Crush Liberalism

8 Comments »

1. Wait, your evidence that they cheated the data via e-mail is a story that has been debunked several times by now?

   http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html

   http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/11/one-year-later/

   http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/report-climategate-professor-did-not-distort-data/19421195

   http://www.skepticalscience.com/fake-scandal-Climategate.html

   Hmm, then you say that the “science is settled”. You are correct in that statement:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

   Looks like “Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.”

   Are you aware of the magnitude of that statement?

   Comment by Jeff | November 20, 2010

2. Just wondering, is my ‘other’ comment in limbo because it hit spam filters, or have you just deleted it? Or is ‘Jeff’ on an approval list or something?

   Would appreciate a response,no matter what it is.

   Comment by Bamz | November 21, 2010

3. Jeff AKA “Bamz”:

   Comments on this blog use a moderating feature, whereby I approve comments before they are seen. If I don’t approve them, they don’t get seen. It’s because there are a good number of moonbat comments laced with vileness and vulgarity (occasionally threats…ya gotta love the tolerant left, no?) that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. After a couple of your comments get approved, the filter is smart enough to know when to let future comments from you get through. Whether your comments are intelligent enough and should get through is a different matter altogether.

   So no need to sockpuppet yourself with multiple identities, Sybil. Your comments are getting through.

   Comment by crushliberalism | November 22, 2010

4. There is no global “warming”, champ. This IPCC tool said as much with his “this has squat to do with environmental science” pap. And no, the e-mail scandal was NOT “debunked”, and pasting links from leftwing sources (not to mention Wikipedia…seriously, dude?) doesn’t buttress your argument.

   The world created this myth in order to steal the fruits of labor from the US and “distribute” them to the rest of the world. That’s what this IPCC schmuck admitted, but then again, normal America already knew that. Scientists who live off of grant money concocted this story, along with displaced commies that had no home once the Soviet Union fell. I call these people “watermelons”: “green” on the outside, but “red” on the inside.

   Besides, we were told in 1979 that there was a coming Ice Age, so in the span of about 20 years, we went from freezing to death to baking to death. Man, I’m only good for one environmental doomsday per lifetime, and that quota was met in ’79.

   There’s a blog called “Watts Up With That” that does a fantastic job debunking the junk science fad known as global “warming”. You would be well served to check it out and bug that blog owner for a while instead of me. Geez, I can’t believe I wasted my morning on your inane comments, dude.

   Comment by crushliberalism | November 22, 2010

5. Not sockpuppet-ing, in fact I even made it known that I was the same person.

   That you expressed incredulity over me posting a wikipedia link (not surprising actually, I should have expected it) is very telling of your mindset.

   That wikipedia link wasn’t to show you wikipedia’s views, it was showing you just how enormous a claim that it is a global warming hoax really is. You aren’t just going up against a few scientists here and there, you are actively saying that tens of thousands of scientists from countries all over the globe with various political parties are somehow ALL in on it. That for some reason all of the many tons of data is incorrect, yet still managed to pass peer review.

   I wasn’t aware aolnews was now considered a “leftwing”. If you even clicked through those you would have seen that those involved were cleared of any wrongdoing, and even beyond that what they did wasn’t nearly as bad as it was made out to be.

   http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

   http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/11/how-co2-matters.html

   http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php

   The resources and websites devoted to debunking claims of a massive hoax are plentiful. They are backed by an astonishing number of scientists, yet conservatives like yourself insist that ALL THOSE SCIENTISTS are wrong and part of a hoax, but then link to your own scientists because they just have to be right. It doesn’t matter that they represent an extreme minority to you, because you don’t care how science works.

   Have you ever been involved in anything relating to a peer review process by the way? Do you actively read science journals? Too often the people who disbelieve in global warming are the people who don’t really understand how science works.

   Comment by Jeff | November 22, 2010

6. Blah, blah…what’s the word I’m looking for? Oh, right, now I remember…blah.

   Comment by crushliberalism | November 22, 2010

7. Well it sure is disheartening that upon me providing you with interesting (I thought) reads and articles about Global Warming (especially the aip.org one) you troll back with a non-response.

   For what it’s worth I’d like to do a bit of copypasta-ing:

   The ability of CO2 to absorb heat can be tested in a lab, with hard numbers. The role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere can be measured with hard numbers. The amount of CO2 increase in the atmosphere due to human activity can be measured with hard numbers. The historical temperature increases worldwide can be measured with hard numbers. The amount the oceans have risen can be measured with hard numbers. The heat input from the sun can be measured with hard numbers. The amount the ice sheets have melted can be measured with hard numbers.

   Each element is based on known science and physical observation. It’s like putting an ice cube in a frying pan and turning on the heat; we know where the heat is coming from, we know at what temperature ice melts, we know that the ice is melting. Sure, it’s possible that in this one case somehow the burner under the pan isn’t providing the heat, and that some as-yet-unknown element in the room swept in and melted the ice cube instead at the exact same moment we turned on the burner.

   But that’s kind of a weird thing to speculate on when you have all of the elements you need as perfectly known, quantifiable things. Burner, pan, ice cube.

   We know what CO2 does. That is not being debated. We know we dramatically increased it. That is not being debated. We got the expected result from increasing CO2. That is not being debated, except by a tiny fraction of right-wing denialists.

   But make no mistake; just like with the ice cube and the frying pan, for it to not be true, we would have to discover some new, previously unknown factor that mimics the effects of man-made global warming, while somehow not being due to man-made global warming, that swept in and mimicked the effects of CO2 right when we were increasing CO2. We’re talking about some other element “framing” CO2 for the crime. Whatever alternative theory they put out there, it will overturn much of what we know about both climate and physics in general.

   Both sides are entitled to their own opinions. They are not entitled to their own facts.

   It’s not an issue of philosophical difference. It’s an issue that there is certain data that has been collected, and one side is lying about what that data says.

   We’re not arguing the ethics of vegetarianism, or the nature of God. There is data. It is a solid thing that exists, in papers and databases and photos and graphs and reams of printouts. That data says that every known measure for tracking temperature demonstrates an increase beginning around 1920, and getting worse with time. The data says ice is melting, and the planet shows other symptoms consistent with warming.

   The data says CO2 has certain properties that allow it to absorb heat. The data says we have added a gigantic amount of it to the atmosphere, and the warming and CO2 increase happened at the same time.

   This is not a philosophical question. This is not about conflicting points of view, or differing beliefs about mankind or man’s place in the universe.

   It’s just data, gathered from 19 countries and thousands of scientists.

   If you want a thoughtful debate about how to address that data, about the best course of action according to your own political and economic philosophies, wonderful. You are entitled to whatever point of view you bring to the table.

   But you are not entitled to your own facts. And the fact is that either we’re getting warmer, or something far stranger is happening.

   http://www.esquire.com/features/marc-morano-0410-2

   Comment by Jeff | November 23, 2010

8. [...] You know, if I didn’t know any better, I’d swear this whole global “warming” (aka “climate change” when it’s too friggin’ cold to say “global warming” with a straight face) is s junk science fad meant to steal money from producing nations in a big socialist redistribution plot. [...]

   Pingback by Global “warming” has stopped « Crush Liberalism | December 6, 2010

« Previous | Next »

Site info

Crush Liberalism
Theme: Andreas04 by Andreas Viklund. Blog at WordPress.com.