Climate Sanity

Liberaljacka$$ Joe Joe Klein continues his slide to KOS journalism. His one sided unbalanced posts ranting against Republicans has gotten laughable. You are a Joke and belong on MSNBC

News from Copenhagen:

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/the-rest-is-silence/

The only “delusion” one gets from this post from Joe Klein is his own statement that:
.

“But the essential truth about climate change remains the same, as this report shows. The world is getting warmer.”

.
Just as Joe claims “the world is getting warmer, and in the WaPo article, it only states that “so and so, said so”. No data to back it up. But, I will here.
.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/more-on-the-climate-files-and-climate-trends/
.
Well Joe, I happen to like facts. Data that shows the alleged “warming trend” for the past few decades. However, when you do look at the data, it simply does not indicate what you and the others claim.
.
In fact over the past 150 years, since records have been kept, the temperature has only risen by 1 degree Farenheight, or .5 degree Celcius. However in the last two decades, a cooling trend has been occuring. A cooling trend, Joe. Not further warming. Current temperatures have gone back down, and the chart in the article from the NYT shows only a 0.1 degree Celcius of warming.
.
This is what has everyone so up in the air as to what may or may not be the cause for the shifting of temperatures.
.
I personally believe as most sane and rational individuals do that the planet has been “warming and cooling” all the time. That patterns of warming and cooling can be seen throughout earth’s billion year history.
.
I will say that leaving the planet to our children and grand-children in as pristine condition as possible is the best choice. But the alarmists are those on the left, who are simply using this as an issue to further their progressvive agenda. Nothing more, nothing less.
.
If the current decline in temperatures indicates anything, it is you will be able to once again throw snowballs at the other loonies on the left in San Diego and Houston. Oh that’s right, Houston just had their first major snow storm, the earliest on record.
.
Go to Houston Joe and throw some snowballs. You’ll feel better for doing it.

It’s like the right-wing in this country have taken a collective leave of their senses…There’s so much work that needs to be done, and here we have ‘conservatives’ huffing and stamping their feet like spoiled children.

Hey, the Rapture’s coming and they won’t be here anyway. So what if the sinners cook? They need to get used to the heat when Satan grabs them by their liberal ankles and drags them down into hell.

I’m not comfortable betting my descendants’ future on the possibility a small minority of the “experts” are right, just so we can take the easy route – and concurrently further enrich the carbon pollution industry.

I’d rather make a prudent investment now than pay for a crash program to stave off cataclysm later if/when those with a vested interest in inaction are proven wrong.

Rusty, here is a bit of real science for you:
http://chartsgraphs.wordpress.com/
.
It has a ton of links to other papers, work and data by other scientists for you to peruse – and you should.
.
The “cooling trend” you not doesn’t really exist, what is happening is that equatorial temperatures are holding steady, but polar temperatures are rising rapidly.
.
Latitudinal differentials in in temperature rises are tracked in many, many ice cores showing the relationship between latitude and temperature rise over the last 19 ice age cycles dating back some 3 to 4 million years.
.
In addition, the the Paleocene Climate Maximum, while considerably warmer than our present climate (+8C worldwide), shows the same thing. Only slightly warmer low latitude temperatures but polar climates similar to what is seen now in the Mediterranean.
.
I would avoid disinformation in the future, Rusty.

big issues, neat presentations!

http://www.jingleyanqiu.wordpress.com

Happy Tuesday!

Oh, and one more thing to remember, Rusty:
.
There is a phrase that all climatologists adhere to early in their careers:
.
Weather is not climate!

Hey, rusty, let’s recall that last Thursday, you posted the nonsense about the guy on the Air Tran flight who claimed to have taken down a terrorist Muslim gang on a flight from Atlanta.
.
Yep, you bought that crap, hook, line and sinker, from the noted wacked-out. rightwing conspiracy theorist, Debbie Schlussel. And you were insisting that the reason the Time reporters weren’t covering it was because of either liberal bias or an effort by the Obama administration to suppress the truth.
.
Turns out your hero made the whole thing up and now he’;s saying that the email he sent to friends and family was never meant to be made public. In fact, he had missed his connection and wasn’t even on the flight he claimed he was on.
.
You got suckered (again) by yet another loony rightwinger. You want to believe the most inane garbage because it fits with your warped world view.
.
Hilarious stuff. You’re the same way on climate change. Facts be damned. You know better because you read it on some loony rightwing conspiracy site.

JK:

As an aside, can you ask the High Sheriffs to do something about the proliferation of blogwhoring in Swampland comments?

What’s “blogwhoring”?

Apparently ‘delusional nonsense’ is a call to action.

Mr. Klein, I haven’t read much on the hacking of the East Anglia accounts. My first thought was to wonder who paid for the hacking. Who released the information?

David Kernell was properly put on trial for hacking into Sarah Palin’s email. Will the same happen to the East Anglia hackers?

Flown:
.
I agree with measures to conserve, recycle and doing anything, within reason, that will help to restore our planet to being a better place than how we have found it.
.
However, I also do not believe that global warming or climate change theories are all fact as well. If you read the article I cited, and Joe neglected to do or provide, it clearly is questionable. And, rightly so. To simply call someone “delusional” for their opinion is not only a crass liberal tactic, but business as usual from the left. I am frankly sick and tired of it. I like the vast majority of Americans are truly tired of all the crazed left’s efforts to make this into something more than what it is, completely and utterly false. The emails provided by a whistle-blower is all the evidence needed. The so-called scientists admit that they cooked it all up. Period. They used made up data to project in computer models. Who is delusional now?
.
As far as your ice core theory is concern IQ53, that has also been debunked a long time as well. The so called “warming of the polar ice caps” was debunked when it was found that the size of the caps have not changed. It was a “glitch” in the satellite that was taking pictures of both caps. There has not been any loss of ice at all. Even the polar bear theory has also been proven to be false. Claims were made that the polar bears were becoming extinct due to the loss of the polar ice caps. When in fact the polar bear population has increased 10 fold in the past decade.
.
It is merely a cycle. A cycle that has repeated itself for the last millions of years.

It sounds like something I might be interested in.

Hilarious stuff. You’re the same way on climate change. Facts be damned. You know better because you read it on some loony rightwing conspiracy site.

.
Most “hilarious stuff” indeed. The link I provided above is a link to one of the most liberal newpapers on the planet, nutball palinwrapped in a baby blanket.
.
Go shove it where the sun doesn’t shine twit. Conversing with someone like you is like discussing quantum physics with a box of rocks.

Global warming or not, the one thing I can say is that air we breath is getting dirtier, let’s clean it up.

rusty, did you even bother to read the complete post to which you linked?
.
It does nothing to debunk climate change, nor does it suggest “cycles” as you post, above. If anything it clearly displays the long-term warming trend that has been happening since the 1850s with an acceleration since about 1980.
.
The article is primarily about peer review of journal articles and access to data. But it does not claim what you suggest it does regarding “cycles.”
.
Your inane anti-science, conspiracy theory bent betrays you again, rusty.
.
And no comment on your buying into the phony airline hijacking story? That was hilarious,
.
And typical of you. Facts are irrelevant, apparently.

And, rusty, your comments on polar bears reveal yet more of your simplistic ignorance. You don;t know what you’re talking about, yet you claim it as fact.
.
Read this:
.
Link
.
“First, it’s important to note that scientists lack historical data on polar bear numbers—they only have rough estimates. What we do know, though, is that in the 1960s, polar bear populations dropped precipitously due to over-hunting. When restrictions on polar bear harvests were put in place in the early 1970s, populations rebounded. That situation was a conservation success story … but the current threat to polar bears is entirely different, and more dire.”
…
“At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a decision. (The number of declining populations has increased from five at the group’s 2005 meeting.)”
.
“Some members of the press take advantage of the complexity by stating that “polar bears are not in trouble—their numbers have doubled since the 1960s.” That’s a disingenuous statement, of course. It is true that polar bear populations rebounded after over-hunting was restricted, but that situation has nothing to do with the threat polar bears now face: the loss of the sea ice habitat essential to their survival.”
.
So there you go, rusty. More of your uninformed nonsense debunked. For you, ignorance is bliss, apparently.

palin:
.
I will give you one of my thoughts. You provide NOTHING for discussion with the exception that you truly believe in the liberal crap that you spew.
.
So what if I linked to a source on the airplane fiasco? Does it make any difference in the entire scope of things? I am sure you are perfect in all of your comments as well. I am sure that a good little liberal like you, simply follow the meme of the far left in lock-step. As you should. Questioning anything of the liberal agenda is considered treason.
.
Do yourself a favor wack-job. Ask a few questions of your own kind once in awhile. Maybe you will find that things are not as delusional as you think.
.
I simply view anything you or your twin-sister IQ53 have to say as simply TROLLS of the THIRD DEMENSION
.
A combination of Twiddle dee and Twiddle dum.

Rusty, I note with great humor that a presentation of actual facts makes you angry. Because those facts almost always discount your uninformed gibberish.
.
Yes, the Obama administration really was suppressing the story about Muslim Arab terrorists conducting a “dry run” of a hijacking.
.
Except it never happened.
.
Yes, climate change is just part of a “naturally occurring cycle.”
.
Except it’s not, and the link you provided supported the fact that it’s a long-term trend and not part of a cycle.
.
Yes, the polar bear population really has risen tenfold in the last decade.
.
Except that’s not true.
.
Sense a pattern here?

“…which demonstrate that climate scientists can be every bit as unfortunately over-exuberant as other obsessive advocates.”
.
How, exactly, was that demonstrated in the emails? All I read was frustration that the Exxon-funded pollution lobby would data-dredge and twist the findings in scientific journals to further confuse the great authoritarian-following and science-ignorance masses and they tried to make that a little harder to do. Again, “unfortunately over-exuberant”?!

Oh, Rusty, Rusty, you poor pooch!
.
“As far as your ice core theory is concern IQ53, that has also been debunked a long time as well. The so called “warming of the polar ice caps” was debunked when it was found that the size of the caps have not changed.”
.
Hey Rusty, I really hate to tell you this, but if my IQ really is 53, then yours is one helluva lot lower. Ice cores are not a “theory”! They are ice cores. They contain ice that dates back 700,000 years.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_data.html
How dumb are you? The ice cores are evaluated for a variety of biochemical, radiological, paleochemical, and geochemical signatures. They tell us what happened to temperature, what grew nearby, what pollutants were in the air, volcanic eruptions, and even year to year cyclicity. Have you ever heard of O16/O18 paleotemperature signals? Extracting that signal is in widespread use for both ice cores and ocean bottom cores as well as strata on land dating back 3,300,000,000 years or more.
.
Also, over time, the size of the ice caps do change, and they change dramatically! Ask any geologist who would then be able to show you glacial till or tillite, if you happen to live in an area that was covered by ice during one of the previous ice ages.
.
“It was a “glitch” in the satellite that was taking pictures of both caps. There has not been any loss of ice at all. Even the polar bear theory has also been proven to be false. Claims were made that the polar bears were becoming extinct due to the loss of the polar ice caps. When in fact the polar bear population has increased 10 fold in the past decade.”
.
Where do you get this stupidity, Rusty? Are you going to try and rebut with stories of UFOs or something else equally cracpot?
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/
.
‘It is merely a cycle. A cycle that has repeated itself for the last millions of years.”
.
Well, therein lies the rub Rusty! Cycles do repeat themselves! Yay!
.
Now, the next step is to realize that when those cycles are examined in detail, the mechanics behind them can be determined!
.
Ahyuh! Ahyuh!

I like chips too…

From Rusty’s linked post:

“[T]he temperature record of each of these groups [...] shows the same features: (i) a warming of about 0.9°C (1.6°F) over the past 150 years and (ii) natural variability with both short and long periods”

“[W]e showed that this warming was predominantly due to people.”

“The absolute worst thing that humanity could do is mistake a short-term natural cooling for the absence of human-caused global warming.”

And then there’s this:

http://features.csmonitor.com/globalnews/2009/12/08/climate-change-scientists-say-this-decade-likely-hottest-on-record/

“The first decade of the 21st century is shaping up to be the warmest decade on record globally, while 2009 is likely to crack the Top 10 list of warmest years, perhaps rising as high as No. 5.”

…and “obsessive advocates” as well. They’re called scientists.
.
All of Time’s editors off for the holidays already?

I get a kick out of Rusty citing The New York Times to support his (crackpot) theory that climate change is “part of a naturally occurring cycle” when the link he presents suggests exactly the opposite.
.
One should generally read the links one is presenting in support of one’s theory before claiming the link supports one’s theory…

So what palininatowel alluded to about Rusty and facts really is true?
.
I mean, really, the guy is coming from left field, with his denial, but wouldn’t he be more self consistent if he were to post links that at least agree with him, no matter how outlandish they might be?

In stereo, no less.
.
Rusty is relentlessly stupid.
.
And, the last paleocycle does break. Rapid cooling toward ice age conditions is what would be expected, but the warming is so abrupt, it looks like someone got pushed from behind in the middle of drawing the very last part of that cycles’ temperature curve.

“I get a kick out of Rusty citing The New York Times to support his (crackpot) theory that climate change is “part of a naturally occurring cycle” when the link he presents suggests exactly the opposite.”
.
Amanda Marcotte:

Those liberals sure get steamed when they think about how reckless behavior will result in millions of unnecessary deaths. They blow smoke out their ears when you drive around in an SUV precisely to show how little you give a shit if worldwide drought creates worldwide war. They may be smarter and cooler than you, but by being a mega-watt asshole of sociopathic proportions, you gain the upper hand because you piss them off. There are a lot of ways to piss liberals off. You can be pointlessly racist or sexist. You can sniff around in people’s private lives and carry on about how vegetarians are stupid. But few things really can top the global warming denialism. The sheer magnitude of the damage that it does is so severe that it’s impossible for liberals not to get upset. And so you win!

Digby:

The whole post is well worth a read if you wonder what makes the global warming deniers tick. What makes it an unusual issue is that pissing off the liberals really is pretty much the only motivation, unlike others which have stronger cultural ties to traditional shibboleths.
.
It’s a temperament thing. There are people we run across in life who just hate earnestness and loathe anyone who gives a damn about anything.(They also like to hurt small animals and make fun of those less fortunate than themselves.) Most of those people join the conservative tribe. It’s where they find their soul mates.

sheperd,
.
I think the “pissing-off-liberals” thing is giving rusty far too much credit.
.
Unlike the rightwing zealots portrayed in the two links you provide, I think rusty really believes the crap he reads on rightwing blogs about climate change, the science and facts be damned.
.
rusty isn’t just spouting this nonsense to piss off liberals (though I’m sure he enjoys doing that). He is actually that immune to scientific reason and facts.
.
It’s a “head-in-the-sand,” “fingers-in-ears-humming-loudly” behavior that can’t be relinquished because it would reveal weakness to the very people he despises.

Just for my “little liberal friends”. This cartoon is priceless!!
.
http://www.theconservativespotlight.com/scientists-refute-claims-of-man-made-global-warming.html
.
Enjoy!

“I think rusty really believes the crap he reads on rightwing blogs about climate change, the science and facts be damned.”
.
Agreed. Since their intellectual and political leaders from Limbaugh to Palin don’t know the difference between climate and weather, it’s hardly surprising. There’s also a motor-head contingent of the deniers camp who just want to left alone with their gas-guzzling toys and will believe whatever it takes. Though many of them also love pissing-off liberals and hurting small animals.

risty, your cartoon is yet another example of you mistaking “weather” for “climate.”
.
I realize you’re in over your head, but the old saw applies: quit digging.

Here you go palin-stooge:
.
An elementary description of the difference. Notice all the “maybe’s”, “could be’s, and “possibles”.
.
I rest my case.
.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
.

“If summers seem hotter lately, then the recent climate may have changed.”;
.
“The National Academy of Sciences, a lead scientific body in the U.S., determined that the Earth’s surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, with accelerated warming during the past two decades. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Yet, there is still some debate about the role of natural cycles and processes”.
.
“factors such as aerosols, land use change and others may play important roles in climate change, but their influence is highly uncertain at the present time.”

.
The recent emails which discovered and showed proof that long term temperature data was distorted. Computer models used did not reflect the actual data, but data that was “averaged” in order to make it look like the warming over time occurred. When in fact, for the past two decades, average temperatures have fallen.
.
It is still a guess as to whether “man-made” acts are causing any changes in climate at all or if it is cyclical.
.
Facts that remain;
1. Polar Bear populations have increased, not decreased.
2. Overall temperatures for the past 30 years have decreased, not increased. But there is a 1 degree difference in temperature for the past 150 years.
3. Ice sheets on the polar caps have not melted to the originally thought degree because the satellite photos taken were incorrect. A “glitch” in the measurements. There has not been any significant decrease.
4. Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” is nothing short of a big money making scheme, and all Democrats are stooges for falling for it.

“I rest my case.”
.
Absolutely clueless.
.
This: “…there is still some debate about the role of natural cycles and processes…factors such as aerosols, land use change and others may play important roles in climate change, but their influence is highly uncertain at the present time.”
.
In no way whatsoever undermines this: “The National Academy of Sciences, a lead scientific body in the U.S., determined that the Earth’s surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, with accelerated warming during the past two decades. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.”
.
And it really doesn’t matter how much you put in bold or whether you call something a “fact”.

Hoo-boy, rusty, here we go again… First, your cite is from 2005. Much has been done in the area of climate research since 2005.
.
And here is the definition of the difference between “weather” and “climate” from your link:
.
“The difference between weather and climate is that weather consists of the short-term (minutes to months) changes in the atmosphere.
.
In most places, weather can change from minute-to-minute, hour-to-hour, day-to-day, and season-to-season. Climate, however, is the average of weather over time and space.“
.
Again, rusty, the claims you make are about “weather,” not “climate,” by the very definitions in the (four-year-old) document you cite. (Do you ever read the stuff you link before you post it?)
.
And then to your list… Why must you always reveal your simplistic, shallow thinking on this topic?
.
1. Polar Bear populations have increased, not decreased.
.
Are you really this stupid? Did you read the information I posted upthread? Polar bears were hunted almost to extinction until restrictions were placed on hunting in the 1970s. Only then did the population begin recovering. But their numbers are again in decline from the highs (from the link, upthread). Note that this link also doscounts your third point regarding polar ice:
.
Today’s polar bears are facing the rapid loss of the sea-ice habitat that they rely on to hunt, breed, and, in some cases, to den. Last summer alone, the melt-off in the Arctic was equal to the size of Alaska, Texas, and the state of Washington combined—a shrinkage that was not predicted to happen until 2040. The loss of Arctic sea ice has resulted in a shorter hunting season for the bears, which has led to a scientifically documented decline in the best-studied population, Western Hudson Bay, and predictions of decline in the second best-studied population, the Southern Beaufort Sea.
.
Both populations are considered representative of what will likely occur in other polar bear populations should these warming trends continue. The Western Hudson Bay population has dropped by 22% since 1987. The Southern Beaufort Sea bears are showing the same signs of stress the Western Hudson Bay bears did before they crashed, including smaller adults and fewer yearling bears.
.
And why do you continue to lie about the temerparture the last 30 years? Your own link to The New York Times discounts that lie, citing data from three independent sources that shows a pronounced increase in average temperature over the past 30 years.
.

My god, are you really as ignorant as you come across here? Your own links disprove the very points you keep making,.

Palin and Limbaugh are political leaders? Yea, sure, whatever…
~
Conservatives like to hurt small animals and ridicule the less fortunate? Nice hyperbole.
~
Why is it impossible for most Americans -liberal, progressive, conservative, or libertarian- to simply have reasonable discussions. We’re all behaving like a bunch of Likudniks in this country. Can we not present our positions without telling lies, slandering our opponents, or engaging in malicious misrepresentations, propaganda and character assassinations?
~
There are many on this forum who deplore the policies of the Israeli government, yet we vehemently reject its childish allegations against us of Antisemitism. Yet, many of you welcome such tactics within your own camp. Arguing that conservatives like to hurt animals or that conservatives are racists, etc, etc…Listen to yourselves. While this applies to everyone, I must point out to the liberals who incessantly -and disingenuously- suggest that liberals believe in facts, conservatives, not so much: if your arguments are so factually sound, why the need for broad hyperbolic ad hominems? This society of ours is in intellectual ruin, caused by the lazy arrogance of conservatives and liberals, both so sanctimoniously sure of themselves that they could care not about persuasion or compromise. Pointless diatribes and petty libel are just so much more fun, I suppose. I think it’s time to renounce my citizenship.

EAH,
.
Agree on the hyperbole. What I don’t agree with is, for example, rusty’s claims on climate change which are directly contrary to the actual, relevant science, even in the very links he cites.
.
Polar bears are declining in numbers. That’s a fact. Their habitat is disappearing. That’s a fact. The Earth is warmer — and getting warmer faster — over the course of the past 150 years (recorded data) and the past 30 years. Temperatures have increased,not decreased, over the past 30 years, contrary to rusty’s claim. That’s a fact.
.
So while you can decry the tenor of the discussion, there are, actually, facts involved here.
.
I suppose, according to you, we should have a respectful discussion whether or not the Earth is flat because folks like rusty may believe it to be true.
.
I also note your own immunity to facts in our previous discussion on the depth and breadth of sexual misconduct by Catholic priests.

“Can we not present our positions without telling lies, slandering our opponents, or engaging in malicious misrepresentations, propaganda and character assassinations?”
.
Speak for yourself. Frankly, when you start off complaining that Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin aren’t the preeminent political leaders of the “conservative” movement, nothing you say after really has much credibility at all. And it show that what you are really ashamed of is the lies, slander, malicious misrepresentations, propaganda and character assassinations of the movement. There is no liberal/progressive equivalent and you know it. This is a thread on “[l]ots of delusional nonsense from the right about climate change,” after all, no slander or misrepresentations required.

Palin~
You and I, as I recall, espoused the same facts, i.e number of alleged offenders within the clergy. Where we differed was the implications and significance of said facts. In your case, these cases are indicative of some darker trend within the Church, whereas I view it as a sad example of the pitfalls of human nature, not an indictment of a religion that encompasses a sixth of the global population.
~
Sheperd~
The climate change discussion here is irrelevant to my point. No slander needed, eh? What do you call allegations against conservatives as inflicters of pain upon small animals? Is that a fact, Shep? Is that some pointed observation about the individuals within the movement? As for Palin and Limbaugh, neither are politicians, and therefore neither are political leaders. They may be ideological leaders, but not political. And, further, they represent the far right, not conservatism as a whole.

No, EAH, you are not remembering our conversation correctly. Just as you did last time, you are ascribing something to me which I did not assert:
.
“In your case, these cases are indicative of some darker trend within the Church…”
.
Nowhere did I imply that what the Catholic Church did in these instances was a “trend.” Rather, I pointed out that the Church, at the time, knew that these offenders would commit more crimes (many had done so in multiple parishes within a diocese), but cared more about:
.
A) the security (financial and otherwise) of the Church as an institution
.
B) the local hierarchy of the diocese
.
C) the priests
.
… than they ever did about they children the continued to put at risk by moving these criminals around from parish to parish.
.
And, then, when finally confronted with the truth and facts regarding these criminal acts, they tried to stonewall and undercut the accusers.
.
And Cardinal Law of Boston, one of the leading aiders-and-abettors of the years of abuse, was rewarded with a promotion.
.
I didn’t point to any “trend.” I was simply pointing out what the Church hierarchy actually did.

“What do you call allegations against conservatives as inflicters of pain upon small animals?”
.
I’d call them a joke, though like all good humor it contains an element of truth (wear a PETA shirt to your next teabagger rally, if you want check out the “conservative” antipathy toward all animals and joy in mocking vegetarians). Though understanding humor also requires a good grip on the observable truth, which is why there’s nothing funny about “conservatives” or “conservatism”:

As for Palin and Limbaugh, neither are politicians…

I rest my case.

Rusty:

I see you bring out the bile in the left. We have BDS, PDS and now RustyDeranged Syndrome.

Funniest part is seeing the words sanity and Joe Klein in one article. And of course he supports his tirade with an article by the NYT. That’s like putting Michael Moore as watchman over donuts.

Joe K. Maybe you should look at the raw data and the climate cabal file side by side and see who is delusional. (and who’s fudging).

It priceless that a group of global warming numbskulls flew on private jets and used over 1200 limos (instead of public transportation) so they can tell the world they need to sacrifice to save the planet. And you write an article (with a straight face) to support it.

20 years ago Time and the others were convinced with irrefutable proof we were heading to global freezing. Now its global warming. No wonder they are trying to call it climate change now. That’s what liberals do when they try to sell crap they change the name, but its still crap. See HC “reform”.

The real irony, free, is that rusty uses a New York Times article link in his first post to support his unsupportable point of view (which you repeat here).
.
And here’s the really funny part, free… The article rusty cites to support his argument actually undercuts his argument.
.
The comic relief never stops with you guys, even if it is unintentional.

Palininatowel~
And, again, you missed my point. Whether or not you were suggesting a trend, per se, is not important. This is a conversation we had some time ago, and I’ve had many other like it with other Swampers, and the particular nuance of your argument escapes me at the moment. The point was, we were not debating the facts, but the significance. You charged that I was devoid of facts in our last conversation, I respectfully disagree, as in reality, I am only guilty of being devoid of your perspective.
~
Shep~
Rest what case? Speak up lad, for I haven’t a clue where you’re going with this…

Good lord, EAH…
.
“Whether or not you were suggesting a trend, per se, is not important.”
.
Meanwhile, you just finished writing this, upthread:
.
“In your case, these cases are indicative of some darker trend within the Church…”
.
You and rusty are certainly different.
.
rusty doesn’t read the links he posts to support his argument to see if the cites actually support his argument. You, on the other hand, don’t even read your own posts, apparently.

“Speak up lad, for I haven’t a clue where you’re going with this…”
.
Well, let me see if I can explain it so even you can understand. If we were to take these two statements completely seriously: 1) “conservatives like to hurt small animals” and 2) “Sarah Palin isn’t a politician”, the first would be only partially true but the second a complete falsehood. So you really have no legitimate complaint against others for engaging in hyperbole.

Palin, Shep~
Why must you be so bloody argumentative, I’m not the enemy.
~
Palin,
Surely, you can understand my point, that being that the facts of our previous discussion were not in dispute, despite you claim that I was omitting facts. While I will concede, if you say, that I misrepresented your position, this was unintentional. It was a long time ago, forgive me for thinking you alluded to a trend. Someone certainly did, in one of many discussions on the topic.
~
Shep,
Remind me as to which elected position Sarah Palin currently holds.
Like I said, she is not a political leader, at least not any more. She is an ideologue, and one that I abhor. She speaks not for me. She speaks for a minute percentage of Americans, and a minority of conservatives.

EAH,
.
Fair enough, though I believe the “facts” in dispute during our previous conversation concerned my claim that Church/diocese hierarchy moved predators from parish to parish knowing full well that these criminals were likely to abuse more children, particularly since many of these priests were only moved — often multiple times — because of the complaints of parents.
.
You disputed that claim.
.

Palin~
No, I disputed the intent, not the actual fact of relocation. We disagreed as to why this was done. I actually brought the relocation up many times, pointing to the policies of the US public school systems during this same period of time. I never disputed the relocations, just the reasons behind it, which is purely speculative on both our parts. No facts were ever disputed.

Okay, EAH.
.
But to claim that local hierarchy didn’t know that these offenders would continue to abuse children (which is what you claimed) is simply a denial of reality. Many of these priests abused children in five or six parishes or more. Move after move after move. How could the bishops expect anything different in a new parish?
.
That was the bone of contention, I believe, You can claim that’s “speculation,” but running one’s head into a wall repeatedly quickly yields identical results with each ramming: great pain.

“Like I said, she is not a political leader, at least not any more. She is an ideologue, and one that I abhor. She speaks not for me. She speaks for a minute percentage of Americans, and a minority of conservatives.”
.
Sorry, pal. I don’t know you personally but I definitely consider people who argue complete political falsehoods in public forums to be my political enemy. They’ve been too costly to country to see them in any other way.
.
Palin has a net approval of 76% among Republicans and 75% either definitely would or would consider voting for her for president. That would be the very definition of a politician who speaks for the majority of conservatives. Perhaps you should take a more discerning look at both the Republican Party and the “conservative” movement, you seem to be missing some of their most critical features.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/

Shep~
22% of the American populace is self-identified as Republican, yes? Yes.
.
76% of Republicans support Palin, yes? Yes.
.
Therefore, 16% of Americans support Palin, if we are to take this poll as unequivocal fact. Given that the country is roughly divided 50-50 between self-identified conservatives and liberals, that makes Palin’s relevance not only in the minority of the general population, but in the minority of conservatism, too, as I initially said. I never mentioned her not speaking for Republicans, so your 76% reference is irrelevant. Again, she speaks not for me, nor for anything other than a minority of Americans, and a minority of conservatives, the right-wingers.

Hey Rusty. I go to get my PC fixed. I am still getting Blah blah blah blah for responses

“Therefore, 16% of Americans support Palin…”
.
Actually it’s 43% approval and 46% considering her for president among all Americans, which you would know if you bothered to look up the data rather than construct some silly mathematical argument in your own head. And arguing that seven in ten Republican approval doesn’t represent majority “conservative” support just makes you look all the more deluded. Out of touch with reality and completely uninterested in learning the facts. That’s what I think of “conservatives”, no lies, slander or hyperbole required and you just proved the point.

palininatowel:
.
Are they still trying to claim that that article backs them up in their arguments?
.
I just don’t know what to say other than hey, maybe Rusty’s right.
.
The “Ice Core Theory” really is wrong!
.
Whatever the hell that is…

53:

“Blogwhoring” is the practice of posting a comment, often of minimal substance, in someone else’s blog primarily as a means of disseminating a link to one’s own blog. When every one of a given commenter’s posts includes a link containing the commenter’s own name, you’re seeing the work of a blogwhore.

Exiled:
.
I am now completely, utterly mystified!
.
As one of the most reasonable conservatives that has posted here, I understand you holding conservative views.
.
OK then, but the mystification begins when you are holding palininatowel and shep up when they are presenting fact after fact after fact in the climate debate here while Rusty is presenting what?
.
What do you want to call what Rusty is presenting?
.
Further, I’ll comment myself, on the Likudnik comment:
.
Why are you chastising palininatowel and shep for being less than civil when the first individual to go south in the civility department was Rusty himself?
.
I have been trying for several days now to refrain from insults, even with my favorite targets and it is they who continued to fire of barbs. I’m debating whether it matters or not with these guys. It doesn’t seem to matter one bit, except that when I hold the high road (which in this case I gave up after catching a barb or two), I can then keep the contrast between my comments and questions and observations and their inanity that much greater.
.
So, how about chastising Rusty? What gives?
.
As for Limbaugh not being a political figure? He is. He said so himself during the height of the summer when he punked Steele. Are you still trying to present them as “entertainers” as a way to avoid the problem they present in the perception of what conservatives are about? He is also a kingmaker, regardless of ones views on him, and you know mine very well.
.
So what is your point? If all this is a real concern, then don’t you think the focus should be on the one that throws the first punch, the first comment, the first deed.
.
Are you saying that in a debate like this, we shouldn’t use facts?
.
Are you saying that his (Rusty’s) opinion is based completely on faith, whatever faith that may be, and that we have no right to question it?
.
Like I said, I am utterly and completely mystified…

Well, freeinpa, it’s like this:
.
Ice cores aare not a “theory”.
.
They, along with deep ocean cores and drill cores on land, are a method of collecting stratigraphic data. The science behind the techniques of collecting them, extracting time-series data from them, and analyzing them has been around for years and are ubiquitous in the field of climatology.

A single “glitch” in a satellite photo will get set aside. Satellite surveys don’t collect “photos”. They collect a time series of multispectroscopic signatures of everything in the swath they are currently flying. This is called remote sensing
.
I guess, to someone who doesn’t like facts, like yourself, this certainly is blahblahblah, but your commentary reminds me of little children who don’t want to hear something they disagree with and hold their hands over their ears and say:
.
Nyah nyahnyah nyah nyah! I don’t hear you!

Thanks, flownover, for clearing that up. I guess, in that case, sacred is going to lose interest in it pretty fast, if I get his drift…

Everyone: This thread is a first-class destruction of rusty’s global warming denialism. It was both informative and entertaining.
.
Thank you all.

I think both sides need to take a step back from this, take a deep breath, etc in regards to this. While this scandal (yes, it is a scandal) raises some very serious ethical questions, it also doesn’t give us solid reason to completely abandon environmental efforts.
.
I’ve always been a skeptic of the man-made global warming theory, and have always known that the dissenting scientists and views have been constantly derided and ridiculed at best, and ignored and blacklisted at worst. So, these e-mails come as no surprise to me, as I (and frankly, a large portion of the public) already knew these things. However, my support for general pro environment measures has stemmed from the general philosophy of conservation, and the belief in the importance of clean air/water/etc for all of us. I mean, we all have to live here, might as well take care of things.
.
However, what is troubling me is the sheer arrogance of the pro-environmental crowd. Throughout this troubling scandal, this news has all either been ignored, or written off without explanation (I would add that some of the comments on here do a much better reporting job than, say, the NYT has done on the subject). They arrogantly proclaim that “THERE IS NO DEBATE, IT’S SETTLED” when these e-mails prove that there IS still a debate to be had, especially before we sign on to ridiculous regulatory global measures that would hand a large chunk of our sovereignty over to the U.N. , an extremely corrupt and ineffectual body. And forgive me if I don’t completely trust the media on this issue, given their handling on this scandal and their history on it (remember global cooling? how’d that work out?)
.
I don’t agree with the far right that the climate debate “is over”. However, I also don’t agree with the far left that the debate “is over”. Come on guys, even Jon Stewart couldn’t defend this (will link if requested).
.
Oh and by the way, it’s pretty funny for me to observe Democrats crying out about how the e-mails were obtained illegally and shouldn’t have been made public. Interestingly enough, that standard has never seemed to apply to CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY DOCUMENTS.

Exiled, I have to correct you when you say the American public is roughly split 50-50 between conservatives and liberals. That is completely untrue, conservatives currently hold a solid advantage in this category, not only between the two labels, but on specific issues as well. I’ll give the links that show this, but given that I have done so frequently before and has mostly been ignored, I don’t see a point unless someone requests it.

Shep~
Polls are far from accurate, there is absolutely no way in hell that 46% of American voters are considering casting their support behind a Palin presidential run and 43% are firmly behind her. No way.
~
With that said, though, you keep pushing this GOP=Conservative storyline. The GOP is a marginal force at this point, representing at best a quarter of the nation. Yet at least half the country is conservative, so you might want to stop erroneously suggesting that the GOP is the conservative movement of the US. It’s patently false. I understand that it makes you feel comfortable for the time being adhering to the delusion that conservatism in America has been reduced to the fringe GOP, but if you really wish to advance your ideology, a better strategy should be considered, one that acknowledges that your opposition consists of far more than the GOP, with half the country firmly against your ideals, firmly in the camp of conservatism.

Oh, and Nevada Democrats, PLEASE vote Harry Reid out in 2010. I don’t care if you replace him with another Democrat, a Republican or an Independent. The Democrats can do better, and so can the country:
.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703558004574583980985617954.html

53_3~
I have no qualms whatsoever with the general dialogue between Shep, Palin, and Rusty. And please don’t insult me, the fact-based approach in no way bothers me. I didn’t have a problem with the way Shep and Palin were conducting themselves, until Shep decided to be cute an inject some nonsensical, broad brush hyperbole against all conservatives because he was frustrated with Rusty.
~
First he quotes some inflammatory vitriol suggesting that conservatives enjoy harming little animals. Then he suggests it was merely a little harmless humor. However, he quickly adds the caveat that it is a little true, and dares me to wear a PETA shirt to a conservative rally. Well, this is part of the problem with American discourse. We don’t see our ideological opponents as fellow citizens. We see them as the enemy, and all’s fair in love and war, right? Well, is it any wonder that our representatives become nonsensical partisans when we, the American public, cannot view our own fellow citizens as potential friends, neighbors, and countrymen? Is it really necessary or healthy to dehumanize our political rivals?
~
Again, I don’t care about the debate with Rusty. I’m not defending Rusty or taking his side. If Rusty insulted, insults are generally going to be reciprocated. But insulting half the country with a malicious lie based on a discussion with one person is absurd. I’m no fan of PETA, not because I am some sick twisted psycho who goes around killing little cats, but because I find their tactics and, yes hyperbole, to be abhorrent. Shep’s quote from Digby smacks of Likud Syndrome.

that standard has never seemed to apply to CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY DOCUMENTS.
.
Please to explain.

Oh God do I really need to explain? See “NY Times” for more on this, but if you really want specific examples, just say so and I’ll post away.

Oh God do I really need to explain? See “NY Times” for more on this, but if you really want specific examples, just say so and I will gladly post away.

Oh God yes you really do need to explain.
.
I mean, after Hoekstra:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/06/gop-congressman-breached_n_164809.html
.
and Boehner:
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/29882
.
and Novak, I would think that people would be cautious about slinging around accusations like that, but hey, here we are.

I was thinking something along the lines of shameless, wanton snarking.

“Polls are far from accurate…”
.
These are self-reporting polls. They may tell you very little but they are never inaccurate.
.
And please don’t try to assert that I’ve “dehumanized” anyone. All I’ve said is that “conservatives” choose comforting belief in place of uncomfortable understanding. Apparently, nothing could be more human.

Exiled:
.
I didn’t intentionally insult you, apologies if I did, however, PETA aside, I honestly think that you are shoveling water uphill as long as the “entertainers”* shouting inane and offensive rhetoric over your right shoulder continues.
.
If it weren’t for the likes of Back and Limbaugh and others, conservatives wouldn’t be viewed as unsympathetic, hateful, and selfish.
.
I’m smart enough to realize that you are not one of those things, but as they are there, it will be very hard to blunt things like their statements from the “left” end. What needs to happen, like I’ve told apollyon07 and yourself, is that these entertainers are your problem, not ours, and the same goes Southern Strategy, which is an open secret, and the primary reason why the word “racist” seems to dog your political peers.
.
So when the Likudnik thing develops, keep these things in mind.
.
In defense of myself, I like trying to hang on to the high road, and I will continue to try to keep it that way, but:
.
Bear in mind that when you come across me talking about race, or correcting someone on it, please look up thread to check to see if the commenter that I’ve chastised has indulged in a bit of Southern Strategy rhetoric.

I’d like to offer a couple things here, apollyon07:
.
The first is that there is nothing wrong with doubting the hypothesis that global warming is not man made.
.
The second is that I have never said that the debate is settled. However, I have said that the consensus is clearly in favor of man made influences.
See Karl Poppoer’s Conjectures and Refutations which describes just how disputes and disagreements are handled in the scientific arena.
.
What is wrong is that Rusty is ignorant of the issues that really pertain, and the fact is, fraud or not, there are literally billions of data points of which, this school has contributed only a small portion thereof. There’s Scripps Institute, NOAA, the Ocean Drilling Program and it’s predecessors, and many, many more contributors to the datasets that are evaluated – and conclusions drawn.
.
The published papers that cite these workers will be dually reevaluated, and like the Cold Fusion flap or the Piltdown Man flap, they will be ignored and cited no further – if the author of any future paper wishes to maintain his own credibility – which is everything in science.
.
I’ve frequently mentioned the KT boundary impact hypothesis, and while the consensus is that the impactor killed 50% of all genera in the mass extinction that followed, there are others who still disagree. They are not ridiculed. Far from it. One of the biggest critics of the Chixchulub impactor being the prime killer in that mass extinction is Vincent Courtellot (http://dannyreviews.com/h/Evolutionary_Catastrophes.html) who strongly opposes the consensus, and has had significant impact on that debate.
.
Ridicule and blacklisting does not occur in the sciences, unless you are someone like these guys who committed this fraud. Contrary to what you claim, it is they who will wind up ridiculed, blacklisted, and will almost certainly have to leave the scientific arena. A similar fate overtook Deprat in French Indochina for “salting” Chinese fossil beds with European fossils: http://openlibrary.org/b/OL6820735M/Deprat_affair
.
The problem is, in order to make your point about disagreement with the hypothesis is that you are dishonest and not knowledgeable about how science works. What you should be doing is disagreeing on scientific grounds, and not on trumped up rhetoric about what the scientific world is doing, which is absolutely and categorically wrong.

Global cooling was about aerosols. When modeled by climatologists, it was found that they were a minor contributor and their impact was swamped by the ubiquitous greenhouse gasses.
.
The press may run away with scientific issues, and believe me, after watching Discovers’ Before the Dinosaurs I can understand why people think the press is accurately reflecting the science.
.
The press is decidedly not representing the science correctly!
.
If anyone has watched that show, there are a lot of glaring errors that almost anyone who is familiar with that period will attest!

Shep~
You said quite a lot actually. Maybe you should read your own posts upthread, then try to argue that you merely said that conservatives prefer comfortable beliefs over uncomfortable understanding. While that may have been the gist of your perspective, the devil is in the details, and in your details, Shep, there is quite a lot of inflammatory hyperbole.

Cliff: Pentagon papers, and the more recent leak (I think in 2007?) over how the military is tracking terrorist finances (this was written off by the media since surely the terrorists “already knew this”. Whether that is true or not, it was still classified). And I don’t really see the point of you posting links that show the GOP guilty of the same behavior. If this was in response to my “Democrats” comment, I didn’t mean that only Democrats are bad on this issue, as it is with most things, both sides. When a misinterpretation occurs it is generally the fault of the initial communicator, so, my bad on that one. (And sorry if I sounded like a jerk with my “Oh God” comment).
.
53_3: thanks for the thoughtful response (as have been your other responses to me). I’m glad we agree that the debate is not over, since that was the point I was trying to make. I would disagree with your point that blacklisting and ridiculing hasn’t happened in this instance, but since this if true would be occuring behind the scenes, I don’t think either of us is in position to say this is definitely true or not (I didn’t mean to say that it was, it just seems likely to me).
.
My point with the cooling comment was that the media has been wrong on major environmental issues before. JK posted McCain’s comment above, and again while I generally agree with environmental protection measures since we all have to live here, we’re not talking about merely general environmental protection measures. We’re talking about sweeping regulation of our economy, and even handing over part of our sovereignty to the U.N. , which, based on their history, should not be given ANY of our sovereignty or the large amount of money we contribute to them. If we’re wrong about global warming and we go overboard with regulations and wreck our economy, it’s going to be the American public left holding the bag. There’s a reason why the Kyoto measure was UNANIMOUSLY voted down in the Senate.