Michael Steele: “The Earth is cooling!”

Well, I’ll give RNC chair Michael Steele credit for one thing… there’s certainly no change in his party’s political climate under his leadership:

Michael Steele has taken the GOP’s global-warming denial to a new height: “We are cooling. We are not warming. The warming you see out there, the supposed warming, and I use my fingers as quotation marks, is part of the cooling process.”

Yeah, sure it is.   And Steele knows this because of his vast experience as a seminarian, attorney and political hack, whereas the overwhelming percentage of climate scientists who say our planet really is warming, well… what the hell do they know?

A policy debate is one thing, but I mean really… don’t you R’s find it the least bit embarrassing to belong to a party that denies science?

Comments

  1. 1

    Stiv Bator spews:

    But it snowed here yesterday on whidbey!
    March15!

    Steele is right, warming is cooling.

  2. 2

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    You can fill these fools’ ears with any old shit and they’ll believe it, as long as it comes from a bishop. If the bishop tells them the earth is flat, they’ll believe the earth is flat! If the bishop tells them librals caused the financial meltdown, they’ll vote for Smoot-Hawley! Republicans are putty in the hands of a bishop.

  3. 3

    steve spews:

    It appears that the Bush market rally that is taking place during the Obama recession is faltering.

    Just one more example of the kind of whack wingnuttery that can make a sane person’s head hurt.

    After his abortion fiasco, Steele seems to be hoping that hating on science might save him from being tossed from the careening bus that is now being driven by the Bloated Bloviator.

  4. 4

    Right Stuff spews:

    My problem is the “scientific consensus” which in the 70’s forecast “Global Cooling” and the terrible effects in would wreck on our planet.
    Now it’s catastrophic global warming…

    I also find it very intersting that the debate has fallen away from “man made” global warming, to just “global warming”.

    Do I think we are in a warming trend? Yes. Is it driven by man? Not sure. Can we reverse or “design” the climate we desire? absolutely not.

  5. 5

    Right Stuff spews:

    My problem is the “scientific consensus” which in the 70’s forecast “Global Cooling” and the terrible effects it would wreck on our planet.
    Now it’s catastrophic global warming…

    I also find it very intersting that the debate has fallen away from “man made” global warming, to just “global warming”.

    Do I think we are in a warming trend? Yes. Is it driven by man? Not sure. Can we reverse or “design” the climate we desire? absolutely not.

  6. 9

    YLB spews:

    7 – Krauthammer? He’s a might big pipe wrench for sure but that’s just another way to say he’s a tool.

  7. 10

    steve spews:

    Steele sez”

    “I love this battle because what I see right now is leading to the ultimate political Armageddon between conservatism and liberalism,” Steele declared at one point. “And the idea that free enterprise, free markets, free people are going to battle an oppressive, repressive, domineering government. I love that. That’s what we are lining up for you folks. So you better get ready, strap it on, because it’s coming. And you better pick your sides, you better choose now.”

    He’s just trying to avoid being tossed from the Limbaugh-driven Republican bus as it careens its way to the precipice. It won’t help, Steele. He sees you no different than he sees black NFL quarterbacks. You don’t belong.

  8. 12

    YellowPup spews:

    Was there a “scientific consensus” in the 70s about a coming ice age?

    Wikipedia, at least, has a different recollection:

    Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. General scientific opinion is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the 20th century.

    See the article for sources. Science, of course, does progress and evolve (records of global temperatures have improved since the 70s, I’m sure), but I don’t think the concept of global warming is going away anytime soon.

  9. 13

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    What? FartnArt using the Catholic Church to make his point on HorsesAtheists?

    Did your eyes burn when you looked at the site FartyArt?

  10. 14

    Right Stuff spews:

    @9
    Do you have any opionion about is editorial?
    His position regarding stem cell research is far more liberal than conservative….I think he raises a very legitimate question as to the creation of human embryos for the purposes of research. That is a slippery slope for sure IMO.

    Thanks for the link Luigi

  11. 15

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    What? FartnArt using the Catholic Church to make his point on HorsesAtheists?

    Did your eyes burn when you looked at the site FartyArt?

    sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=616122

    “Dr David Evans: The IPCC is a UN bureaucracy. Less than half of the 2500 involved are scientists, most are bureaucrats. [facts denied by the big denier NutRight]The IPCC is reluctant to consider causes of global warming other than human ones. The fact that temperatures haven’t risen since 2001 means that their politics are becoming untenable.”

  12. 16

    Curmudgeon spews:

    “My problem is the “scientific consensus” which in the 70’s forecast “Global Cooling””

    Then you have a problem with exactly nothing, chump. There was no scientific consensus on global cooling in the 1970s. To say otherwise shows that you know exactly less than jack shit about the history of modern climatology. There IS a scientific consensus about global warming in the early 21st century, however.

  13. 19

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    “Dr David Evans: Almost no effect. There is no evidence that it has a significant effect. The case that most scientists consider is what happens if CO levels double from a pre industrial level of 280mmp to 580mmp, which we will get to in 2100AD. Theoretical estimates range from 1/4 degree to 6 degrees. The most creditable theoretical calculation was preformed by a Hungarian mathematician at NASA named Miskolczi. He took everything he could into account and updated the NASA calculation and his answer was 1/4 degree. NASA didn’t like the answer and made him feel uncomfortable and he resigned shortly after. In any case, the best theory and the actual evidence suggest the influence of CO2 to the earth is small to negligible.”

  14. 20

    ArtFart spews:

    13 Puddybud, Hey it’s the same old jive…spewed:

    “Did your eyes burn when you looked at the site FartyArt?”

    Uhhh…no.

    Mind you, there may be a question as to who’s worshipping the false god.

  15. 21

    Right Stuff spews:

    @16
    Roll out your credentials…….

    The fact that you use consensus at all eliminates you from any scientific credibility.

  16. 22

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @11 Yeah, I was talking about fake bishops, the kind that flat-earthers follow.

  17. 24

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Any damn fool with eyes can see that alpine glaciers have been shrinking all over the planet for several decades now.

  18. 25

    ArtFart spews:

    Right Stuff, you do have a point. There may be any number of causes for the planet getting warmer. Furthermore, the process might have been going on for quite a long time, witness the discovery a while back that about 50,000 years ago there were lush hardwood forests where the Sahara is today. In any case, we find ourselves dealing with the consequences of humankind doing the sort of “planning” that shows a disregard of any phenomena that occur over a longer period of time than a person’s life span. So if we choose to build a great city by the seashore at the edge of a desert and the temperature rises a bit in a century or two, we might find we’re up to our knees in salt water or roasting in arid heat. And if there really is a problem, we might at least attempt to see that our own actions don’t make it worse.

    On the other hand, we could all just pretend that there was no “50,000 years ago”.

  19. 26

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Global warming deniers are sociopaths who should be detained for their own protection.

  20. 28

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    Pelletizer view the CO2 ice core evidence…NutRight had problems with the evidence. The facts hurt him.

    www . daviesand . com /Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

    Read and decide www . physorg . com /news156088725.html

  21. 30

    Right Stuff spews:

    @25 AF
    IMO there are far too many known and UNKNOWN influences as to why and how warming and cooling of our planet occurs.

    The problem, again IMO is the politization of the issue…

  22. 31

    correctnotright spews:

    @21: Dear Wrong stuff

    Most scientists use the word consensus when describing what most scientists think. You can always find some outcasts who think that the world is flat or that evolution is just an “untested theory”.

    We scientists call these kind of people MORONS.

    The IPCC is the international group of scientists who have determined that global warming is happening and that it is anthropomorphic. Read the frickin’ report if you have any questions before shooting off your fool mouth about things you know nothing about.

    Select quotes:

    Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level

    There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.6 {2.2} Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. 7 It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica)

    Link: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessm.....yr_spm.pdf

    When scientist use the term unequivocal – that means don’t even bother trying to argue – like Steele is.

    When scientist use the term very likely – that means your BS about how global warming is not man-made is without any real foundation.

    As far as the idiot, Krauthammer, he is not a scientist and misses the point, as usual(remember, Krauthhammer was the idiot who said that the Iraq war would remake the middle east and solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem).

    The “moral line” Kruthammer tries to draw, is drawn with a crayon because he is too damn stupid to understand squat about science. The guy is so petrifyingly stupid that he doesn’t even understand that these embyros will be thrown away if not used for research.

    Where is the moral line in the sand here?

    Don’t use them for research but throw them in the trashcan to preserve lives that he does not even care about?

    It is better to throw the embryos away and kill them in the trash than use the embryos to try and help people with spinal cord injuries or parkinson’s disease. This is his stupid argument and spin?

    Can there be a more pathetically simple-minded argument?

  23. 32

    correctnotright spews:

    @27: Yeah, I had some problems with the “evidence” – like there was none and the top scientists disagreed with the conclusions.

    Other than that – the global warming deniers are grasping at straws because they have no scientific backing – just a bunch of industry paid charlatans and flat earthers (hey, the big guy they cite is a freakin’ newscast weatherman – give me a break!)

  24. 33

    shithead spews:

    this is just a miscommunication. there is a difference between the earth and its atmosphere. as the earth warms, the atmosphere cools to balance it out. everyone is right and everyone is wrong. dolla bill yall.

  25. 34

    ArtFart spews:

    32 News flash: Scientists in the Doppelganger Institute of Physical Sciences and Phrenology have discovered that light bulbs do not, as popularly believed, emit light. Rather, they absorb darkness.

    Film at 11.

  26. 35

    Real American spews:

    It seems to me that the wingnuts need more evidence on the Green House effect.

    I support cramming them all into a large space capsule and shooting them all to Venus where they can do some further studies.

  27. 36

    Right Stuff spews:

    @30
    You are not reading Krauthammer correctly. He agrees that those embryos from fertility clinics could be used. He is saying, if I’m reading it right, that President Obama goes far beyond that line, allowing for creation of embryos for research outside of the fertility use…..thus the slippery slope of cloning, etc etc….

    “We scientists call these kind of people MORONS”

    I didn’t know you were a scientist? Care to prove it?

    why don’t you tell us the CO2 content of our atmosphere? Or where increasing CO2 has ever preceded warming.

  28. 37

    ArtFart spews:

    35 Dr. Krauthammer has an extensive background in political science and psychiatry. I’m not sure exactly how that qualifies him to speak with authority on meteorology or geophysics. Furthermore, his metamorphosis into a hardcore apologist for neoconservatism calls into question his credibility to speak with authority about much of anything.

  29. 38

    ArtFart spews:

    As it turns out, the current administration didn’t remove a legal prohibition against embryonic stem cell research–it merely removed the prohibition on federal funding of it. Over the last 20 years or so, erosion of government funding has driven the privatization of medical research, just as it has so many other things. This begs the question of whether such research would be conducted under a stricter code of ethics under government support than it has been under the auspices of the for-profit drug industry. Seems the latter might be more prone to the prospect of “embryo farms” if there’s enough money to be made.

  30. 39

    Right Stuff spews:

    “35 Dr. Krauthammer has an extensive background in political science and psychiatry. I’m not sure exactly how that qualifies him to speak with authority on meteorology or geophysics.”

    Huh? I didn’t read that in that article…

  31. 41

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    NutRight:

    Other than that – the global warming deniers are grasping at straws because they have no scientific backing – just a bunch of industry paid charlatans and flat earthers (hey, the big guy they cite is a freakin’ newscast weatherman – give me a break!)

    Puddy already blew this argument apart. I don’t need to show the link because it’s the same old mantra from the same old NutRight.

    HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH

  32. 42

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    FartyArt Farted:

    35 Dr. Krauthammer has an extensive background in political science and psychiatry. I’m not sure exactly how that qualifies him to speak with authority on meteorology or geophysics.

    Well this deficiency has never stopped NutRight and his rants.

    Besides Dr Krauthammer was trained at Harvard Medical School. He drops the hammer on libtards all the time.

  33. 44

    correctnotright spews:

    @40 Poor Puddy. Guess your memory slipped again – the non-fact check site that you cited put out a list of supposed scientists who disagree with the 99% consensus and the first two on the list were:

    1. A scientist who agreed with Al Gore on taking action on global warming, even though they said they were skeptic (which was the only part of the quote you cited, from the same interview, no less), in general.

    2. A supposed IPCC scientist – who instead, it turned out, only consulted ONCE for an obscure IPCC publication. Some “expert”.

    Ooops – when you put out a list of “prominent” scientists who agree with your fake position on global warming – maybe you should fact check first. Maybe they should actually study atmospheric science – maybe you should go to the UW website and see what they have there – since they are one of the top atmo. Sci. depts in the world. Maybe you should go to the NCAR website and see what they have. Maybe you should go and see what the glaciologist have documented on glacier shrinkage around the world.

    No – you and Right Stuff prefer to go to some right wing political sites to get scientific info – and you wonder why you are seen as fools. Try asking a real scientist – ask Cliff Mass at the UW? He is a conservative on many things but he will tell you right out that anthropomorphic global warming is real.

    @35 I did post-doctoral research at the FHCRC on cancer, I am NOT in atmo. science – but I know enough to listen to the experts in that field and not to presume I know more than them about their own field.

    I also know how to read scientific literature and to critically evaluate scientific statements. Scientists do not say things like “unequivocal” unless the evidence is overwhelming, they don’t say “very high confidence” unless there is a proponderance of data and agreement. Scientists are skeptics.

    What are your scientific credentials, Right stuff?

    Since you are giving your opinion on global warming and I am just citing the opinions of the experts, I would expect you to be an expert in the field.

  34. 46

    catalyzer spews:

    Well, it’s official. The dichotomy in the US is now the party of idiots vs. the party of the rest of us. Even the so-called global-warming deniers don’t actually deny global warming anymore! They argue that “maybe it’s not anthropogenic”. And proof is not easy with such complex systems. But global cooling? Have you Republicans ever heard of the friggin’ “thermometer”? They have lots of them all around the planet! And statistical analysis. Yeah I know – only geeky liberals pay attention to that brainiac scientific stuff. Sorry GOPers, but you cant take pride in being stupid and then get mad at us when we regard you as stupid. Look, if you really want to be the party of idiots, then take PRIDE in your idiocy! (Say it loud: I’m a GOP moron and proud.)

  35. 47

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    NutRight has an even poorer memory…Puddy has given the PDF for NutRoot to review but he won’t look at the review of who looked at the report…

    So Puddy has to produce it again…

    First less than half of the “2500” signers are scientists. The rest are bureaucraps. Of those, only 308 of these “scientists” reviewed the report.

    scienceandpublicpolicy . org/press/ipccprocessillusion.html

    “In Chapter 9, the key science chapter, the IPCC concludes that “it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years”. The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section.”

    “IPCC Scientists Caught Producing False Data To Push Global Warming ” www . prisonplanet . com/ipcc-scientists-caught-producing-false-data-to-push-global-warming.html

    Again NutRight forgets the graphs… tomnelson.blogspot . com/search/label/graphs

    Here is the scientist NutRight loves to ridicule…“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.

    Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

    “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

    “After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

  36. 48

    Nolaguy spews:

    I’m a meteorologist that barely graduated and have since never worked in my field.

    But for the last few years, I’ve done quite well on the university lecture circuit, as an “expert” scientist who agrees with all of my colleagues that global warming is very likely to be man made.

    The money is good, and everyone just nods their head at everything I say. It’s quite rewarding.

    With my new income stream, I bought a house in Ballard for only $700k on a 0% ARM. Booyah!

  37. 49

    The Truth spews:

    @30
    notright
    Granule Brain,

    “We scientists call these kind of people MORONS.” LMAO, LOL, HAHA “WE”

    Granule Brain save our planet from noxious gases stop talking.

  38. 51

    correctnotright spews:

    Oh, the “truth” is back with her lies.

    Look – we already know that you are a complete fool with an incomplete education (that is, nothing past the third grade). Go back to elementary school, learn to think independently and to use the english language – and then come back and say something.

    Until then little pea brain – you don’t matter and your worthless crap doesn’t matter.

    As to Poor Puddy – the IPCC report is written by the foremost international scientists in the field and you have….well, we have seen what you have. A bunch of crap. Go ahead, line up with the right wing kooks and science deniers. You are just embarassing yourself.

    Oh, and read the rest of the article that quote came from, that is out of contex, fool:

    In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable.

    Gee, sounds like she really agress with your position that there is no such thing as global warming.

    Link: http://climatesci.org/2008/02/.....e-citizen/

    You forgot that I quoted this the last time you cited your false conclusions…ooops again. Maybe you need some of the memory pills.

  39. 52

    correctnotright spews:

    @47: Yup, and in your fanatasy world you also get all the chicks and you are a multi-millionaire.

    Republicans: They can’t even dream without lying to themselves.

    Hey, that is about all the facts you guys can muster?

  40. 53

    Curmudgeon spews:

    @ 17. Right Stuff spews:
    “@12 http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
    Newsweek archive circa 1975″

    Only a drooling retard cites a poorly reported article in Newsweek as reflective of scientific consensus on any issue whatsoever.

    Look at the statements from the profeesional organizations. Look at the statements from the National Academy of Sciences Look a the fucking peer-reviewed literature. Cite them. Otherwise, your’re a drooling retard, you drooling retard.

  41. 54

    Amazed spews:

    Does Puddy believe that the hebephrenic blather that he types is funny or clever? Is he totally delusional?

  42. 57

    proud leftist spews:

    correctnotright
    Your facts and arguments expose Puddy to be the idiot he is, yet he has no awareness of his defeat. Every now and again I get tempted to reason with the righties because, at bottom, I believe in the power of reason. I believe that marshaling facts, analyzing them, then producing a cogent argument has value. I believe doing that should also have the potential of persuading others. I recognize now, however, that there is a certain percentage of the populace–our trolls here–to whom reason is a disease. I no longer try to persuade them. I just bash them. Troll bashing. It’s a great sport. I wish you the best, nonetheless, in your efforts to educate them.

  43. 58

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    Once again if you disagree with NutRight you are a kook, flat-earther, etc. Once again when you show NutRight the real research he goes into his denial tailspin.

    www . thenewamerican . com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/835 Focus in on the last few paragraphs NutRight. You focus in on the bureaucraps.

    Right wing kooks: 650 scientists from all over the world?

    Al Gore won’t debate Danish Professor Bjorn Lomborg because he’s a right wing kook?

    Scott Armstrong bio:www . jscottarmstrong . com from the Wharton School has a $10,000 bet with Gore and Gore won’t take him up on it. theclimatebet.com

    For you lazy suckas “Professor Armstrong is internationally known for his pioneering work on forecasting methods. He is author of Long-Range Forecasting, the most frequently cited book on forecasting methods, and Principles of Forecasting, voted the “Favorite Book – First 25 Years” by researchers and practitioners associated with the International Institute of Forecasters. He is a co-founder of the Journal of Forecasting, the International Journal of Forecasting, the International Symposium on Forecasting, and forecastingprinciples.com. He is a co-developer of new methods including rule-based forecasting, causal forces for extrapolation, simulated interaction, and structured analogies”.

    He ran from Professor Keston Green of Monash University in Australia another weather professor. Most scientists say water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse gases by volume.

    NutRight, ask plant professors, you know the botanists of the world about CO2 and the need of it for plant life. Why did God create plantlife NutRight?

    Green Coast Hydroponics www . gchydro . com /help_env_cont.asp
    “Enriching a grow room with CO2 allows your plant to use excess water and energy stored in their leaves, resulting in dramatically increased growth. Think about this: the average outdoor CO2 level is 300 to 600 parts per million (ppm). But plants can use much more than that. Here’s the wonder of growing indoors, a grow room can be enriched to a level of 1000-2000 ppm. That’s 3 to 6 times the amount of CO2 encountered outdoors. The result? Plants grow faster, fuller and have more zest for life. When using elevated levels of CO2, plant growth rates can increase by as much as 100 to 200%. The average increase is closer to 50%, which is still incredible!”

    So what is it NutRight? My plants grow very well thank you very much and they are all legal non-smoking variety. People can see them growing through our windows. People come over for dinner and ask how we do it. CO2 fool!

  44. 59

    manoftruth spews:

    by the way, its ok to say fuck now because joe biden said it the other day, so you know it must be ok. it wasnt ok when dick cheney said it, we know, because the msm couldnt stop talking about it, but now their silence must mean its ok. so fuck you goldstein

  45. 60

    YLB spews:

    Stupes brings prisonplanet here?

    Isn’t that the website of the 9/11 truthers?

    That Alex Jones guy is a total nutcase.

    And Stupes is too nuts. CNR, write the pitiful fool off.

  46. 61

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    Hey Amazed, Puddy was emailing some ex-HAers today. Yep Puddy keeps in contact with those who email Puddy. One was upset Puddy didn’t invite them to the Othello and MLKJr event. They mentioned there are some great restaurants in the area. They is white too and they have no problems in the hood. Puddy meeting them up north on Wednesday afternoon to commiserate and have a good time. Another just laughed at you because they said “imagine headless being outed for all of his sock puppets. He’d be lost.”

    So fool when you gonna meet de Puddy? You hide behind your screen. Puddy will invite GBS and this other person cuz they both liberals but not a libtard like you. So what’ll be? You can leave your Edmunds School District job right?

    You can bring your right side brain reject surreal amerikkkan with you. In fact put some eyes and lips on both hands so Amazed can talk to surreal amerikkkan at the table while we “talk” about things, eh?

  47. 62

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHahahahahahahah

    Why is the clueless wonder visiting Puddy sites? The clueless wonder said he doesn’t visit Puddy sites. He’s just anotehr libtard liar. But we all knew this. The clueless wonder lover of the warm man-made kook-aid juice of Markos Moultisas calling another site kooky.

    What a fooltard. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

  48. 63

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    moron@59: You gonna pizz off headless lucy and GBS now…

    Every site can have some good now and then. Puddy used Kos once or twice to prove the lunacy of the clueless wonder…

  49. 65

    Real American spews:

    My I love the sound of Pubbydub crying like a stuck pig!

    @ 56 PL you are quite correct. Arguing with the trolls here is like arguing with dog shit stuck to your shoe.

    It will just tire you out, and the dog shit will never quit being dog shit.

  50. 66

    Right Stuff spews:

    @52 still waiting on those creds…
    I mean you are a real deal climate expert right?

    uh huh

    I do read. I also like to have discussions about politics, world events, history etc.

    None of which you seem interested in. In fact, you seem really insecure in your opinions. Thus the attempts at “internet toughguy” in your responses…

    next.

  51. 67

    proud leftist spews:

    Puddy spews: “Scott Armstrong bio:www . jscottarmstrong . com from the Wharton School has a $10,000 bet with Gore and Gore won’t take him up on it.”

    Last I heard, Puddy, Wharton was a business school. Did I miss something? Is Wharton now a graduate school providing science degrees? Damn, it must hurt to be so partisanly stupid. You really want the Goat, don’t you?

  52. 68

    Real American spews:

    Puddy’s got bidness to take care of!

    Wife must be so disgusted with Pubbydub that she won’t let him in her bed anymore.

    Remember to use the vaseline, Pubbydub! Doing your bidness is likely to raise a callous on your palm!

  53. 70

    proud leftist spews:

    RA @ 67
    It is not surprising, most certainly, that Puddy considers choking the chicken as “bidness to take care of.” I hope he feels better when he’s done. Even wingnuts should find relief from their anxieties periodically. Do you think he fantasizes about The Bloviator while he’s choking away?

  54. 71

    ArtFart spews:

    66 For that matter, my exposure to Wharton MBA’s would seem to suggest that they can’t manage their way out of a paper bag. I really don’t know what they teach there, but I’ll betcha there’s a goodly number of Wharton folks among the crowd that’s managed to wreck the banking industry in a few short years. I sure as hell wouldn’t trust ‘em to take care of the planet on which I’m going to be spending the rest of my days.

  55. 72

    ArtFart spews:

    Puddy goes to remarkable lengths to glean out-of-context tidbits from credible news sources, combine them with blatant propaganda from other right-wing shills, and then stir the whole mess together in his own twisted mind to accomplish ever more arcane variations on adding two and two and claiming the result is seven.

    I have to give you credit, Pudz….you sure put a lot of effort into being crazy. It’s a lot of work being such a piece of work.

  56. 73

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    Time to dissect these libtards one by one. First surreal amerikkkan. You can crow all you want about my wife. SeattleJew and GBS will set your record straight. I’d put her beauty up against your spouse any day of the week.

    I’d know she’d win. You married an oinker.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahahaha

  57. 74

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    Then there is the issue of surreal amerikkkan who can’t process split URLs. Screams and shouts all he received was a 404 error. Then screams the link is Fox. Of course the factual words of John Effin Kerry telling the world Obama had continually contacted Henry Paulson over the words and content blows the TARP1 arguments apart. He has so many issues it would take a subscription of figger them out.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahahaha

    Stupid is as stupid is.

  58. 75

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    Of course proud loony stopped when he read the Wharton School. Since the IPCC paper was about long term forecasting and Al Gore in his Gorebasm movie discussed forecasting he was challenged.

    “Professor Armstrong is internationally known for his pioneering work on forecasting methods. [Forecasts – sumtin Al Gore knows nuthin about]He is author of Long-Range Forecasting, the most frequently cited book on forecasting methods, and Principles of Forecasting, voted the “Favorite Book – First 25 Years” by researchers and practitioners associated with the International Institute of Forecasters. He is a co-founder of the Journal of Forecasting, the International Journal of Forecasting, the International Symposium on Forecasting, and forecastingprinciples.com. He is a co-developer of new methods including rule-based forecasting, causal forces for extrapolation, simulated interaction, and structured analogies.

    In addition to forecasting, Professor Armstrong has published papers on survey research, educational methods, applied statistics, social responsibility, strategic planning, and scientific peer review.”

    Forecasting. Sumtin used in the IPCC report.
    Forecasting. Sumtin lost on proud loony.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahahaha

  59. 76

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    proud loony, the only known chicken choker is stillbentovergettingdonebyrujax. But we whom think right heard twice a week stillbentovergettingdonebytheloony occurs.

    Ask SJ or GBS if I need to perform what you do 3X a day!

  60. 77

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    clueless wonder is another of those “phony soldiers. Show all of us the context from Rush Limbaugh’s site. Also who said Puddy walks lock step with Rush. You did fool.

    You don’t know me but the HA libtards know you monomaniacal one. Your morning porn is calling you!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahahaha

  61. 78

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    Since you all discount only four IPCC “scientists” agreed with the CO2 chapter of the IPCC report and you all disagree with the 308 scientists out of less than 1250 who looked at the report, here is the data. This is what skeeeeeeeers NutRight…

    Enjoy… scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/McLean_IPCC_press_release_9-10-07.pdf

  62. 79

    Daddy Love spews:

    don’t you R’s find it the least bit embarrassing to belong to a party that denies science?

    No, they don’t. Not the least bit.

    This has been another edition of simple answers to stupid questions.

  63. 81

    correctnotright spews:

    @77: John McLean and his BS??? Please Puddy, at least put up something that has some credibility.
    Scares me?
    No, what scares me is how gullible you are.

    Boy, you are so easy to fool.

    Here is the refutation of that crap you have been pushing by a scientist in the filed. He dismissing McLean;s arguments (and yours) as nothing but a sham. He goes through the accusations one by one and refutes them:

    1.

    The IPCC process is biased/flawed or driven by a political agenda

    [Short response: The IPCC is a UN review body with scientists nominated by each participating country; it conducts no primary research because its job is to summarise the already peer-reviewed scientific literature; its conclusions have been endorsed by the national science academies of all G8+5 countries and many others; some of its predictions have been shown to be overly conservative]

    More information:

    http://www.realclimate.org/ind.....on-part-i/

    http://www.realclimate.org/ind.....on-part-i/

    http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/co.....y.asp#ipcc

    http://www.realclimate.org/ind.....process-2/

    http://gristmill.grist.org/sto...../22399/297

    2.

    The supposed consensus among scientists is a sham, thousands of scientists dispute a human role in global warming

    [Short response: Climate warming due to human activity is mainstream science involving a huge number of research disciplines; consensus does not mean that every single scientist agrees with man-made climate change, but that the vast majority does agree; this is reflected in the peer-reviewed literature, for which surveys have found >99% of the primary scientific literature explicitly or implicitly endorse this view; former Science editor Donald Kennedy said: “Consensus as strong as the one that has developed around this topic is rare in science”]

    More information:

    http://cce.890m.com/?page_id=15

    http://www.thedailygreen.com/e.....s-47011101

    http://www.skepticalscience.co.....sensus.htm

    http://www.realclimate.org/ind.....us-anyway/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....ate_change

    http://environment.newscientis.....ge/dn11654

    http://gristmill.grist.org/sto...../23656/027

    3.

    The climate change agenda is being driven by a narrow self-interested coterie of climate modellers

    [Short response: As any practicing scientist will tell you, science does not and cannot work by collusion. Why would scientists be urging a halt to emissions when playing up the uncertainties (‘we think this is a problem but need more research to be sure…’) would be a surer path to continued funding investment? Finally, to quote Michael Tobis: “Probably the weakest reason for mistrusting us climate scientists is the idea that we are in it for the money. When I was a starving grad student, I told a dignified lady from rural Mississippi that I was doing climate modeling. She was briefly taken aback. After a beat, she gathered her wits and politely replied “Oh, that must be… lucrative”.]

    More information:

    http://environment.newscientis.....ge/dn11653

    http://gristmill.grist.org/sto...../23211/495

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.....acy_theory

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm.....ce.comment

    Oh and John McClean:

    The latest volley from the Australian is an article by John McLean. You might remember him as the guy who kept steering Andrew Bolt into brick walls. He’s now styling himself as a “climate data analyst and a member of the Australian Climate Science Coalition”, which might sound impressive if you didn’t know that the only qualification he holds is a Bachelor of Architecture and that the Australian Climate Science Coalition doesn’t contain any climate scientists.

    Anyway, his article is just a rehash of his earlier one where he accused the IPCC of lying about the scientific support for his reports. McLean claims that:

    We are also led to believe that chapter nine [of the AR4 WG1 report] was widely supported by hundreds of reviewers, but just 62 IPCC reviewers commented on its penultimate draft. Only five of those reviewers endorsed it but four of the five appear to have vested interests and the other made just one comment for the entire 11-chapter WG1 contribution.

    The trick McLean is using is to only count explicit endorsements of one particular draft, when in fact if any of the hundreds of reviewers disagreed with the conlusions of chapter 9, they could have said so in a comment. Also, McLean counts someone as having a vested interest if they were an IPCC author, or an IPCC author of a previous assessment, or if any of their work was cited by the report, or if they worked for a government, or if they work for an organization that gets government funding, or if they have a “possible commercial vested interest in the claim of man-made warming”.

    LinK: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoi.....nce_20.php

    So keep citing your BS about the IPCC – McLean is not even a real scientist, those numbers don’t mean squat because scientists DON”T comment when they agree and your argument is total BS.

  64. 82

    ByeByeGOP spews:

    Publicans form their critical thinking skills about climate change by listening to an impotent drug addict like Lush Flimbaugh. Democrats read science books. Nuff said.

  65. 83

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    Diddled Luver, who’s denying science? Plants thrive when the CO2 level is higher. That’s proven, real science.

  66. 84

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    Democrats read science books

    Written by Democratics. Circular logic.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahahaha

  67. 86

    YLB spews:

    you sure put a lot of effort into being crazy. It’s a lot of work being such a piece of work.

    No effort for the fool at all. Teh crazy comes natural for Stupes.

  68. 87

    correctnotright spews:

    The latest volley from the Australian is an article by John McLean. You might remember him as the guy who kept steering Andrew Bolt into brick walls. He’s now styling himself as a “climate data analyst and a member of the Australian Climate Science Coalition”, which might sound impressive if you didn’t know that the only qualification he holds is a Bachelor of Architecture and that the Australian Climate Science Coalition doesn’t contain any climate scientists.

    Anyway, his article is just a rehash of his earlier one where he accused the IPCC of lying about the scientific support for his reports. McLean claims that:

    We are also led to believe that chapter nine [of the AR4 WG1 report] was widely supported by hundreds of reviewers, but just 62 IPCC reviewers commented on its penultimate draft. Only five of those reviewers endorsed it but four of the five appear to have vested interests and the other made just one comment for the entire 11-chapter WG1 contribution.

    The trick McLean is using is to only count explicit endorsements of one particular draft, when in fact if any of the hundreds of reviewers disagreed with the conlusions of chapter 9, they could have said so in a comment. Also, McLean counts someone as having a vested interest if they were an IPCC author, or an IPCC author of a previous assessment, or if any of their work was cited by the report, or if they worked for a government, or if they work for an organization that gets government funding, or if they have a “possible commercial vested interest in the claim of man-made warming”.

  69. 88

    correctnotright spews:

    The IPCC process is biased/flawed or driven by a political agenda

    [Short response: The IPCC is a UN review body with scientists nominated by each participating country; it conducts no primary research because its job is to summarise the already peer-reviewed scientific literature; its conclusions have been endorsed by the national science academies of all G8+5 countries and many others; some of its predictions have been shown to be overly conservative]

    More information:

    http://www.realclimate.org/ind.....on-part-i/

    http://www.realclimate.org/ind.....on-part-i/

    http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/co.....y.asp#ipcc

    http://www.realclimate.org/ind.....process-2/

    http://gristmill.grist.org/sto...../22399/297

  70. 89

    YLB spews:

    telling the world Obama had continually contacted Henry Paulson over the words and content blows the TARP1 arguments apart.

    What the fuck does that prove? Maybe McSame did the same? Maybe a whole lot of Senators did the same.

    We’re back to the Gorelick wall days only there’s a new turd that Stupes shows daily.

    The TARP was Paulson and Bernanke’s – two Republicans – idea period.

  71. 90

    correctnotright spews:

    Basically Puddy, you are quoting from a non-scientist who is lying and has been refuted. You really need to check your sources, embarassing again!

  72. 91

    correctnotright spews:

    The supposed consensus among scientists is a sham, thousands of scientists dispute a human role in global warming

    [Short response: Climate warming due to human activity is mainstream science involving a huge number of research disciplines; consensus does not mean that every single scientist agrees with man-made climate change, but that the vast majority does agree; this is reflected in the peer-reviewed literature, for which surveys have found >99% of the primary scientific literature explicitly or implicitly endorse this view; former Science editor Donald Kennedy said: “Consensus as strong as the one that has developed around this topic is rare in science”]

    More information:

    http://cce.890m.com/?page_id=15

    http://www.thedailygreen.com/e.....s-47011101

    http://www.skepticalscience.co.....sensus.htm

    http://www.realclimate.org/ind.....us-anyway/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....ate_change

    http://environment.newscientis.....ge/dn11654

    http://gristmill.grist.org/sto...../23656/027

  73. 92

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    Notice NutRight never puts his sources on HA. Puddy places his sources so all can see.

    Why is that NutRight?

    You publish pablum!

  74. 93

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    clueless wonder, find stories where McCain did what Obama and Geithner did. Wait a minute, that would mean you’d do something worthwhile.

    You are the monomaniacal fool spouting off about Henry Paulson. Tim Geithner was there working on TARP1 along with Obama blessing it with multiple meetings per John Effin Kerry. Your worthless argument has been exhumed and found to be full of maggots, like that granite encased orifice on your neck. Obama was belssing TARP1 and Dodd and Rangel wrote a poor bill fool.Why do you think the Senate voted on Jan 15th, 5 days before Obama’s inauguration to give him access to the funds before he became preznit fool?

  75. 94

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    Also NutRight, if the final IPCC Report is what counts why didn’t these “scientists” “endorse” it? You run around here saying it was “endorsed“, yet they didn’t “endorse” it.

    Let’s all review NutRight’s IPCC history on HA

    First it was over 5000 scientists.
    Then it was 3000 scientists.
    Then it was 2500 scientists.
    Then it was less than 1250 scientists.
    Then it was 308 scientists.

    What is it NutRight? Where are you links? OOOPS… you been visiting those Kook-Aid sites again?

  76. 95

    ByeByeGOP spews:

    Here is the book that race traitor Puffybutt does NOT want you to read – http://www.amazon.com/About-Cl.....0262050897

    This book shows just exactly how fucking stupid the right is. Oreos like Puffybutt won’t read it because he’s afraid of facts. He can’t win if you know the facts. That’s why he and the Publican party are always trying to thwart public education. They know that if you are educated, you’re going to reject their fear-based lies and bullshit. To those who are not afraid (cross off every right wing turd now) read the book. It seals the deal. Cannot be refuted by even the best right wing liar – and will provide you with true information that you can rely on.

  77. 96

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    stillbentovergettingdonebytheloony soooooo stupid all the time.

    Where has Puddy said don’t read anything except to clueless wonder?

    Racist Fool!

  78. 98

    The Truth spews:

    Update…

    Obama Adm, not only knew the Bonus Protections issue was added. They knew it for months it would come up now. This outrage fired up by the left will reflect from obama,s misgivings.
    What a bunch of corrupted Democrats we have here.

  79. 99

    Daddy Love spews:

    The objective of global climate change deniers is not to argue the science, it is to obscure, obfuscate, and deceive in the politcal arena those who do not follow or cannot understand the science.

    Thus we see specious arguments such as “not everyone endorsed x” when such an endorsement is not explicitly required and endorsement is in fact implied by their participation in the committee findings.

    In fact, the situation is quite the opposite: those who object to the IPCC findings are the ones who are obligated to voice such opposition lest they be thought to be a part of the overwhelming consensus agreement, not the other way around. What is telling is not that not enough endorsements have been received but rather the virtual unanimity of their agreement and lack of opposition.

  80. 100

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    Diddled Luver, when the science debate is debated peeps like Gore want to shut it up. Why is that Diddled Luver?

  81. 101

    More Science Hi Skool spews:

    Comrades!, explained UW President Mark Emmert. “Welcome to the University of Washington! … This year all of our entering freshmen are expected to read (liberal New Yorker Elizabeth Kolbert’s) Field Notes from a Catastrophe …”! Then Emmert took your money to buy Kolbert’s book by the truckload for a campus where diversity runs the gamut from far left to farther left.

    Go to page 50 of Kolbert and you’ll see a graph that Al Gore would love. It shows an armageddon spike in Greenland temperature, a spike that began … 8000 years ago. That’s about 7750 years before the carbon-based Industrial Revolution.

    Much of what is known about the earth’s climate over the last hundred thousand years comes from ice cores drilled in central Greenland … Where once the (climate) system was thought to change, as it were, only glacially, now it is known to be capable of sudden and unpredictable reversals (such as the reversal that suddendly appeared) roughly 12,800 years ago. At that point the earth, which had been warming rapidly, was plunged back into ice age conditions. It remained frigid for twelve centuries and then warmed again, even more abruptly. In Greenland, average annual temperatures shot up by nearly twenty degrees in a single decade. …

    The record preserved in the Greenland ice sheet shows that our own relatively static experience of climate is actually what is exceptional. … (A)verage temperatures in Greenland frequently shot up, or down, by ten degrees … Nobody knows what caused the sudden climate shifts of the past …

    So, debates over, just like Gore’s scientific consensus says. Too bad faith-based science-hating conservatives like Michael Steele don’t get it, but UW does, thanks to your generosity.

    (Text from pages 50, 51, and 56 of the special taxpaid propaganda edition of Field Notes. No violence was done to Kolbert’s context in the making of this polemic.)

  82. 102

    More Science Hi Skool spews:

    Glenn Beck gleefully notes that Saint Obama has returned science to its proper place by fumigating faith and ideology from objective non-political science policy.

    Then Beck gleefully notes that more-science Minnesota decreed that Minnesota will save the planet by pumping green fuels into its school buses. But there’s a problem: Minnesota gets cold, and cold turns green fuels into green tar.

    Minnesota’s planet-saving solution to the problem is to restore science to its proper place by placing all buses at all possible times in vast vastly-heated shelters.

  83. 103

    Donk Cong spews:

    Thom Hartmann said a few weeks ago that Ron Reagan (the excellent president, not the ballerina) wrecked the “great” economy of the 1970s. That was the excellent economy that ended, and almost ended us, with Carter’s double-digit misery and malaise. Gas lines, gas riots, unemployment at about 12 percent, interest rates and inflation through the roof, the rotten ruins of liberal Keynesian stagflation from sea to sea.

    But Hartmann and Carter-holocaust deniers on HA just don’t get it. And then there’s Keynesian Krugman. He says Reagan was a failure just because. Krugman can’t argue away Carter’s failure or Reagan’s economic mastery, of course, so Krugman argues that Reagan failed because Reagan was a racist who, as governor, opposed a fair housing bill in California.

    Well, thank God there’s one honest leftist to set things straight. Lance Selfa, writer for the Socialist Worker and International Socialist Review, wrote a Critical History of the Democrats in 2008. Good book. It has a jackass on the cover.

    Selfa reminds us that Democrat candidate John Kennedy pledged and promised to sign a fair housing law, and that Democrat president John Kennedy did not sign a fair housing law, even after activists sent him thousands of pens as a reminder.

    Odd that Krugman, in his quick condemnation of Reagan, would have forgotten about the New Frontier’s cowering and caving on civil rights, about the Kennedys trying to sabotage Martin Luther King and his dream in 1963, about LBJ sabotaging the Mississippi Freedom Democrats in 1964. (Watergate alert: Gus Russo shows that LBJ emplanted Hoover’s FBI in every state delegation at the 1964 Democrat convention to assure the appearance of tranquility and loyalty.)

    And Selfa affirms that Reagan’s grotesque military build-up, deplored by Krugman and HA leftists, began with Carter, big time.

    And then there’s this, from the present: Page 24 of Selfa’s book shows where the big bucks from big corporate Amerikkka went in 2008. Of 13 Industry Sectors, only four in 2008 gave more to Republicans than to Democrats. You Democrat fat cats will be pleased to know that the Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate sector is totally in the Democrat tank. Think about it.

    [A racist, as any schoolboy knows, is any Republicn winning an argument or winning an election against any Democrat.]

  84. 105

    Rujax! spews:

    Does it look to anybody else thaat the puddybiotch is RUNNING AWAY with the Golden Goat this week?

    Massive overcommenting.

    Shrill, incomprehensible comments.

    Insults and links to dubious or misattributed sites and/or ridiculously far-fetched attempts to support whatever ridiulously far-fetched point he’s trying to make (albeit his standard M.O.).

    the puddybiotch has ramped it up like I thought he would this week. My favorite for the Golden Goat for sure!

  85. 106

    proud leftist spews:

    101
    Puddy is on a roll. Either he is desperate for the Goat and will throw everything into this week’s effort, or he really needs to see a psychiatrist for a change of meds. In either event, he most certainly has the lead.

  86. 107

    YLB spews:

    Stupes can’t get the Goat this week – he’s trying too hard. It’s too obvious.

    The insanity has to flow naturally.

    So I nominate the HMNT whose babbling can been seen in 97-99. Idiocy comes very naturally to this right wing moron.

    Sorry Stupes, you’ll have to wait another week.

  87. 109

    HNMT Stands for Truth, Beauty, and the American Way spews:

    HNMT = Heroic Nord’Mericano Tigre

    YLB = Yanqui Loco Basta

  88. 110

    ArtFart spews:

    99 That mess of turgid rhetoric of yours isn’t any less bullshit than it was the last time you copy-and-pasted it.

  89. 111

    correctnotright spews:

    @91: You are making stuff up again. I have never put out numbers about the IPCC report, I just cited it – that was you and the numbers are fake.

    And – if you check my posts – there are links. I follow your links and I get information that contradicts what you say.

    Your big article that you cite has been shot down – the guy is lying and he is not a scientist.

    How bad can it get? You cite the worst of the worst as far as credibility and draw the wrong conclusions.

    You should be embarassed. You have no clue about what is credible in the debate on global warming. You pick the people and the sources that have the least credibility. Your argument is shot.

  90. 112

    proud leftist spews:

    105
    You can’t express yourself in either English or Spanish. I can understand why you’re such a frustrated and bitter fellow.

  91. 113

    Art Fartlet spews:

    OK, Art, so that means you’ve had two opportunities to deconstruct Kolbert, and you’ve been MIA on each attempt.

  92. 114

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    Wow rujax just made the sweet 16 in the Loony Leftist March Madness. Just beat his competitor 150-67.

    First loony in the sweet 16 – rujax. Congrats being the moron of the day bub!

  93. 115

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    NutRight, where is the link in #85? Professor Darryl says that’s plagiarism.

    Oh I made up the scientific numbers?

  94. 116

    YLB spews:

    PL @ 104

    I call him the Hateful Name Morphing Troll (HNMT).

    A former lefty who went nutso right like David Horowitz.

    He changes his handle all the time but you can pick him out because he babbles on about the same old tired grudges against his former lefty comrades and of course he projects that bitterness on everybody this side of aisle here at HA.

  95. 117

    ArtFartBlossom = Karl Rove spews:

    Art: Cut and paste? It was laborious typing, straight from the horse’s ass. Was very careful to treat Kolbert’s text and context with more respect than Gore gave to inconvenient “truths” … i.e. lies.

    Challenge: Go to Kolbert’s book or to her stuff in the New Yorker, check the amazing graph with the deceptive X-axis, and then take her apart. She’s a global Gore-warming cheerleader, like many of you, so show us how her Greenland data support your superior scientific attitudes about climate and weather.

  96. 118

    m duncan spews:

    Hey Goldy…you’re a moron. SO you hate Republicans. That’s quite an accomplishment. You should be proud but perhaps you should lose the hate as it affects you perception of reality. And consensus only happens when libs pretend to know the truth. Wimps like you deserve to drive gutless hybrids while those of us who are not scientifically challenged drive GT’s. The earth hasn’t warmed for a decade . Maybe that is why you folks are starting to change your tune and call it climate change.

  97. 119

    Party of the People, Not the Powerful spews:

    Fun Fact from Lance Selfa’s critical history of the Jackass Party:

    Perhaps nothing better exemplified the spirit of the Clinton-Gore [Clinton-Flynt!] years than the May 24, 2000, Democratic fundraiser held in Washington, D.C.’s MCI Center. Pulling in a record $26.5 million in one evening … the Democrats ate barbecue served on paper plates. In keeping with this fake populism, organizers encouraged all who attended to wear blue jeans.

    A summary of fat-cat contributions to the fake populist party in 2008:
    Lawyers & Lobbyists gave 74% of their contributions to donkey Democrats;
    Finance, Insurance and Real Estate donors gave 55% of their donations to Democrats;
    Communications & Electronics, 68%;
    Business, 55%;
    Defense, 52%.
    Etc.

    Democrats lagged behind Republicans in winning contributions from “small” donors — people who gave contributions of $50 or $100. By the end of the Clinton administration, the Democrats leaned more heavily on “soft” money, a small number of huge contributions given by rich individuals for “party building” activity.

    Selfa’s point about soft money was also made, back in the day, by Cockburn at The Nation. And apres soft money, Soros with his $26 million contribution in 2004 and his buying of a president in 2008.

    Unlike Cockburn, Selfa minces no words: “(C)ontributions to Democrats actually had a bigger payoff for corporations.” As proof, Selfa’s exhibit A is the Telecomm Act of 1996 in which Clinton gave away licenses, via deregulation, that were valued then at $70 billion. All for a communications sector that invested $309 million in Democrats. Excellent return on investment.

  98. 120

    correctnotright spews:

    Once again Puddy is citing lies, failing to read his own citiatioons and making a general fool of himself.

    The citations in #86 were not enough for you?

    And you were citing numbers of scientists who “approved” of the IPCC report. those numbers are BOGUS, if you actually read the quote in 85, because they only counted comment “in favor” if there was a direct comment.

    All of the scientists reviewed the material and had the chance to comment if they disagreeed. That there were so few comments that diagred with the conclusions (and some of the scientists wanted even stronger language)shows that there is consensus. The IPCC report is endorsedd by every major National Science group in the G8 + 5 countries.

    There is consensus among scientists and your few “outliers” prove squat (and are not what you quote) and the report is, if anything, conservative in their conclusions.

    Bottom line, you belong in the flat-earth science-denier camp, so keep quoted the crap the I have refuted. It shows your total ignorance and inability to recognize the r3eal facts. this reflects poorly on all of your positions and your ability to analyze data. You just parrot the right wing crap and keep trying to defend it after you are shown to be totally wrong.

  99. 121

    correctnotright spews:

    @98: And your degree in science is…..You cite one piece of data out of context and think you won a scientific argument. You really are a moron.

    Have you heard of experts who actually study this stuff? They come to a completely different conclusion because they actually know what they ar talking about.

    Again, where is your Ph.D. in atmospheric science? If you don’t have one, then STFU and listen to the experts before you make a bigger fool of yourself.

  100. 122

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    Ahhh NutRight, you are such a fool. One of the main reasons the numbers of scientists who agree with global warming are so high; they count plenty of scientists who have nothing to do with the subject.

    Remember the CO2 hockey stick argument which was pulled from the IPCC report because it was ridiculed ad nauseum? Of course not because it doesn’t fit your mantra. You must have remembered global readings of 328ppm CO2 in 1890 and 550ppm during WWII era, all that burning and war making had some of the coldest winters in Europe. Yet everyone was claiming it was global cooling in the 1970s. HAHAHAHAhahahaha

    Puddy has always argued the sun is the major reason our planet warms or cools. You know that big ball of light God provided us to separate the day from the night? Do you remember which Creation Day that was?

    You ignored this before:
    www . politicallyincorrect . me . uk /globalwarming.htm

    You ignored this before:

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1020027/ It ran in Britian. Wasn’t it pooh-poohed by your types?

    When Puddy referred to this by Chris Monckton you ignored it so here are his words.

    Dishonest Political Tampering with the Science on Global Warming

    Written By: Christopher Monckton, Denpasar, Bali
    Published In: News Releases
    Publication Date: December 5, 2007

    ——————————————————————————–

    As a contributor to the IPCC’s 2007 report, I share the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. Yet I and many of my peers in the British House of Lords – through our hereditary element the most independent-minded of lawmakers – profoundly disagree on fundamental scientific grounds with both the IPCC and my co-laureate’s alarmist movie An Inconvenient Truth, which won this year’s Oscar for Best Sci-Fi Comedy Horror.

    Two detailed investigations by Committees of the House confirm that the IPCC has deliberately, persistently and prodigiously exaggerated not only the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature but also the environmental consequences of warmer weather.

    My contribution to the 2007 report illustrates the scientific problem. The report’s first table of figures – inserted by the IPCC’s bureaucrats after the scientists had finalized the draft, and without their consent – listed four contributions to sea-level rise. The bureaucrats had multiplied the effect of melting ice from the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets by 10.

    The result of this dishonest political tampering with the science was that the sum of the four items in the offending table was more than twice the IPCC’s published total. Until I wrote to point out the error, no one had noticed. The IPCC, on receiving my letter, quietly corrected, moved and relabeled the erroneous table, posting the new version on the internet and earning me my Nobel prize.

    The shore-dwellers of Bali need not fear for their homes. The IPCC now says the combined contribution of the two great ice-sheets to sea-level rise will be less than seven centimeters after 100 years, not seven meters imminently, and that the Greenland ice sheet (which thickened by 50 cm between 1995 and 2005) might only melt after several millennia, probably by natural causes, just as it last did 850,000 years ago. Gore, mendaciously assisted by the IPCC bureaucracy, had exaggerated a hundredfold.

    Recently a High Court judge in the UK listed nine of the 35 major scientific errors in Gore’s movie, saying they must be corrected before innocent schoolchildren can be exposed to the movie. Gore’s exaggeration of sea-level rise was one.

    Others being peddled at the Bali conference are that man-made “global warming” threatens polar bears and coral reefs, caused Hurricane Katrina, shrank Lake Chad, expanded the actually-shrinking Sahara, etc.

    At the very heart of the IPCC’s calculations lurks an error more serious than any of these. The IPCC says: “The CO2 radiative forcing increased by 20 percent during the last 10 years (1995-2005).” Radiative forcing quantifies increases in radiant energy in the atmosphere, and hence in temperature. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1995 was 360 parts per million. In 2005 it was just 5percent higher, at 378 ppm. But each additional molecule of CO2 in the air causes a smaller radiant-energy increase than its predecessor. So the true increase in radiative forcing was 1 percent, not 20 percent. The IPCC has exaggerated the CO2 effect 20-fold.

    Why so large and crucial an exaggeration? Answer: the IPCC has repealed the fundamental physicalthe Stefan-Boltzmann equation – that converts radiant energy to temperature. Without this equation, no meaningful calculation of the effect of radiance on temperature can be done. Yet the 1,600 pages of the IPCC’s 2007 report do not mention it once.

    The IPCC knows of the equation, of course. But it is inconvenient. It imposes a strict (and very low) limit on how much greenhouse gases can increase temperature. At the Earth’s surface, you can add as much greenhouse gas as you like (the “surface forcing”), and the temperature will scarcely respond.

    That is why all of the IPCC’s computer models predict that 10km above Bali, in the tropical upper troposphere, temperature should be rising two or three times as fast as it does at the surface. Without that tropical upper-troposphere “hot-spot”, the Stefan-Boltzmann law ensures that surface temperature cannot change much.

    For half a century we have been measuring the temperature in the upper atmosphere – and it has been changing no faster than at the surface. The IPCC knows this, too. So it merely declares that its computer predictions are right and the real-world measurements are wrong. Next time you hear some scientifically-illiterate bureaucrat say, “The science is settled”, remember this vital failure of real-world observations to confirm the IPCC’s computer predictions. The IPCC’s entire case is built on a guess that the absent hot-spot might exist.

    Even if the Gore/IPCC exaggerations were true, which they are not, the economic cost of trying to mitigate climate change by trying to cut our emissions through carbon trading and other costly market interferences would far outweigh any possible climatic benefit.

    The international community has galloped lemming-like over the cliff twice before. Twenty years ago the UN decided not to regard AIDS as a fatal infection. Carriers of the disease were not identified and isolated. Result: 25 million deaths in poor countries.

    Thirty-five years ago the world decided to ban DDT, the only effective agent against malaria. Result: 40 million deaths in poor countries. The World Health Organization lifted the DDT ban on Sept. 15 last year. It now recommends the use of DDT to control malaria. Dr. Arata Kochi of the WHO said that politics could no longer be allowed to stand in the way of the science and the data. Amen to that.

    If we take the heroically stupid decisions now on the table at Bali, it will once again be the world’s poorest people who will die unheeded in their tens of millions, this time for lack of the heat and light and power and medical attention which we in the West have long been fortunate enough to take for granted.

    If we deny them the fossil-fuelled growth we have enjoyed, they will remain poor and, paradoxically, their populations will continue to increase, making the world’s carbon footprint very much larger in the long run.

    As they die, and as global temperature continues to fail to rise in accordance with the IPCC’s laughably-exaggerated predictions, the self-congratulatory rhetoric that is the hallmark of the now-useless, costly, corrupt UN will again be near-unanimously parroted by lazy, unthinking politicians and journalists who ought to have done their duty by the poor but are now – for the third time in three decades – failing to speak up for those who are about to die.

    My fellow-participants, there is no climate crisis. The correct policy response to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing. Take courage! Do nothing, and save the world’s poor from yet another careless, UN-driven slaughter.

  101. 123

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    NutRight, Puddy already told the world what my undergraduate degree is in. Three times to be exact.

  102. 124

    YLB spews:

    CNR – Stupes believed global warming was real but the god of Abraham was causing the warming.

    Of course only Stupes has the true interpretation of the book of Revelation.

    This wingnut is just too crazy. Nothing but a fool shouting.

    You argue with a pig and what happens? You get filthy and the pig enjoys it.

  103. 126

    Steve spews:

    @118 “Do you remember which Creation Day that was?”

    I know! I know! 9,700,000,000 years after God’s Big Bang, give or take a few hundred million.

  104. 127

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    clueless wonder farted:

    You argue with a pig and what happens? You get filthy and the pig enjoys it.

    Talking about yourself again.

    Thanks for playing and identifying your major attributes.

  105. 129

    Chris Stefan spews:

    @124
    Do you have a day job, puddy? Where do you find the time to constantly post to HA like an obsessive-compulsive with logorrhea?

  106. 130

    Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

    Back at you Chris. Do you have a day job Chris? Where do you find the time to constantly post to HA like an obsessive-compulsive with logorrhea? Look to the right there are three Chris entries.

    I usually post early in the morning, around noon and evening. At times I have a lull so I can post as I please. Then I am busy.

    Problems dunce?

  107. 131

    The Truth spews:

    @51
    Mr.Moe said:

    “Yup, and in your world you also get all the chicks and you are a multi-millionaire.”

    I would never tell anyone about my wealth or family life. However, Your childish comment about getting all the chicks is a laugh. Unlike you you spend your weekends in the bathroom, door locked reading un-healthy publications. Loser