largest questions of all are yet unanswered. Why don't you "admit" to that? It makes you look bad when you screech about consensus yet can't even remotely settle the feedback issue. Here's some science "being hotly debated." The scope of the article is wide, but read about your Team's hot debate about the "missing heat!!!" Sizzle ouch. Is that a settled or minor topic? What about the murder of the MWP consensus? Is that crime yet unsolved?
Keep up the good work in fantasyland. Your, ahem, ivory tower of cards will fall. It is as inevitable as bintx citing Luntz. Cheers!
That's a bunch of nonsense, as is the rest of your postings, which might sound erudite to the unknowing, but quite frankly are plain BS. Try posting any of this nonsense on realclimate.org or skepticalscience.com
Your own link proves is case and point. It merely states that scientists are trying to understand short term variability, nothing more. Not everything is understood about gravity either, but that doesn't mean things don't fall to earth at 9.8 meters per second squared.
I realize you were just rushing to the aid of an injured fellow cultist, I just thought it would be good for a laugh to see if I could get you to man up a little beyond saying your unfortunate brother "might" have a point.
Here's why it's funny; ( sorry, but I have to link back to yet another of your past episodes of flailing around saying nothing) You were critiquing that EOS survey as being meaningless because of the questions, the ones that simply ( and very concisely) went to the basics of the science--
1. Is the Earth warming?
2. Are humans contributing to that significantly?
That's it. The very things that are being denied by very powerful commercial and political interests, and your church. And you were so bewildered by all of the plates you had spinning on sticks that you accidentally admitted that you could only make your point by destroying it.
I know, you jazz-handed the first with the "rebounding from the little ice age" bit ( I believe you called it 'irrelevant'), and you were lacking in the normal human shame response enough to try to parse the second one down to "how significant", but those seemed like spinny afterthoughts.
I don't really feel the need to point out all of the mistakes you made there, but I'll take care of a couple of your greatest hits-
1. I never said there was anything inherently wrong with posting at an old thread. Go back and re-read what you linked to, to prove that I said this, and see if you can figure out where you got confused.
2. I'm pretty sure I never said that the questions in the EOS survey were flawed. If you can show me where I said that, go for it.
If I misinterpreted you about the EOS thing, let me know. That is, do you think that the majority of respondents were right or wrong? Really, I want to know if one lone tinfoil hat cadet with no scientific credentials thinks most scientists don't know what the hell they're talking about.
Finally, back on topic- I know you tried to deflect to somebody else's "short term trend" comment, but do you think Ravin'Rog made a valid point ? Even donutlover seems to be a little more reality-based than you and Ravin', and he's the guy who gets so confused when his screen refreshes that he thinks there's a software conspiracy against him at this site.
I know, more of that "guilt by association" stuff you don't like, but try to get over that, your failures stand on their own. Does it ever bother you that you've been recruited onto the same team as Ravin'Rog, Rush Limbaugh, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity and most of the people at Fox, while the people you're trying to debate on science are...uhhh... scientists?
Do you think that's just some weird quirk? Somehow, the Smartest Guy in the World ended up agreeing with the biggest idiots in the world ?
Does that ever set of a tiny little light bulb in your head ?
I'll gladly discuss your continued spin, obfuscation and failure to understand a truly simple story on some future thread. You obviously don't understand the Eos fiasco. You have made that plain. Sleep is a far better alternative than explaining to you again your confusion into that matter. Cheers!
I'm pretty sure I can put a fork in you. Sleep like a baby.
I will give you a point for finally doing a little editing. See, I told you you wouldn't suffer in the substance department if you eliminated 99.9% of the typing you do.
You're kinda cute when you're angry.
It's where I keep links to some of the all-time stoopidest things committed to text by your brethren. You had never made it into the Hall. Not because you don't write crazy and stupid things, it's just that your brand of non-committal implying and "bread crumbs" stuff just isn't very interesting.
You're loony, but relatively boring. But good news, you recently made the cut, and it was on that thread where you screwed up on the EOS thing.
That's where I referred to your ( borrowed) critique as calling the questions "unfair".
You must have been in panic mode, realizing how badly you'd fvcked yourself and your whole shotgun shack of twigs ( how about that), because you replied with this hilarious defense;
I did not say that the questions were "unfair." Some of the words I used were "irrelevant" and "ambiguous" and "terribly devised" and "good chant" and "misleading" and "nonsensus," but not unfair.
Oh my. If you're not doubled over with laughter, find the nearest non-cultist to help you out. This is why you might be interested in a play-date with donutlover. he once nailed me just as badly, when he referred to some article here as a "non-issue", and I subsequently paraphrased him as saying we should ignore the item.
See? He never said "ignore", just "non-issue". A non-isue is, apparently, something that should not be ignored.
Still having trouble understanding how your word-parsing binary brain put the clown shoes on you? Let me try to help you further. Imagine any sane person speaking this sentence;
Sir, I believe your questions are irrelevant, ambiguous, terribly devised, good chant, misleading and nonsensus... but fair".
Congratulations. Keep this in mind the next time you're wondering why I don't bother going to your links to nowhere. Toodles, and congratulations, You have arrived.
http://www.earthnotaglobe.com/library/samuel_rowbotham_-_earth_not_a_globe.pdf
See how easty it is to write up an analysis, even using math and scientific vocabulary, to prove something manifestly untrue?
About 25 years ago, climate scientists explained to the public that greenhouse gases are warming the Earth and they made several predictions, about temperatures and other things, like storms. Their predictions have come true in spades, thus validating the theory.
See how easty (sic) it is to write up an analysis, even using math and scientific vocabulary, to prove something manifestly untrue?
It would help if you used even simple layman's terms and no math at all to spell out anything I said that was "manifestly untrue." I get lots of this vacuous approach where invalid, unsourced claims are made. When I ask for evidence, it is not forthcoming. Care to break the trend whiz?
And for the record, it was 36 years ago last month that Stephen Schneider, John Holdren, James Lovelock and other AGW elite listened to Margaret Mead open the NIH-sponsored conference "The Atmosphere: Endangered and Endangering." From her opening remarks:
What we need from scientists are estimates, presented with sufficient conservatism and plausibility but at the same time as free as possible from internal disagreements that can be exploited by political interests, that will allow us to start building a system of artificial but effective warnings....At the center of this problem lie the relationships between scientists, technologists, human scientists, and political decisionmakers. Inevitably, different political interests will seize upon disagreements among scientists to buttress their own interests and to discredit scientific advice....It is therefore the statement of major possibilities of danger which may overtake humankind - or all life on the planet - within the lifespan of those who are already born on which it is important to concentrate attention. The old instinct to deny danger...persists in the attitudes of the peoples of the world and in their leaders who seek support, compliance, and reelection. If irresponsible scientific controversies provide encouragement for these impulses, there is little hope of providing the future protection that is needed....What we need to invent - as responsible scientists - are ways in which farsightedness can become a habit of the citizenry of the diverse peoples of this planet. This, of course, poses a set of technical problems for social scientists, but they are helpless without a highly articulate and responsible expression of position on the part of natural scientists. Only if natural scientists can develop ways of making their statements on the present state of danger credible to each other can we hope to make them credible (and understandable) to social scientists, politicians, and the citizenry.
I own the proceedings, two copies of them in fact. Lots of good stuff. My favorite from the comments/discussion following the presentation by Lovelock about his mistress Gaia:
A crucial exchange, perhaps the fundamental problem confronted by the Conference, occurred when a participant suggested that we should convey to the public the conclusion that "we don't know enough, we are trying to learn more, let's hang on tight while we can." Immediately came the response, "No, let's hedge against the worst."
So AGW propaganda started over three decades ago. For 35+ years the Church of Climatology has followed through to "offer up scary scenarios" and "hedge against the worst," shouting down legitimate admissions of uncertainty (literally so at the conference). It's high time AGW studies return to the scientific method and abandon activist pseudo-science. Cheers!
What's more there was and there is no downside to playing safe, which means to change our energy infrastruture from filthy, polluting fossil fuels to clean alternatives. All the downside presented by the fossil fuel industry and their agents is just fearmongering. Yes it will cost a lot--trillions probably--but that money will be invested in new equipment and will CREATE JOBS.
You or I could read that pasted bit above, or see the word "trick" in a scientific context, or hear the president talk about spreading the wealth around, or hear Nancy Pelosi say, to a specific group of people " We need to pass this bill so you can see what's in it" ( even with the following part about 'outside of the fog of misinformation' or whatever it was), and just think.."Hmm... reasonable".
But, if you go back, and read or listen, from the starting point of imagining that somebody has pre-conditioned you to read all sorts of evil schemes into those things, if you really try to connect with your inner lunatic, all of those can be absolutely terrifying.
That's why I love when the crazies volunteer to share their monsters with us. It's just interesting to get the view from inside their wacky belfries.
Either way, it's beautiful. Have a great day, I hope the half of it you don't spend fighting your crusade is spent doing something useful..
the danger is so great... no downside... fearmongering... CREATE JOBS.
The danger is great because they drummed it up. There is no doubt that the Earth will be hit by a devastating asteroid in the future. The odds are better for it than for your theory actually. The date of that catastrophe is uncertain but inevitable. It could be in five years. Could be 50,000. We don't know yet. Should we make a dramatic, economy-crushing investment in attempting to eliminate uncertainty regarding the strike date? Now were we to start screeching loudly about a doomsday "kill shot" from space and a "tipping point" we could build a consensus based on the precautionary principle and "hedge against the worst." Should we?
And what the f** does that quote have to do with the science behind AGW? It is just a desperate attempt for deniers like you to avoid the facts of AGW.
And why two copies? Duh, when the Alarmist Police kick down his door to get that incriminating document, he'll still have the one he stashed in that hollow tree out in the woods. They have to get up pretty early to outwit ol' gally.
Are you fishing for a Christmas present Anti? Aw, you know you're on the naughty list. You made a few other lists too. Cheers!
But gift wrap it so it looks like a bicycle or a bottle of booze, just in case 'you know who' is following you to the Xmas party.
Merry Christmas, and a happy new year.
Climate always changes. True, and a bit of global warming will be good for us humans. but it is the pace of change this time around that will pick both winners and losers in a warmer world.
Human emissions are warming the planet and the problem is we cannot let short-term benefits for some outweigh long-term dangers for many.
We will see some great things go away. Animals like the great apes, the great fishes, the tunas, the sharks, are clearly in deep trouble. And it will probably happen in a way that successive generations won’t even notice.
This is a concept of shifting baselines that many people describe with different terms.
What is particularly concerning, is the pace going beyond some species' ability to react and how those species will affect human's ability to survive.
Can you say "it is more complicated than a Trend Line with an R value of one"?
Something you said really hit home with me truthavoider. This right here:
Animals like the great apes, the great fishes, the tunas, the sharks, are clearly in deep trouble.
Absolutely! Can we get back to those things finally, and maybe even stop destroying habitat for endangered species in the name of saving Gaia?!? Man, what is with you guys? If one-tenth of one percent of the resources that currently go to AGW were instead used for bluefin conservation for example, the issue would be solved.
I can't remember ever eating bluefin tuna, it has been that long that I have known of the troubles brewing at sea. I have said it many times, but the bulk of the time, energy and money needed to address genuine and immediate environmental concerns has been diverted to the AGW cause, a grotesque tithing that continues to expand in all the wrong ways.
It is at the core of why I fight this fight. Forget the polar bears for the moment (research their population trends to put your mind at ease) and turn instead to tigers for example, my wife's favorite animal of all. Environmental destruction, threats to biodiversity, the collapse of specific ecosystems, all real and they are happening right now to many things I hold dear as you whistle past the graveyard.
I have been fighting that fight over half my life and will continue to focus my efforts on those tangible issues that need to be addressed sooner rather than later. And I can't wait for the day that the so-called environmentalists who have made AGW their "cause" return to the real fight. As I have said many times, we could use your help.
Suppose we get the perfect energy source, somebody at MIT or Caltech just hits the home run and suddenly we have abundant free solar power. They do it. Bang, we can get off coal in a hurry... Does this solve the world's environmental problems? Hardly. Because suddenly we can do whatever we want. Energy is the great enabler. We can turn seawater into drinking water. If we have limitless free energy, we can grow synthetic crops and all kinds of stuff. We would pave over the world.
Maybe AGW is a farce. We are quickly blazing a new path through new territory, so maybe all of the Models are wrong. But if they are not, we stand to lose everything.
Here is our chance to save it all by providing evidence for everybody to see that shows just how fragile our world is, because the last time I checked, there was a big No Exit sign over head.
Anti, still out there? What do you think, truth onto something here? I know you dig this source but really it comes in quite handy quite often.
truth, give it a read. The AGW travesty is indeed an attempt at limiting development despite the environmental Kuznets curve. The push for SD is to the detriment of us all. Most offensive is the absolute fact that the world's poorest will be so most negatively impacted. They'll stay poor longer, but Gaia will be, um, saved? You're on the wrong side of history here. The AGW prescription is a pill we won't swallow.
The answer is No.
"Michael Mann called the new batch of emails "truly pathetic".. "They have instead turned to smear, innuendo, criminal hacking of websites, and leaking out-of-context snippets of personal emails in their effort to try to confuse the public about the science and thereby forestall any action to combat this critical threat."
Glad, you just keep huffin' and puffin' about how it is all about the re-distribution of wealth on Air Vent. They love you there.
By the way, where are all of the rich Scientists?
You poison the well and declare global warming a cult, yet you unwillingly are part of said "cult". Environmental destruction (deforestation, pollution) are factors that are involved in the development of global warming. You seem to be incapable of accepting that "fighting global warming" and "protecting the environment" are not only not mutually exclusive, but part of each other.
What you got is a positive trend line with *no* significance. 10 years is much too short a period to evaluate climate change, as you should know.
>>You can repeat what I did there for all of the global records. and come up with this.
Yes, and that shows you have virtually no understanding of statistics. One could also show trend lines from April 1 to April 5 showing cooling in MA. Does that mean the hemisphere is cooling and summer is not coming?
>>Raven was correct if basing his statement from the HADCRUT and RSS records as they show that "the earth has cooled over the last decade."
And again, you clearly don't understand statistical analysis, do you? Raven is clearly wrong, because the trend has no statistical significance.
>>If you have looked at the numbers again and have digested that there has been no statistically significant cooling trend for the last decade
Finally, after all your belligerent rhetoric, you point out the obvious. Unfortunately, Raven didn't say what you claimed he said.
>>But ironically he also fails to notice that kos/Romm/dana1981 are also engaging in cherry-picking by choosing the 35-year period of 1973-2008. For example. let's plot GISSTEMP for the 35 years prior to the period chosen by the "realists," 1938-1973. Oops!
Which is of course a classic example of cherry picking. Cooling happened during this period because of aerosols. Why don't you show some honesty and include the same record?
>>See, cherry-picking 35 years from a 200-year warming trend (see LIA) and calling temps unprecedented (see MWP)
Finally, you get to some substance in your argument. Unfortunately, you try to pass some BS as face. The MWP is simply a myth amongst deniers. Let me quote a real scientific site:
"While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions."
link
If you have peer reviewed scientific literature that proves me wrong, then show it. I am guessing that instead you will engage in a lot of rhetoric with links to your own posts, or links to articles that don't prove your point, or misleading articles like the one in the *Mail,* that quote Judith Curry, but fail to note that Curry was dead wrong (again, statistical significance), and after made to look like a fool in the scientific blogs, backed away from her statement.
Raven's statement was correct if sourced as I already described. Significance is a separate issue. We're talking about the available evidence and a simple up or down vote. Raven said precisely what I said he did. Can't see how you can say otherwise.
The MWP is a "myth amongst deniers?" C'mon manpants. It was the darned consensus for a long time before Schticky came along. And your link is shabby. This is a better source though I'm guessing you shun that evidence (even though you will not find a more extensive source of the related literature anywhere). Cheers!
They were localized to the northern hemisphere and accompanied with cooling in the southern hemisphere. In contrast, current global warming is occurring in both hemispheres and particularly throughout the world's oceans. Now there is a significant energy imbalance that was not in place in the MWP.
You must have missed this fact.
Obviously the "dataset" you used were NOT from an official source.
My hypothesis:
d's claim is invalid. It can easily be tested by running trends published by "official sources" using my source to see if the results are consistent. Further, d exposes her inherent biases by publishing her incorrect assumption without any apparent effort to gather evidence in support of her erroneous conclusion.
We'll just run one simple one for now. You can propose others if you want me to test them out for you. Just provide links to specific trends published by your "official source." We'll use duh's kos//Romm/dana graph as it is claimed to be sourced from BEST (sneaky how truth used a land-only trend, eh?).
As you can see, according to duh's graph, from 1973 through 2010 there has been warming of about one degree of land-surface only temperature. What does my source say for the same duration using the same dataset from BEST? One degree. This is fun. Please feel free to provide me with my next batch for testing. We'll go for that "replication" thing that eludes Anti so often. We can be co-authors even. Cheers!
Game over. GO away!
My "biased dataset" was the same dataset clown, as I proved by running a trend for you. If you had a bit of sense and curiosity you would understand I was simply presenting a nice little tool for mapping trends. Truth seems to get it below. Get a clue. You've been relegated to the bench on this topic. Actually, towel girl. Cheers!
If that function shows a positive slope, it is increasing regardless of who runs it.
The problem comes when someone fails to understand what the word Increasing describes.
Didi and others have provided evidence that show some of gal's links describe AGW as a farce perpetrated to increase the re-distribution of wealth.
For that, Galileonardo wins the Black Knight award.
No it hasnt you are a LIAR and a brainwashed moron. Why dont you STFU till you have at least a dim clue what you are talking about? Which of course would mean you taking a vow of silence. No it isnt based on faith. It is the AGW supporters doing the science while the deniers arent even TRYING to do science. They are running a PR campaign just good enough to fool morons like you. You are a LIAR and a moron. It really is just that simple
Keep at it though. It's good for PR from a skeptic's view. When you're done breathing fire, give my reply to di a look. Well worth the read and you may even learn something. Cheers!
He is obviously mentally impaired so I think deserves some amount of latitude.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Love the "Merry Christmas and Happy New Year" after all the insults and faux psychiatry. Sort of the poster child for passive aggressive behavior.
Wing-nut MMFA poster of the year competition won't be easy to decide: I'm torn between gally and doughnut.
They're both working hard for the title.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year mary.
BTW, please don't vote for me based on the color of my skin. I don't want any advantages due to race.
Sorry, you're an old white guy. You've already had those advantages for decades.
I like when you get all butthurt and let your inner racist out. Tells a lot more than you want to.
Dang AK, can you give the sexual innuendoes a rest? However, I do like it when you get all upset and let your inner sexual perversions out. Tells a lot more than you want to.
The buffoon is so big in Raven it must hurt to follow the Trend line.
The numbers do not lie. All you have to do is look at all of them.
You missed the numbers.
The analogy :
Albert Einstein once gave an interview to a magazine correspondent. When the interview was over, the man asked Einstein for his telephone number, so he could call him if there were any parts of the interview that needed clarification. To the correspondent's surprise, Einstein walked over to his phone and read the number to the correspondent. The man asked Einstein, "you mean a genius such as yourself doesn't even know his own telephone number?" Einstein replied, "I know where to find it."
Tute aluer.
Do I even need to explain the issues with that in regards to the conversation taking place here? You're right. The numbers don't lie. You (of course) offer a trend line that is essentially twice as steep as all the other "official" global records (and incidentally it is the only dataset that is preliminary, its associated papers not even yet through peer-review). Could it be that your now 4th-generation graph represents the most "alarming" trend line available?
I guess the answer to that will have to wait, unless you have one for us. Cheers!
All you have to do is look and select.
It is interesting how a person cannot see what you do not what to see.
Some would call that a sure sign of a closed mind.
How come all of the slopes are positive?
If the temperature was not always increasing, would not some have a flat or negative slope?
Please take a moment and explain why Sea Ice has a negative slope.
Your sources are nice. They use data to show that the temperature has been increasing steadily since 1900.
Be sure to come by anytime. Your links sure help to demonstrate what ignorant buffoons Rush and his Ditto-head Deniers are.
The historic slopes are positive because temperatures have been on a relatively stable increase since they bottomed out during the LIA hundreds of years ago (not just since 1900 as you state). Weren't the 1870s the warmest decade on record at that time? The 1930s?
This is the straw man I have already mentioned a number of times of this thread and we have discussed the LIA for years now on these threads. Who exactly is arguing we haven't been warming for the last two centuries? I didn't realize the Thames had frozen over again? Oh, that's right. Been a good while since that happened.
As for the slope since the LIA, what do you think the slope would be if we had legitimate records going back to the MWP or the RWP? Thanks at least for acknowledging that my "sources are nice." didi called it biased, but I suppose that reality is already biased to a true believer. Catch up with you soon. Nap time.
An increasing function gives a positive slope and a decreasing function gives a negative slope.
By your sources, the temperature has been increasing since 1900 straight through to 2010 (you can check the newspaper and find out it is still increasing in 2011), and when you go back to your sources, you will find Arctic Sea Ice with a negative slope.
To help you, that indicates Arctic sea ice is decreasing, which again signifies that it is getting warmer over that period of time.
“ Here is the error you asking about”
[...] If there ever is scientific proof -- and see, I don't need scientific proof because to me the people who are promoting manmade global warming are a bunch of frauds. They are liberals, they lie. It's not a generalization. It is an undeniable truth of life.
While the absolute absurdity of these statement is both undeniable and self-evident, I am tickled pink to see, once again, further evidence of what I always say:
WHEN YOU ARGUE WITH A LIBERAL, THEY'LL PROOVE THAT YOU'RE WRONG.
WHEN YOU ARGUE WITH A CONSERVATIVE, THEY'LL PROOVE THAT YOU'RE LIBERAL.
And? BOTH will in fact be right!
---------------------------------------
IMHO
UTOPIA
Odd statement, coming from a man who has literally made a fortune by telling lies on the radio.
---------------------------------------
IMHO
UTOPIA
It must really suck that liberals have virtually the entire scientific community as well as artists, humorists and creative types.
Conservatives have paranoid, violent morons and a few intelligent, utter immoral predatory capitalists.
---------------------------------------
IMHO
UTOPIA
---------------------------------------
IMHO
UTOPIA
One would think that highly technical information needs to be read in order to make an informed decision. That in order to interpret this information you would need a background in science.
I don't know that Newt has that background, or o'Reilly, Hannity, palin perry and all the others that spout the same information.
We need to ask and keep asking these people who has given them their information and what their background is.
Who is trying to sabotage the human race? The oil companies? The religious folks who don't give a damn and Want Armageddon?
Who is behind all of this? I would really, really like to know who gives these stupid, ignorant, uninformed republicans their marching orders.
And I can't wait to hear the excuses 25 years from now, when the world is in dire straights, what the republican excuses will be.... I'm sure they will blame it on the Democrats anyway!
He apparently feels it's his duty to mislead on this topic in every possible way.
I have listened to Rush on the radio once or twice in my life, and have always wondered why one of the many people out there who can think rationally and don't have the same qualms about violence that I do haven't taken a shot at him. I mean, really, I am genuinely surprised that an attempt has not been made, especially given the amount of hate he spews on a daily basis; at some point he must have gotten someone's feathers ruffled enough.
Or maybe my hope that us rational folk really do see that violence is not an answer is closer to fruition than I thought.
Adored by 20 million, hated by over 50. You've undeniably made the country worse off, more stupid, less informed and have personally cost how many jobs to pay your bloated salary?
What a wonderful argument for atheism.
Well, BIG MEGADITTO KUDOS to Rush! That migh be the most telling and accurate statement he's ever made!
...regarding RELIGION anyway!
;)
---------------------------------------
IMHO
UTOPIA
They like to provide the information that clearly supports the fact that they are ignorant fools.
The bad news is the innocent children who may be cut down with the blind battering.
In a way, we are lucky. We get to see the evidence of their self-inflected wounds in their words and laugh quietly to ourselves.
They call themselves scientists, yet they do not understand the basic principles like Significant Figures or what the words "or more" describe.
As an actual example:
"Climate models evaluated for the new study show a rapidly increasing risk of such heat waves in western Russia, from less than one percent in 2010, to 10 percent or more by the end of this century."
FYI, anybody who has evolved from life on Planet Earth will not survive long with a body temperature increase of 10% or more.
Let there be no doubt. The Deniers are either heavily invested in fossil fuels or completely devoid of Critical Thinking skills.
Why can they never answer questions like these?
How does a 40% increase (from 280 to 400 ppm) in concentration of a chemical known to trap heat from its basic physical chemistry NOT then trap heat?
What is your credible mechanism for forcing cooling?
Instead they ask questions about what would happen if 70% of the Earth's surface suddenly stopped being covered with water. For those who ask questions like this, do not drink and derive; your ability to do two things at once is apathetic at best (source, pdf).
The only place in the universe were the Laws of Physics cease to exist is in the head of people who believe AGW is not happening.
Limbaugh tells GOD what is right?
Can't GOD take care of Himself?
Clifford Spencer