Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Life, the Universe and Everything (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   Wingnuts 2010 (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=4723)

bjkeefe 01-05-2010 08:39 AM

Wingnuts 2010
 
A new year, a new thread to document the atrocities and call attention to the comedy.

bjkeefe 01-05-2010 08:51 AM

Re: Wingnuts 2010
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 145105)
A new year, a new thread to document the atrocities and call attention to the comedy.

And what better way to start off than by noticing the latest honor bestowed upon Chuckles Krauthammer?

Entry #5 from Foreign Policy's listicle, "The 10 Worst Predictions for 2009."

Quote:

Quote:

Chris Wallace: "Best guess: Will the president end up giving McChrystal the troops he wants, or will he change the war strategy?"

Charles Krauthammer: "I think he doesn't and McChrystal resigns."


Fox News Sunday, Sept. 27, 2009
On Dec. 1, Obama announced the deployment of 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. If you count the 7,000 troops promised by NATO, the new levels are close to the 40,000 requested by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Kabul. After the announcement, the general issued a statement saying that Obama had "provided me with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our task." Undeterred, Krauthammer -- who has made FP's worst predictions list for the second straight year -- blasted Obama in a Washington Post op-ed for ignoring McChrystal's advice.
[Added] In the No Surprise There Department, Creepy Mustache Boy also made the list:

Quote:

An Israeli airstrike on Iran always seems to be just around the corner for former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, no matter what the circumstances ...

cognitive madisonian 01-05-2010 11:08 AM

Re: Wingnuts 2010
 
Considering it was widely reported that McChrystal was considering resigning, and that Joe Biden and others were pressuring Obama to not give troops (not to mention the fact that Obama waffled for months upon months on the issue), this was a very logical prediction.

Anyway, Andrew Sullivan warrants significant mentioning in this thread for, amongst other things, his Trig Trutherism.

Whatfur 01-05-2010 11:54 AM

Re: Wingnuts 2010
 
King of the Wings: Al Gore

Today's weather headlines:

Winter Could Be Worst in 25 Years for USA...
CHILL MAP...
3 Deaths Due To Cold in Memphis...
PAPER: GAS SUPPLIES RUNNING OUT IN UK...
Elderly burn books for warmth?
Vermont sets 'all-time record for one snowstorm'...
Iowa temps 'a solid 30 degrees below normal'...
Seoul buried in heaviest snowfall in 70 years...
Historic ice build-up shuts down NJ nuclear power plant...
Midwest Sees Near-Record Lows, Snow By The Foot...
Miami shivers from coldest weather in decade...

popcorn_karate 01-05-2010 02:52 PM

Re: Wingnuts 2010
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 145120)
King of the Wings: Al Gore

Today's weather headlines:

Winter Could Be Worst in 25 Years for USA...
CHILL MAP...
3 Deaths Due To Cold in Memphis...
PAPER: GAS SUPPLIES RUNNING OUT IN UK...
Elderly burn books for warmth?
Vermont sets 'all-time record for one snowstorm'...
Iowa temps 'a solid 30 degrees below normal'...
Seoul buried in heaviest snowfall in 70 years...
Historic ice build-up shuts down NJ nuclear power plant...
Midwest Sees Near-Record Lows, Snow By The Foot...
Miami shivers from coldest weather in decade...

you are not stupid enough to think any of that has anything to do with climate change, so what is your point?

TwinSwords 01-05-2010 06:45 PM

Re: Wingnuts 2010
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by popcorn_karate (Post 145155)
you are not stupid enough to think any of that has anything to do with climate change, so what is your point?

LOL, are you really sure of that? I'm guessing he hasn't a clue. If it's good enough for Drudge, it's good enough for Wonder Wingnut.

Whatfur 01-05-2010 11:43 PM

Re: Wingnuts 2010
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by popcorn_karate (Post 145155)
you are not stupid enough to think any of that has anything to do with climate change, so what is your point?

The point is that I find it hilarious the Gore seems to be getting his just rewards for his bullshit, climate-change, wingnuttery. Yes, in small doses it means little but pointing to the facts of a 25 year low, a 30 degree below, and a 70 year snow is actually more tangible than anything in Gore's, Chicken Little, show.

bjkeefe 01-05-2010 11:55 PM

Re: Wingnuts 2010
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by popcorn_karate (Post 145155)
you are not stupid enough to think any of that has anything to do with climate change ...

Evidently, you guessed wrong, p_k.

popcorn_karate 01-06-2010 05:45 PM

Re: Wingnuts 2010
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 145266)
Evidently, you guessed wrong, p_k.

i guess so. that really does surprise me.

bjkeefe 01-06-2010 06:46 PM

Re: Wingnuts 2010
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by popcorn_karate (Post 145351)
i guess so. that really does surprise me.

In fairness, it could be that he actually does know better, but chooses to resort to this dumbness because it works with the truly dumb, out of a concern about the steps that might be taken to address the real problems. I wouldn't bet a whole pile of money on that, but it is conceivable.

Whatfur 01-06-2010 10:38 PM

Re: Wingnuts 2010
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 145359)
In fairness, it could be that he actually does know better, but chooses to resort to this dumbness because it works with the truly dumb, out of a concern about the steps that might be taken to address the real problems. I wouldn't bet a whole pile of money on that, but it is conceivable.

Actually resorting to the same dumbness that I have endured from the likes of you the last decade as El Nino created a series of mild winters.

Gore IS the king of the wingnuts. A pompous ass hypocrite who isn't a scientist but decided to play one in a movie. So P_K when Gore was given the Nobel prize for pretty much a bogus piece of propaganda did you come out saying that you could not believe they could be that stupid?? Do you not find it a wee bit funny that everywhere his jet puts down there seems to follow a snowstorm? Who gets more respect from you the Jehovah Witnesses who tell you that the world is going to end so you better run down to Kingdom Hall and get you ticket punched so as you are one of the what...144,000 they say are going to heaven or Gore who also wants to punch your ticket after he sells it to you?

bjkeefe 01-07-2010 12:54 AM

Re: Wingnuts 2010
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 145392)
Actually resorting to the same dumbness that I have endured from the likes of you the last decade as El Nino created a series of mild winters.

I will grant that some people have been guilty of the same sort of nonsense from the other side -- pointing to individual weather moments to "prove" the reality of AGW -- but please do not say "the likes of me." I have never done such a thing, except possibly in a heavily sarcastic rejoinder. And I am sure that every time you ever did hear such a claim being made, you flipped out at how it meant nothing.

Quote:

Gore IS the king of the wingnuts.
Save that weak-ass Rovian tactic for someone born yesterday and the clowns who get their information from RedState and Malkin. Use moonbat to belittle Gore if you must, but wingnut means something specific, he is most definitely not one, and your attempt to defuse a label you hate because you know it's both true and effective is comical at best.

Quote:

A pompous ass hypocrite who isn't a scientist but decided to play one in a movie.
Nope. He is a much better then average informed layperson who put together a briefing for the purpose of raising consciousness. When he saw how well it was working, he decided to make it into a movie.

Quote:

So P_K when Gore was given the Nobel prize for pretty much a bogus piece of propaganda did you come out saying that you could not believe they could be that stupid??
(Pardon me, P_K, but I'll take the liberty of addressing this, even though it was directed at you.)

Based on what I've read about it (never have seen it) I'll grant it was a polemic, leaned towards worst-case scenarios, had some minor errors, and may have presented some model-projections with unwarranted certainty. But it was not "a bogus piece of propaganda."

And howl how you will about the LIBERAL BIAS OF THE NOBEL COMMITTEE!!!1!, but they are not so stupid as to attach their name to something that meets your description.

Quote:

Do you not find it a wee bit funny that everywhere his jet puts down there seems to follow a snowstorm? Who gets more respect from you the Jehovah Witnesses who tell you that the world is going to end so you better run down to Kingdom Hall and get you ticket punched so as you are one of the what...144,000 they say are going to heaven or Gore who also wants to punch your ticket after he sells it to you?
This illustrates why I demand that we reserve the term wingnut for its current meaning.

Wonderment 01-07-2010 02:49 AM

Re: Wingnuts 2010
 
It was warm here today. High of 74 degrees F. I had the air conditioner on in the car.

Therefore, global warming is much worse than we thought.

TwinSwords 01-07-2010 02:49 AM

Re: Wingnuts 2010
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 145421)
It was warm here today. High of 74 degrees F. I had the air conditioner on in the car.

Therefore, global warming is much worse than we thought.

Indisputable!!!1!

popcorn_karate 01-07-2010 12:51 PM

Re: Wingnuts 2010
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 145392)
Gore IS the king of the wingnuts. A pompous ass hypocrite who isn't a scientist but decided to play one in a movie. So P_K when Gore was given the Nobel prize for pretty much a bogus piece of propaganda did you come out saying that you could not believe they could be that stupid??

i got convinced about the reality of climate change, and somewhat worried about in 1994/5 while taking climatology classes - back when the evidence was just becoming indisputable.

I've never seen Al Gore's movie, it may well be nearly as stupid as you say, and it certainly does seem to be a bit alarmist from what i've heard about it. but considering there had been a scientific consensus on the question for many years with no action or public debate - i can forgive his alarmist calls for action as a necessary corrective to the Bush policy of suppression of science combined with the fossil fuel industry's disinformation campaign.

bottom line: who cares about al gore? he is not the issue. climate change is.

bjkeefe 01-07-2010 01:29 PM

Re: Wingnuts 2010
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by popcorn_karate (Post 145470)
i got convinced about the reality of climate change, and somewhat worried about in 1994/5 while taking climatology classes - back when the evidence was just becoming indisputable.

I've never seen Al Gore's movie, it may well be nearly as stupid as you say, and it certainly does seem to be a bit alarmist from what i've heard about it. but considering there had been a scientific consensus on the question for many years with no action or public debate - i can forgive his alarmist calls for action as a necessary corrective to the Bush policy of suppression of science combined with the fossil fuel industry's disinformation campaign.

bottom line: who cares about al gore? he is not the issue. climate change is.

Good points, and I should have remembered to say the bottom line, too. Wingnuts and other denialists would like it to be all about Gore, and I fell for 'fur's trap momentarily.

AemJeff 01-07-2010 01:38 PM

Re: Wingnuts 2010
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 145474)
Good points, and I should have remembered to say the bottom line, too. Wingnuts and other denialists would like it to be all about Gore, and I fell for 'fur's trap momentarily.

In fact, for some of them at least, I think Gore is the proximate cause for why they hold any opinion at all on this matter. It's as if some people fall into the denial camp specifically because they don't like Al Gore. If you look at how weak so many of them are on the scientific issues, and how wrapped up (and emotionally involved) they get in the semiotics, it's easy to believe that that's all that's really going on here for a lot of people. The bullshit and distortions generated by the anti-AGW think-tank cohort just give many of these folks a place to hang their hats (and provide a source for some of the incredibly dumb articles to which they link, instead of engaging in any logical arguments of their own.)

Whatfur 01-07-2010 02:23 PM

Re: Wingnuts 2010
 
Ha ha, why yes you did fall for the trap...didn't you. Although with alGore being the bait I certainly expected you to come sniffing around... seeing as you have had a hard-on for the guy for as long as I have known you. But lets address your (cough cough) rebuttal shall we...
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 145408)
I will grant that some people have been guilty of the same sort of nonsense from the other side -- pointing to individual weather moments to "prove" the reality of AGW -- but please do not say "the likes of me." I have never done such a thing, except possibly in a heavily sarcastic rejoinder.

Thank you for this admittance, thus validating my pointing out the hypocrisy. Also thank you for pointing out your own elitist attitude validating that you feel it quite all right for you to be "heavily sarcastic" but when I do...I deserve the firestorm of insults.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 145408)
And I am sure that every time you ever did hear such a claim being made, you flipped out at how it meant nothing.

Again your elitism is showing...I am taken to task for the audacity of alluding you might be in a group of which you admit to being in periodically in a joking kind of way...but I am suppose to sit back at let you portray my responses as you do here? Of course the 13 odd responses from you and your buddies that my original post generated is certainly NOT an example of you and yours flipping out. Too funny.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 145408)
Save that weak-ass Rovian tactic for someone born yesterday and the clowns who get their information from RedState and Malkin. Use moonbat to belittle Gore if you must, but wingnut means something specific, he is most definitely not one, and your attempt to defuse a label you hate because you know it's both true and effective is comical at best.

I apologize I always looked at the term wingnut as someone easily "unscrewed" and find Gore to be a prime example. But sure, moonbat works...I will try to adhere to the world according to Keefe at all times in the future.
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 145408)
Nope. He is a much better then average informed layperson who put together a briefing for the purpose of raising consciousness. When he saw how well it was working, he decided to make it into a movie.

IMHO, Gore saw two things, his legacy going down in flames as an invisible VP, and a horrible candidate known more for whining and stiffness over everything else and he thought he found a way to stay in the public eye (there are parallels with Clinton in this) and he saw a money making opportunity. Oh and have you heard him answer questions ad lib about climate change? He is a box of rocks.

Now let me get to the really funny part....(p.s. P_K thanks you for being his mommy once again)

Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 145408)
(Pardon me, P_K, but I'll take the liberty of addressing this, even though it was directed at you.)

Based on what I've read about it (never have seen it) I'll grant it was a polemic, leaned towards worst-case scenarios, had some minor errors, and may have presented some model-projections with unwarranted certainty.
But it was not "a bogus piece of propaganda."

LMFAO! I really don't need to respond to this as you do a great job of validating everything I alluded. I would take issue with your use of the word "minor" but the rest is classic Keefe stepping in his own shit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 145408)
And howl how you will about the LIBERAL BIAS OF THE NOBEL COMMITTEE!!!1!, but they are not so stupid as to attach their name to something that meets your description.

Did I say anything about the "LIBERAL BIAS OF THE NOBEL COMMITTEE"? No I didn't. I did suggest a level of stupidity and if you want to equate that with liberals...well...no argument here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 145408)
This illustrates why I demand that we reserve the term wingnut for its current meaning.

While more distinctly illustrating the term moonbat. Thank you.

p.s. for Wonderment---Is that all you got?

p.s. for Jeff--Ummm...you're right, Gore is yesterdays news but your objections seem to ignore the basis of this thread and simply seems to be a way to include yourself in the Fur pile-on. Nicely done.

bjkeefe 01-07-2010 02:34 PM

Re: Wingnuts 2010
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 145483)
Also thank you for pointing out your own elitist attitude validating that you feel it quite all right for you to be "heavily sarcastic" but when I do...I deserve the firestorm of insults.

Looks like 'fur is backpedaling away from his earlier insistence that he was serious about what his factoids "proved" about AGW, and now that he has been thoroughly rebutted and mocked, is planting seeds to support future claims that he was "just kidding."

I'll take this as a surrender, albeit typically ungracious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 145483)
I apologize I always looked at the term wingnut as someone easily "unscrewed" and find Gore to be a prime example. But sure, moonbat works...I will try to adhere to the world according to Keefe at all times in the future.

Apology accepted, and thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 145483)
... the rest is classic Keefe stepping in his own shit.

Tell me, 'fur: When your father punished you for tracking something into the house, did he also call you a "little girl" for crying after being spanked?

Whatfur 01-07-2010 02:42 PM

Re: Wingnuts 2010
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 145488)
....

Tell me, 'fur: When your father punished you for tracking something into the house, did he also call you a "little girl" for crying after being spanked?

Ha ha ha! You hate it when you get so thoroughly owned, don't you? You might want to give up on the "C" and go for "C++". You know, less pointing more class.

bjkeefe 01-07-2010 02:47 PM

Re: Wingnuts 2010
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 145491)
[...]

Turns out da Nile is not just a river in Egypt, I see.

Whatfur 01-07-2010 08:55 PM

Re: Wingnuts 2010
 
I would put this on my climategate thread but I figured Jeff needed a little pick me up.

Note headline. ;)

Accuweather.

kezboard 01-07-2010 09:36 PM

This Week in Tiger Woods
 
This thread is as good as any to bring up Brit Hume's attempted evangelization of Tiger Woods. I really don't have any comments on it aside from that it's very funny, both because Brit said that the reason he liked Tiger so much in the first place was because of his 'character', not his golfing, apparently, and also because later he said on O'Reilly's show that what he was attempting to do was not proselytizing. Hmm.

TwinSwords 01-07-2010 10:20 PM

Re: This Week in Tiger Woods
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by kezboard (Post 145546)
This thread is as good as any to bring up Brit Hume's attempted evangelization of Tiger Woods. I really don't have any comments on it aside from that it's very funny, both because Brit said that the reason he liked Tiger so much in the first place was because of his 'character', not his golfing, apparently, and also because later he said on O'Reilly's show that what he was attempting to do was not proselytizing. Hmm.

I suspect that Hume may have made his proelytizing remarks in an effort to draw fire from the left, knowing that it would help to prove the longstanding wingnut argument that liberals hate the Baby Jeebus. I imagine a lot of "normal Americans" sitting in front of their teevees in Ohio can't imagine anything wrong with Hume's remarks, and will feel further alienated by "radical leftists" who criticize what Hume said.

Wonderment 01-07-2010 10:21 PM

Going out on a limb here....
 
I am betting that no one in 2010 will improve on Glenn Beck's "Obama has a deep-seated hatred for white people."

That one comment immortalized Beck as a Babe Ruth-level Wing Nut Hall of Famer and simply set the bar too high for other competitors.

TwinSwords 01-07-2010 10:35 PM

Re: Going out on a limb here....
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 145548)
I am betting that no one in 2010 will improve on Glenn Beck's "Obama has a deep-seated hatred for white people."

That one comment immortalized Beck as a Babe Ruth-level Wing Nut Hall of Famer and simply set the bar too high for other competitors.

We've got an election coming up. I can assure you they're going to go waaaay beyond anything we saw in 2009. There's a base of Republicans out there who think Obama should not just be defeated politically, but arrested as a criminal and an enemy of the state; that's how deranged they are. They don't just object to his policies; they think he has usurped our Constitutional Republic. Just as they could not help but regard Clinton as a criminal to be impeached for the crime of being a Democrat, they will treat Obama as a mortal threat to the nation and our liberty until he retires, or is driven from public life at the ballot box.

AemJeff 01-07-2010 10:44 PM

Re: Going out on a limb here....
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 145554)
We've got an election coming up. I can assure you they're going to go waaaay beyond anything we saw in 2009. There's a base of Republicans out there who think Obama should not just be defeated politically, but arrested as a criminal and an enemy of the state; that's how deranged they are. They don't just object to his policies; they think he has usurped our Constitutional Republic. Just as they could not help but regard Clinton as a criminal to be impeached for the crime of being a Democrat, they will treat Obama as a mortal threat to the nation and our liberty until he retires, or is driven from public life at the ballot box.

You're obviously right: they'll definitely achieve new milestones in idiot obnoxiousness, and in what a friend of mine would call "general assholery;" but, I think Wonderment's point is on style points - and by that standard, I think he's right. Glenn Beck is the new gold standard in creative in-yer-face wingnuttery, and he's set a bar that's going to be hard to meet.

bjkeefe 01-07-2010 11:07 PM

Re: Going out on a limb here....
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 145556)
You're obviously right: they'll definitely achieve new milestones in idiot obnoxiousness, and in what a friend of mine would call "general assholery;" but, I think Wonderment's point is on style points - and by that standard, I think he's right. Glenn Beck is the new gold standard in creative in-yer-face wingnuttery, and he's set a bar that's going to be hard to meet.

In these regards, I would not like to bet against Michele Bachmann.

bjkeefe 01-07-2010 11:13 PM

Re: This Week in Tiger Woods
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by kezboard (Post 145546)
This thread is as good as any to bring up Brit Hume's attempted evangelization of Tiger Woods. I really don't have any comments on it aside from that it's very funny, both because Brit said that the reason he liked Tiger so much in the first place was because of his 'character', not his golfing, apparently, and also because later he said on O'Reilly's show that what he was attempting to do was not proselytizing. Hmm.

I didn't hear about him following up on this. Looks like Jamison Foser might have lost his bet! Too bad, it was a good line.

bjkeefe 01-07-2010 11:14 PM

Re: This Week in Tiger Woods
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 145547)
I suspect that Hume may have made his proelytizing remarks in an effort to draw fire from the left, knowing that it would help to prove the longstanding wingnut argument that liberals hate the Baby Jeebus. I imagine a lot of "normal Americans" sitting in front of their teevees in Ohio can't imagine anything wrong with Hume's remarks, and will feel further alienated by "radical leftists" who criticize what Hume said.

Buddhists are the new Kenyans?

bjkeefe 01-07-2010 11:23 PM

Re: Wingnuts 2010
 
Shorter this thread so far:

Quote:

'fur: LOOK AT THIS AMAZING WEATHER FACTOID!!!1! CASE CLOSED!!!1!

us: You do understand that weather and climate are not the same thing, right?

'fur: THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME WHEN THEY SUPPORT MY CLAIMS!!!1!

us: Sure about that? You're really serious in saying that weather and climate are the same thing?

'fur: I WAS ONLY KIDDING!!!1! YOU HAVE SHIT ON YOUR SHOES!!!1! NOW CLICK THIS LINK!!!1!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 145543)



cognitive madisonian 01-07-2010 11:34 PM

Re: Going out on a limb here....
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 145554)
We've got an election coming up. I can assure you they're going to go waaaay beyond anything we saw in 2009. There's a base of Republicans out there who think Obama should not just be defeated politically, but arrested as a criminal and an enemy of the state;

Yeah there was noooooooooooooone of that going on when Bush was president :o

Starwatcher162536 01-08-2010 12:12 AM

To any who are interested (AGW related)
 
First, regarding the claim made that Global Cooling was the battlecry for the people who now have AGW as their battlecry.

As you can see here, there was some cooling from around 1940ish to 1970ish. This lead some to start to question if a ice age could be imminent, which then lead to the Bryson and Dittberner (1976) paper, which in short, claimed that particulate matter released from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels would decrease insolation to such an extent that not only would it mitigate any warming from CO2, but it would also cool the Earth. (This is popularly known as Global Dimming)

It was later shown that the paper was critically flawed, as it did not account for CO2's residency time in the atmosphere being much longer then the aerosols residency time (CO2 will build up in the atmosphere much more then the aerosols will). Source (Page 6)

Throughout the 1970's, around 10% of papers were pro-cooling, with another 10% making not siding with AGC or AGW (See attached PDF), yet for whatever reason, Times and Newsweek ran with Global Cooling. I personally think it was because it is easier to sensationalize AGC then AGW.

Secondly,come on, be serious, he is comparing a week and a half from one solar minimum,nina,etc year with a week and a half from another solar minimum, nina,etc, year. How very shocking similar inputs will produce similar outputs! Shocking I say!

Third, I can't makeout what charts he is showing us. For all I know, the different charts he is showing us are using anomalies calculated from different baselines. Considering him having to put in the global cooling consensus in the 70's canard, I see no reason to trust him.

I am thoroughly unimpressed.

Edit:
It won't let me attach the PDF, to large. It might be possible to google it.

Title: The myth of 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
Author: Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley

bjkeefe 01-08-2010 12:36 AM

Re: To any who are interested (AGW related)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 (Post 145580)
[...]

Good reply, and better than what was deserved.

Quote:

Edit:
It won't let me attach the PDF, to large. It might be possible to google it.

Title: The myth of 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
Author: Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley
Here are some links as a small token of my appreciation: Abstract, full PDF.

[Added] Alt. PDF link.

TwinSwords 01-08-2010 12:40 AM

Re: Wingnuts 2010
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 145564)
Shorter this thread so far:

http://www.spartantailgate.com/forum...milies/lol.gif http://www.spartantailgate.com/forum...milies/lol.gif http://www.spartantailgate.com/forum...milies/lol.gif http://www.spartantailgate.com/forum...milies/lol.gif

TwinSwords 01-08-2010 12:43 AM

Re: To any who are interested (AGW related)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 (Post 145580)
First, regarding the claim made that Global Cooling was the battlecry for the people who now have AGW as their battlecry.

As you can see here, there was some cooling from around 1940ish to 1970ish. This lead some to start to question if a ice age could be imminent, which then lead to the Bryson and Dittberner (1976) paper, which in short, claimed that particulate matter released from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels would decrease insolation to such an extent that not only would it mitigate any warming from CO2, but it would also cool the Earth. (This is popularly known as Global Dimming)

It was later shown that the paper was critically flawed, as it did not account for CO2's residency time in the atmosphere being much longer then the aerosols residency time (CO2 will build up in the atmosphere much more then the aerosols will). Source (Page 6)

Throughout the 1970's, around 10% of papers were pro-cooling, with another 10% making not siding with AGC or AGW (See attached PDF), yet for whatever reason, Times and Newsweek ran with Global Cooling. I personally think it was because it is easier to sensationalize AGC then AGW.

Secondly,come on, be serious, he is comparing a week and a half from one solar minimum,nina,etc year with a week and a half from another solar minimum, nina,etc, year. How very shocking similar inputs will produce similar outputs! Shocking I say!

Third, I can't makeout what charts he is showing us. For all I know, the different charts he is showing us are using anomalies calculated from different baselines. Considering him having to put in the global cooling consensus in the 70's canard, I see no reason to trust him.

I am thoroughly unimpressed.

Edit:
It won't let me attach the PDF, to large. It might be possible to google it.

Title: The myth of 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
Author: Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley

Great post. You should use that whenever and wherever wingnuts deploy their global cooling idiocy.

TwinSwords 01-08-2010 12:51 AM

Re: Going out on a limb here....
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 145557)
In these regards, I would not like to bet against Michele Bachmann.

Yeah, just look at what McCain said today: Obama is on a mission to bankrupt the US. He says it like it's a deliberate plot, a charge that is actually believed by a considerable portion of the wingnut electorate.

The fact that even McCain is now resorting to this rhetoric is just a sign of where we're heading in the next several months. I can only hope that it creates a backlash. Pray there are enough sane Americans appropriately terrified of what an America governed by teabaggers would be like to avoid giving electoral rewards to Republicans at a time when they are descending ever deeper into madness and extremism.

Wonderment 01-08-2010 12:51 AM

Re: Going out on a limb here....
 
Quote:

Yeah there was noooooooooooooone of that going on when Bush was president
Apples and oranges. The difference being that there were solid legal grounds for impeaching President Bush and prosecuting his cronies: torture, illegal wiretaps, go-to-war lies.

Politically, prosecution was a non-starter, but legally there was a shitload of evidence, and a bad precedent was set by not holding the perps responsible.

Ironically, the best justification for impeaching (or not re-electing) Obama is his failure to prosecute the Bushies. That could be construed as obstruction of justice. It's an ugly cover-up in my estimation.

In any case, it's truly a national disgrace when you compare craven Dems. letting Bush skate for war crimes and torture ("Impeachment is off the table") to the rabid lynch mob of Republican Congress members unleashed on Clinton for lying about the blow job(s).

TwinSwords 01-08-2010 01:01 AM

Re: Going out on a limb here....
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 145557)
In these regards, I would not like to bet against Michele Bachmann.

Bachmann: "This cannot pass. What we have to do today is make a covenant to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass; we will do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn't pass."

She added, health care reform has the capacity to "destroy this country forever" because reform proposals are "nothing more than slavery."

Bachman concluded "something is way crazy out there."

She knows her base!

John M 01-08-2010 01:07 AM

Re: Going out on a limb here....
 
Quote:

Yeah, just look at what McCain said today: Obama is on a mission to bankrupt the US. He says it like it's a deliberate plot, a charge that is actually believed by a considerable portion of the wingnut electorate.
Obama is on a mission to bankrupt the US. It is a deliberate plot, and he is (maybe) a native-born Indonesian commie.

I know I said he was American before and (prolly) not a socialist, but that was then and this is now. We're all Georgians now. I'm canceling the debate and heading straight to Warshington.

Laugh now, Twin Swords. You won't be laughing when President Palin makes me her SecDef and we ba-ba-bomb Iran. And I'll be on the Supreme Court by the time I'm 95! Just in time to validate Bristol Palin's electoral college victory over Obama's little pickaninny. The future is ours!


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.