Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Life, the Universe and Everything
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Life, the Universe and Everything Post comments about everything else here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-05-2010, 08:39 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Wingnuts 2010

A new year, a new thread to document the atrocities and call attention to the comedy.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-05-2010, 08:51 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Wingnuts 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
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 ...
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 01-05-2010 at 08:58 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-05-2010, 11:08 AM
cognitive madisonian cognitive madisonian is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 648
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-05-2010, 11:54 AM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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...
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-05-2010, 02:52 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: Wingnuts 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-05-2010, 06:45 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Wingnuts 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by popcorn_karate View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-05-2010, 11:43 PM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Wingnuts 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by popcorn_karate View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-05-2010, 11:55 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Wingnuts 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by popcorn_karate View Post
you are not stupid enough to think any of that has anything to do with climate change ...
Evidently, you guessed wrong, p_k.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-06-2010, 05:45 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: Wingnuts 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
Evidently, you guessed wrong, p_k.
i guess so. that really does surprise me.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-06-2010, 06:46 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Wingnuts 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by popcorn_karate View Post
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.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-06-2010, 10:38 PM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Wingnuts 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-07-2010, 12:54 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Wingnuts 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
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.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 01-07-2010 at 12:57 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-07-2010, 02:49 AM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default 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.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-07-2010, 02:49 AM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Wingnuts 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
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!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-07-2010, 02:23 PM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
(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 View Post
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 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-07-2010, 02:34 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Wingnuts 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
... 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?
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-07-2010, 02:42 PM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Wingnuts 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
....

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.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-07-2010, 02:47 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Wingnuts 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
[...]
Turns out da Nile is not just a river in Egypt, I see.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-07-2010, 12:51 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: Wingnuts 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-07-2010, 01:29 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Wingnuts 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by popcorn_karate View Post
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.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-07-2010, 01:38 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Wingnuts 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
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.)
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-07-2010, 08:55 PM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Wingnuts 2010

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

Note headline.

Accuweather.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-07-2010, 11:23 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default 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 View Post
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-08-2010, 12:40 AM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Wingnuts 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
Shorter this thread so far:
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-08-2010, 12:12 AM
Starwatcher162536 Starwatcher162536 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,658
Default 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
__________________
Six Phases of a Project: (1)Enthusiasm (2)Disillusionment (3)Panic (4)Search for the Guilty (5)Punishment of the Innocent (6)Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants

Last edited by Starwatcher162536; 01-08-2010 at 12:17 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-08-2010, 12:36 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: To any who are interested (AGW related)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 View Post
[...]
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.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 01-08-2010 at 12:40 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-08-2010, 12:43 AM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: To any who are interested (AGW related)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-08-2010, 01:07 AM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: To any who are interested (AGW related)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
Great post. You should use that whenever and wherever wingnuts deploy their global cooling idiocy.

Fur loves to get them running in circles. Too funny. Night kids.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-08-2010, 01:26 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: To any who are interested (AGW related)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
Fur loves to get them running in circles. Too funny. Night kids.
Line 5.

Also gotta love the delusions of grandeur indicated by speaking about oneself in the third person.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-08-2010, 02:15 AM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: To any who are interested (AGW related)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
Also gotta love the delusions of grandeur indicated by speaking about oneself in the third person.
It's all part of his plan.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 01-08-2010, 02:20 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: To any who are interested (AGW related)

Quote:
Originally Posted by graz View Post
LOL! I had forgotten all about that guy. Man, that seems like so long ago.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-08-2010, 02:26 AM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: To any who are interested (AGW related)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
LOL! I had forgotten all about that guy. Man, that seems like so long ago.
LOL. I saw a comedian back at the time doing Bob Dole at the diner, ordering breakfast:

"Bob Dole would like two eggs, over easy. Bob Dole would like wheat toast, an two strips of bacon." Etc.

Funny stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-08-2010, 08:47 AM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: To any who are interested (AGW related)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
LOL. I saw a comedian back at the time doing Bob Dole at the diner, ordering breakfast:

"Bob Dole would like two eggs, over easy. Bob Dole would like wheat toast, an two strips of bacon." Etc.

Funny stuff.
Oh yeah...fucking hilarious...in any case...

Fur IS packing more wood that the Yosemite National Forest.

Glad you took a moment to stop running in circles...and started walking.

Off to run the factory.

Oh and btw it is warmer this morning 0.1F although expections are for -20F tonight. Brrrrrr
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-08-2010, 12:01 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: To any who are interested (AGW related)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
Oh yeah...fucking hilarious...in any case...

Fur IS packing more wood that the Yosemite National Forest.
As with the backfire produced by your haste to declare "victory" in every exchange, this constant trumpeting of your supposed manliness cannot help but make the rest of us think you have some very deep worries about yourself. I've suggested you seek help before, and I'll suggest it again. You sound like a basket case of insecurities.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-12-2010, 11:10 PM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: To any who are interested (AGW related)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
As with the backfire produced by your haste to declare "victory" in every exchange, this constant trumpeting of your supposed manliness cannot help but make the rest of us think you have some very deep worries about yourself. I've suggested you seek help before, and I'll suggest it again. You sound like a basket case of insecurities.
Not sure of the victory you see being declared or any trumpetting of manliness unless the truth is my trumpet... but I do find it funny...the picture one gets of another. I see you as someone whose ass is wider than his shoulders and still lives under his mother's apron. Wonder whose picture is closer.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-13-2010, 12:03 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: To any who are interested (AGW related)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
Not sure of the victory you see being declared or any trumpetting of manliness ...
Of course you don't. As I've pointed out before, you're a case study in denial and lack of self-awareness.

Save it for someone who cares, 'furry.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-07-2010, 09:36 PM
kezboard kezboard is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Great Moravia
Posts: 1,117
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-07-2010, 10:20 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: This Week in Tiger Woods

Quote:
Originally Posted by kezboard View Post
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.

Last edited by TwinSwords; 01-07-2010 at 10:37 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-07-2010, 11:14 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: This Week in Tiger Woods

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
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?
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-07-2010, 11:13 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: This Week in Tiger Woods

Quote:
Originally Posted by kezboard View Post
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.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:28 AM.


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