The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism (1 Viewer)

[MaxThreshold]

On another note- should the waters rise...

This is what the United States looks like after a 10 foot sea level riseBy Climate CentralTuesday, May 13, 2014 15:46 EDT

By Ben Strauss
New research indicates that climate change has already triggered an unstoppable decay of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. The projected decay will lead to at least 4 feet of accelerating global sea level rise within the next two-plus centuries, and at least 10 feet of rise in the end.

What does the U.S. look like with an ocean that is 10 feet higher? The radically transformed map would lose 28,800 square miles of land, home today to 12.3 million people.

Meh.

The sea levels are rising because of all the hysterical tears by the global warming crowd.

 

[jon_mx]

When ever i hear the word 'unprecedented' from the alarmists, you can always substitute the words 'a bit unusual over the last 160 years' and be more accurate.

 

[jonessed]

Dear Professor Henderson,

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.

I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.

Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.

With my best regards

Lennart Bengtsson

reflective of the current state of the science...

All right now I have to admit I'm getting a little suspicious of this guy. Last night I was, despite everything, very impressed by the interview and beginning to wonder if what he was arguing actually made sense and whether or not the validity of man made global warming was legitimately open to question. But this letter, with it's charge of left wing McCathyism sounds so much like your typical Rush Limbaugh screed against GW that it sounds both politically motivated and completely bogus. Just my impression.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

G.O.P. RIVALS QUESTION RUBIO’S IGNORANCE CREDENTIALS

POSTED BY ANDY BOROWITZ

MAY 12, 2014

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—After claiming on Sunday that human activity does not cause climate change, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) suddenly found his ignorance credentials under attack by potential rivals for the 2016 Republican Presidential nomination.

"Now that Marco’s thinking of running for President, he doesn’t believe in climate change," said Texas Governor Rick Perry. "To those of us with long track records of ignorance on this issue, he seems a little late to the rodeo."

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) echoed Gov. Perry’s criticism, calling Rubio a "dummy-come-lately" on climate change.

"At the end of the day, I have faith that Republican voters can tell the difference between someone who’s truly uninformed and someone who’s just faking it," he said. "These comments by Marco don’t pass the smell test."

By Sunday evening, a defensive Sen. Rubio was pushing back against the attacks, telling reporters, "Any questions about the authenticity of my ignorance are deeply offensive to me."

"My refusal to accept the scientific research on climate change is a matter of public record," he said. "On this issue and many others my ignorance should take a back seat to no one’s."

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The sea levels are rising because of all the hysterical tears by the global warming crowd.

I can never tell whether you're being serious, but the above is not correct. Tears don't affect sea levels because they're part of the normal hydrologic cycle in which water changes forms (e.g., rain, to drinking water, to tears, to evaporated moisture in the air, to condensated moisture in the clouds, to rain, etc.), but the total amount of H2O in any given form remains relatively unchanged throughout the cycle.

To increase the sea levels, you'd need a non-cyclical conversion of non-liquid H2O to liquid H2O, such as the melting of the polar ice caps.

 

[MaxThreshold]

The sea levels are rising because of all the hysterical tears by the global warming crowd.

I can never tell whether you're being serious, but the above is not correct. Tears don't affect sea levels because they're part of the normal hydrologic cycle in which water changes forms (e.g., rain, to drinking water, to tears, to evaporated moisture in the air, to condensated moisture in the clouds, to rain, etc.), but the total amount of H2O in any given form remains relatively unchanged throughout the cycle.

To increase the sea levels, you'd need a non-cyclical conversion of non-liquid H2O to liquid H2O, such as the melting of the polar ice caps.

Nope. It's tears of hysteria. I don't know where you're getting your info from, but it's wrong. Clearly it's wrong.

This link HERE will explain it all.

 

[jon_mx]

The sea levels are rising because of all the hysterical tears by the global warming crowd.

I can never tell whether you're being serious, but the above is not correct. Tears don't affect sea levels because they're part of the normal hydrologic cycle in which water changes forms (e.g., rain, to drinking water, to tears, to evaporated moisture in the air, to condensated moisture in the clouds, to rain, etc.), but the total amount of H2O in any given form remains relatively unchanged throughout the cycle.

To increase the sea levels, you'd need a non-cyclical conversion of non-liquid H2O to liquid H2O, such as the melting of the polar ice caps.

Not true. Ground water pumping is considered a major cause of the rising sea level. It seems if they were crying rivers and these rivers were in fact flowing into the ocean, it is possible that these tears could in fact be contributing to the rise in sea levels.

 

[MaxThreshold]

The sea levels are rising because of all the hysterical tears by the global warming crowd.

I can never tell whether you're being serious, but the above is not correct. Tears don't affect sea levels because they're part of the normal hydrologic cycle in which water changes forms (e.g., rain, to drinking water, to tears, to evaporated moisture in the air, to condensated moisture in the clouds, to rain, etc.), but the total amount of H2O in any given form remains relatively unchanged throughout the cycle.

To increase the sea levels, you'd need a non-cyclical conversion of non-liquid H2O to liquid H2O, such as the melting of the polar ice caps.

Not true. Ground water pumping is considered a major cause of the rising sea level. It seems if they were crying rivers and these rivers were in fact flowing into the ocean, it is possible that these tears could in fact be contributing to the rise in sea levels.

and BOOM goes the dynamite!

Jon gets it.

 

[Josie Maran]

G.O.P. RIVALS QUESTION RUBIO’S IGNORANCE CREDENTIALS

POSTED BY ANDY BOROWITZ

MAY 12, 2014

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—After claiming on Sunday that human activity does not cause climate change, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) suddenly found his ignorance credentials under attack by potential rivals for the 2016 Republican Presidential nomination.

"Now that Marco’s thinking of running for President, he doesn’t believe in climate change," said Texas Governor Rick Perry. "To those of us with long track records of ignorance on this issue, he seems a little late to the rodeo."

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) echoed Gov. Perry’s criticism, calling Rubio a "dummy-come-lately" on climate change.

"At the end of the day, I have faith that Republican voters can tell the difference between someone who’s truly uninformed and someone who’s just faking it," he said. "These comments by Marco don’t pass the smell test."

By Sunday evening, a defensive Sen. Rubio was pushing back against the attacks, telling reporters, "Any questions about the authenticity of my ignorance are deeply offensive to me."

"My refusal to accept the scientific research on climate change is a matter of public record," he said. "On this issue and many others my ignorance should take a back seat to no one’s."

New Yorker getting all Oniony. I like it.

 

[Koya]

The sea levels are rising because of all the hysterical tears by the global warming crowd.

I can never tell whether you're being serious, but the above is not correct. Tears don't affect sea levels because they're part of the normal hydrologic cycle in which water changes forms (e.g., rain, to drinking water, to tears, to evaporated moisture in the air, to condensated moisture in the clouds, to rain, etc.), but the total amount of H2O in any given form remains relatively unchanged throughout the cycle.

To increase the sea levels, you'd need a non-cyclical conversion of non-liquid H2O to liquid H2O, such as the melting of the polar ice caps.

Not true. Ground water pumping is considered a major cause of the rising sea level. It seems if they were crying rivers and these rivers were in fact flowing into the ocean, it is possible that these tears could in fact be contributing to the rise in sea levels.

What about pee?

 

[jon_mx]

The sea levels are rising because of all the hysterical tears by the global warming crowd.

I can never tell whether you're being serious, but the above is not correct. Tears don't affect sea levels because they're part of the normal hydrologic cycle in which water changes forms (e.g., rain, to drinking water, to tears, to evaporated moisture in the air, to condensated moisture in the clouds, to rain, etc.), but the total amount of H2O in any given form remains relatively unchanged throughout the cycle.

To increase the sea levels, you'd need a non-cyclical conversion of non-liquid H2O to liquid H2O, such as the melting of the polar ice caps.

Not true. Ground water pumping is considered a major cause of the rising sea level. It seems if they were crying rivers and these rivers were in fact flowing into the ocean, it is possible that these tears could in fact be contributing to the rise in sea levels.

What about pee?

If peeing in the ocean, you are directly responsible for future climate refugees.

 

[Koya]

The sea levels are rising because of all the hysterical tears by the global warming crowd.

I can never tell whether you're being serious, but the above is not correct. Tears don't affect sea levels because they're part of the normal hydrologic cycle in which water changes forms (e.g., rain, to drinking water, to tears, to evaporated moisture in the air, to condensated moisture in the clouds, to rain, etc.), but the total amount of H2O in any given form remains relatively unchanged throughout the cycle.

To increase the sea levels, you'd need a non-cyclical conversion of non-liquid H2O to liquid H2O, such as the melting of the polar ice caps.

Not true. Ground water pumping is considered a major cause of the rising sea level. It seems if they were crying rivers and these rivers were in fact flowing into the ocean, it is possible that these tears could in fact be contributing to the rise in sea levels.

What about pee?

If peeing in the ocean, you are directly responsible for future climate refugees.

####. I'm actually peeing in the ocean, RIGHT NOW.

 

[FlapJacks]

Research which heaped doubt on the rate of global warming was deliberately suppressed by scientists because it was “less than helpful” to their cause, it was claimed last night.In an echo of the infamous “Climategate” scandal at the University of East Anglia, one of the world’s top academic journals rejected the work of five experts after a reviewer privately denounced it as “harmful”.

Full article at: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4091344.ece

 

[Ookie Pringle]

I think global warming would slow down if Tim stopped posted so much hot air.

 

[FlapJacks]

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-brown-lax-remarks-20140514-story.html

An aide to Jerry Brown confirmed Wednesday that the governor was wrong when he said global warming would eventually cause rising seawater to inundate Los Angeles International Airport.

Citing new studies, Brown called attention to the global warming issue on Tuesday, saying a predicted 4-foot rise in sea level within the next 200 years could force the relocation of LAX at a cost of billions of dollars.

 

[Josie Maran]

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-brown-lax-remarks-20140514-story.html

An aide to Jerry Brown confirmed Wednesday that the governor was wrong when he said global warming would eventually cause rising seawater to inundate Los Angeles International Airport.

Citing new studies, Brown called attention to the global warming issue on Tuesday, saying a predicted 4-foot rise in sea level within the next 200 years could force the relocation of LAX at a cost of billions of dollars.

All of Jerry Brown's research papers are now suspect. Damn.

 

[timschochet]

I'm annoyed that most progressives, who are justifiably concerned about this issue, are unwilling to consider nuclear energy as an obvious solution. Last night after my daughter's school concert we went out to dinner with her best friend and her parents. The mother is French, from Alsaac- Loraine, and she visits there once every few years. She was telling me how incredibly cheap and efficient France's nuclear energy is. Apparently they are well ahead of us in this area.

If France can do it, why not us?

 

[Sand]

If France can do it, why not us?

The loony environmental left and the politicians who cater to them. Case in point - the first new reactors are being built by Southern Co. after about 25 years of nothing. Getting the requisite permissions from government has taken years and years.

And France really isn't ahead of us as the new reactors going in are much better technology wise than what we used to build. They simply have a political will to make it happen.

 

[timschochet]

If France can do it, why not us?

The loony environmental left and the politicians who cater to them. Case in point - the first new reactors are being built by Southern Co. after about 25 years of nothing. Getting the requisite permissions from government has taken years and years.

And France really isn't ahead of us as the new reactors going in are much better technology wise than what we used to build. They simply have a political will to make it happen.

And that's what frustrates me. Nuclear energy does not affect carbon in any way. The supply is potentially unlimited, so we don't have to worry about future unsustainability. Of course there are safety concerns, but ALL energy sources have safety concerns and statistically nuclear energy has caused far less deaths than coal, which I am seeking to replace. Just seems like it's the obvious answer, but progressives won't go for it because they have a knee jerk fear of it IMO.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

And that's what frustrates me. Nuclear energy does not affect carbon in any way. The supply is potentially unlimited, so we don't have to worry about future unsustainability. Of course there are safety concerns, but ALL energy sources have safety concerns and statistically nuclear energy has caused far less deaths than coal, which I am seeking to replace. Just seems like it's the obvious answer, but progressives won't go for it because they have a knee jerk fear of it IMO.

Don't blame progressives!

 

[Josie Maran]

If France can do it, why not us?

The loony environmental left and the politicians who cater to them. Case in point - the first new reactors are being built by Southern Co. after about 25 years of nothing. Getting the requisite permissions from government has taken years and years.

And France really isn't ahead of us as the new reactors going in are much better technology wise than what we used to build. They simply have a political will to make it happen.

Gonna have to agree with you here. I'm not a huge fan of nuclear, but I think it should be part of the equation. The birkenstockers annoy me with this.

Although I wouldn't say the politicians are in their pockets...because most suburban right-wing christians would balk at a nuclear facility in their neighborhood. It's nimbyism at its finest.

 

[timschochet]

And that's what frustrates me. Nuclear energy does not affect carbon in any way. The supply is potentially unlimited, so we don't have to worry about future unsustainability. Of course there are safety concerns, but ALL energy sources have safety concerns and statistically nuclear energy has caused far less deaths than coal, which I am seeking to replace. Just seems like it's the obvious answer, but progressives won't go for it because they have a knee jerk fear of it IMO.

Don't blame progressives!

That article seems overly negative. But why has the cost become so high? Part of the reason, IMO, is the irrational fear that began here with Three Mile Island, continued with Chernobyl, and resurfaced last year after Fukushima. How many people have died in all of those instances combined?

 

[Josie Maran]

And that's what frustrates me. Nuclear energy does not affect carbon in any way. The supply is potentially unlimited, so we don't have to worry about future unsustainability. Of course there are safety concerns, but ALL energy sources have safety concerns and statistically nuclear energy has caused far less deaths than coal, which I am seeking to replace. Just seems like it's the obvious answer, but progressives won't go for it because they have a knee jerk fear of it IMO.

Don't blame progressives!

That article seems overly negative. But why has the cost become so high? Part of the reason, IMO, is the irrational fear that began here with Three Mile Island, continued with Chernobyl, and resurfaced last year after Fukushima. How many people have died in all of those instances combined?

It's all about the potential GB.

And FYI, don't ever use Chernobyl as an example of overreaction.

 

[timschochet]

And that's what frustrates me. Nuclear energy does not affect carbon in any way. The supply is potentially unlimited, so we don't have to worry about future unsustainability. Of course there are safety concerns, but ALL energy sources have safety concerns and statistically nuclear energy has caused far less deaths than coal, which I am seeking to replace. Just seems like it's the obvious answer, but progressives won't go for it because they have a knee jerk fear of it IMO.

Don't blame progressives!

That article seems overly negative. But why has the cost become so high? Part of the reason, IMO, is the irrational fear that began here with Three Mile Island, continued with Chernobyl, and resurfaced last year after Fukushima. How many people have died in all of those instances combined?

It's all about the potential GB.

And FYI, don't ever use Chernobyl as an example of overreaction.

Why not? 31 people died. As sad as that is, it's a pittance compared to the number of people who die every year from coal related accidents. And the predictions at the time were that hundreds of thousands would die.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

And that's what frustrates me. Nuclear energy does not affect carbon in any way. The supply is potentially unlimited, so we don't have to worry about future unsustainability. Of course there are safety concerns, but ALL energy sources have safety concerns and statistically nuclear energy has caused far less deaths than coal, which I am seeking to replace. Just seems like it's the obvious answer, but progressives won't go for it because they have a knee jerk fear of it IMO.

Don't blame progressives!

That article seems overly negative. But why has the cost become so high? Part of the reason, IMO, is the irrational fear that began here with Three Mile Island, continued with Chernobyl, and resurfaced last year after Fukushima. How many people have died in all of those instances combined?

It's all about the potential GB.

And FYI, don't ever use Chernobyl as an example of overreaction.

Why not? 31 people died. As sad as that is, it's a pittance compared to the number of people who die every year from coal related accidents. And the predictions at the time were that hundreds of thousands would die.

Overreaction

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Seems to me the total population of the earth needs to be reduced, dramatically, and we have to adjust our thinking to more movable or nomadic settlements rather than fixed settlements.

 

[Josie Maran]

And that's what frustrates me. Nuclear energy does not affect carbon in any way. The supply is potentially unlimited, so we don't have to worry about future unsustainability. Of course there are safety concerns, but ALL energy sources have safety concerns and statistically nuclear energy has caused far less deaths than coal, which I am seeking to replace. Just seems like it's the obvious answer, but progressives won't go for it because they have a knee jerk fear of it IMO.

Don't blame progressives!

That article seems overly negative. But why has the cost become so high? Part of the reason, IMO, is the irrational fear that began here with Three Mile Island, continued with Chernobyl, and resurfaced last year after Fukushima. How many people have died in all of those instances combined?

It's all about the potential GB.

And FYI, don't ever use Chernobyl as an example of overreaction.

Why not? 31 people died. As sad as that is, it's a pittance compared to the number of people who die every year from coal related accidents. And the predictions at the time were that hundreds of thousands would die.

I knew you'd throw that number out. You don't think there were any residual deaths from that event and the subsequent cleanup? Not to mention the abandonment of an entire city, which I guess doesn't really matter since you didn't live there.

Look, I'm OK with nuclear power. But you have to admit that the potential for disaster is friggin insane. What if the 9/11 hijackers had a little more ambition and sent a couple of planes into the nuclear plant in Connecticut?

 

[timschochet]

And that's what frustrates me. Nuclear energy does not affect carbon in any way. The supply is potentially unlimited, so we don't have to worry about future unsustainability. Of course there are safety concerns, but ALL energy sources have safety concerns and statistically nuclear energy has caused far less deaths than coal, which I am seeking to replace. Just seems like it's the obvious answer, but progressives won't go for it because they have a knee jerk fear of it IMO.

Don't blame progressives!

That article seems overly negative. But why has the cost become so high? Part of the reason, IMO, is the irrational fear that began here with Three Mile Island, continued with Chernobyl, and resurfaced last year after Fukushima. How many people have died in all of those instances combined?

It's all about the potential GB.

And FYI, don't ever use Chernobyl as an example of overreaction.

Why not? 31 people died. As sad as that is, it's a pittance compared to the number of people who die every year from coal related accidents. And the predictions at the time were that hundreds of thousands would die.

I knew you'd throw that number out. You don't think there were any residual deaths from that event and the subsequent cleanup? Not to mention the abandonment of an entire city, which I guess doesn't really matter since you didn't live there.

Look, I'm OK with nuclear power. But you have to admit that the potential for disaster is friggin insane. What if the 9/11 hijackers had a little more ambition and sent a couple of planes into the nuclear plant in Connecticut?

Of course there were all sorts of deaths, even now. Of course it was a terrible disaster. But it was not quite as catastrophic as predicted.

Regarding your what if, I don't think a nuclear meltdown is quite as easy as simply sending a couple of planes into a power plant. But I don't know; perhaps somebody with better knowledge of this can answer that.

 

[DrJ]

Storing the sea in jars would be a viable solution, right? I have a shelf I'm willing to dedicate to the cause.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

And that's what frustrates me. Nuclear energy does not affect carbon in any way. The supply is potentially unlimited, so we don't have to worry about future unsustainability. Of course there are safety concerns, but ALL energy sources have safety concerns and statistically nuclear energy has caused far less deaths than coal, which I am seeking to replace. Just seems like it's the obvious answer, but progressives won't go for it because they have a knee jerk fear of it IMO.

Don't blame progressives!

That article seems overly negative. But why has the cost become so high? Part of the reason, IMO, is the irrational fear that began here with Three Mile Island, continued with Chernobyl, and resurfaced last year after Fukushima. How many people have died in all of those instances combined?

They haven't become too high, they have always been too high without government subsidies.

The two energy crisis of the 70s lead to enough of a reduction in energy demand (or at least a reduction growth) along with runaway underestimating of construction costs that nuclear projects were abandoned everywhere pouring millions of investor dollars down the drain. Then we had the resurgence about ten years ago where we once again have investors burned by run away construction cost. Sorry, the market rejects nuclear even with much of the risk and even cost absorbed by governments because more often than not it is a bad investment. Though when plants that are scheduled to be shuttered get new 20 year licenses its a gravy train - but even these hopes were over stated tens years ago as at least some of these plants ended up shuttered anyway when the price tags for "minor" repairs came in.

 

[glock]

And that's what frustrates me. Nuclear energy does not affect carbon in any way. The supply is potentially unlimited, so we don't have to worry about future unsustainability. Of course there are safety concerns, but ALL energy sources have safety concerns and statistically nuclear energy has caused far less deaths than coal, which I am seeking to replace. Just seems like it's the obvious answer, but progressives won't go for it because they have a knee jerk fear of it IMO.

Don't blame progressives!

That article seems overly negative. But why has the cost become so high? Part of the reason, IMO, is the irrational fear that began here with Three Mile Island, continued with Chernobyl, and resurfaced last year after Fukushima. How many people have died in all of those instances combined?

It's all about the potential GB.

And FYI, don't ever use Chernobyl as an example of overreaction.

Why not? 31 people died. As sad as that is, it's a pittance compared to the number of people who die every year from coal related accidents. And the predictions at the time were that hundreds of thousands would die.

I knew you'd throw that number out. You don't think there were any residual deaths from that event and the subsequent cleanup? Not to mention the abandonment of an entire city, which I guess doesn't really matter since you didn't live there.

Look, I'm OK with nuclear power. But you have to admit that the potential for disaster is friggin insane. What if the 9/11 hijackers had a little more ambition and sent a couple of planes into the nuclear plant in Connecticut?

Of course there were all sorts of deaths, even now. Of course it was a terrible disaster. But it was not quite as catastrophic as predicted.

Regarding your what if, I don't think a nuclear meltdown is quite as easy as simply sending a couple of planes into a power plant. But I don't know; perhaps somebody with better knowledge of this can answer that.

Tim...

I think just about everyone understands the enormous energy potential to be gained via nuclear power, but its the industry's inability to come up with realistic long term safety plans for evacuation in case of catastrophic failure and safe disposal of radioactive waste that are major factors contributing to public distrust.

The whole "I can put whatever crap I want on my 1/4 acre lawn- it doesn't mean #### in the long run" mindset of some up in here, that- when translated to thinking regarding the nuclear energy industry- makes me quake in my boots.

 

[FlapJacks]

oldie but goody

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080519-hurricanes.html

Global Warming to Decrease Hurricanes, Study SaysWillie Drye
for National Geographic News
May 19, 2008
Global warming may reduce the number of hurricanes forming in the Atlantic Basin by 2060, a new study says. But it adds that the storms that do form may be slightly stronger and wetter.

The study, conducted by scientists at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), is the latest development in a contentious debate about whether global warming is influencing hurricanes.

The new research suggests that the number of hurricanes each summer could decrease by about 18 percent.

Major hurricanes—those with winds in excess of 110 miles (177 kilometers) an hour—could decline by about 8 percent.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

G.O.P. RIVALS QUESTION RUBIO’S IGNORANCE CREDENTIALS

POSTED BY ANDY BOROWITZ

MAY 12, 2014

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—After claiming on Sunday that human activity does not cause climate change, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) suddenly found his ignorance credentials under attack by potential rivals for the 2016 Republican Presidential nomination.

"Now that Marco’s thinking of running for President, he doesn’t believe in climate change," said Texas Governor Rick Perry. "To those of us with long track records of ignorance on this issue, he seems a little late to the rodeo."

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) echoed Gov. Perry’s criticism, calling Rubio a "dummy-come-lately" on climate change.

"At the end of the day, I have faith that Republican voters can tell the difference between someone who’s truly uninformed and someone who’s just faking it," he said. "These comments by Marco don’t pass the smell test."

By Sunday evening, a defensive Sen. Rubio was pushing back against the attacks, telling reporters, "Any questions about the authenticity of my ignorance are deeply offensive to me."

"My refusal to accept the scientific research on climate change is a matter of public record," he said. "On this issue and many others my ignorance should take a back seat to no one’s."

This has nothing to do with global warming, but this actual footage of the Idaho Republican gubernatorial primary debate is fantastic.

 

[glock]

G.O.P. RIVALS QUESTION RUBIO’S IGNORANCE CREDENTIALS

POSTED BY ANDY BOROWITZ

MAY 12, 2014

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—After claiming on Sunday that human activity does not cause climate change, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) suddenly found his ignorance credentials under attack by potential rivals for the 2016 Republican Presidential nomination.

"Now that Marco’s thinking of running for President, he doesn’t believe in climate change," said Texas Governor Rick Perry. "To those of us with long track records of ignorance on this issue, he seems a little late to the rodeo."

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) echoed Gov. Perry’s criticism, calling Rubio a "dummy-come-lately" on climate change.

"At the end of the day, I have faith that Republican voters can tell the difference between someone who’s truly uninformed and someone who’s just faking it," he said. "These comments by Marco don’t pass the smell test."

By Sunday evening, a defensive Sen. Rubio was pushing back against the attacks, telling reporters, "Any questions about the authenticity of my ignorance are deeply offensive to me."

"My refusal to accept the scientific research on climate change is a matter of public record," he said. "On this issue and many others my ignorance should take a back seat to no one’s."

This has nothing to do with global warming, but this actual footage of the Idaho Republican gubernatorial primary debate is fantastic.

 

[jon_mx]

G.O.P. RIVALS QUESTION RUBIO’S IGNORANCE CREDENTIALS

POSTED BY ANDY BOROWITZ

MAY 12, 2014

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—After claiming on Sunday that human activity does not cause climate change, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) suddenly found his ignorance credentials under attack by potential rivals for the 2016 Republican Presidential nomination.

"Now that Marco’s thinking of running for President, he doesn’t believe in climate change," said Texas Governor Rick Perry. "To those of us with long track records of ignorance on this issue, he seems a little late to the rodeo."

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) echoed Gov. Perry’s criticism, calling Rubio a "dummy-come-lately" on climate change.

"At the end of the day, I have faith that Republican voters can tell the difference between someone who’s truly uninformed and someone who’s just faking it," he said. "These comments by Marco don’t pass the smell test."

By Sunday evening, a defensive Sen. Rubio was pushing back against the attacks, telling reporters, "Any questions about the authenticity of my ignorance are deeply offensive to me."

"My refusal to accept the scientific research on climate change is a matter of public record," he said. "On this issue and many others my ignorance should take a back seat to no one’s."

This has nothing to do with global warming, but this actual footage of the Idaho Republican gubernatorial primary debate is fantastic.

Great to see real people running for office. "Half the Republicans are Democrats, and half the Democrats are Commuists!" Guy knows his stuff.

 

[DrJ]

Lots of people complaining about the snow here in May. Global cooling is upon us. :( :( :(

 

[Koya]

Lots of people complaining about the snow here in May. Global cooling is upon us. :( :( :(

Let's please stop being disingenuous. It only makes us more skeptical of those who claim to be skeptics of climate change but then act like it's all politics.

It's climate change... general warming trend but more extremes, odd weather, swings and some places will actually end up colder. That's the theory of many / most at least.

 

[DrJ]

Lots of people complaining about the snow here in May. Global cooling is upon us. :( :( :(

Let's please stop being disingenuous. It only makes us more skeptical of those who claim to be skeptics of climate change but then act like it's all politics.

It's climate change... general warming trend but more extremes, odd weather, swings and some places will actually end up colder. That's the theory of many / most at least.

Yeah, they have a cast a pretty comprehensive net so that any weather can be used as "support". I didn't see you taking this sort of stance as Curly was blaming California droughts or fires on global warming though.

 

[Koya]

Lots of people complaining about the snow here in May. Global cooling is upon us. :( :( :(

Let's please stop being disingenuous. It only makes us more skeptical of those who claim to be skeptics of climate change but then act like it's all politics.

It's climate change... general warming trend but more extremes, odd weather, swings and some places will actually end up colder. That's the theory of many / most at least.

Yeah, they have a cast a pretty comprehensive net so that any weather can be used as "support". I didn't see you taking this sort of stance as Curly was blaming California droughts or fires on global warming though.

Not sure what you mean. I would suggest that a fire season that is really an extension of LAST YEARS fire season, and a winter that was as warm as most springs is another of many indications that something is up, weather wise. Just because I don't monitor every post does not mean I dont agree / disagree with what's being said.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Lots of people complaining about the snow here in May. Global cooling is upon us. :( :( :(

Let's please stop being disingenuous. It only makes us more skeptical of those who claim to be skeptics of climate change but then act like it's all politics.

It's climate change... general warming trend but more extremes, odd weather, swings and some places will actually end up colder. That's the theory of many / most at least.

Yeah, they have a cast a pretty comprehensive net so that any weather can be used as "support". I didn't see you taking this sort of stance as Curly was blaming California droughts or fires on global warming though.

Not sure what you mean. I would suggest that a fire season that is really an extension of LAST YEARS fire season, and a winter that was as warm as most springs is another of many indications that something is up, weather wise. Just because I don't monitor every post does not mean I dont agree / disagree with what's being said.

Strong suspicion that many of the fires in Cali are arson. Two kids arrested for a couple of them already. I don't that's indicative of a weather related event.

 

[jon_mx]

Lots of people complaining about the snow here in May. Global cooling is upon us. :( :( :(

Let's please stop being disingenuous. It only makes us more skeptical of those who claim to be skeptics of climate change but then act like it's all politics.

It's climate change... general warming trend but more extremes, odd weather, swings and some places will actually end up colder. That's the theory of many / most at least.

Yeah, they have a cast a pretty comprehensive net so that any weather can be used as "support". I didn't see you taking this sort of stance as Curly was blaming California droughts or fires on global warming though.

Not sure what you mean. I would suggest that a fire season that is really an extension of LAST YEARS fire season, and a winter that was as warm as most springs is another of many indications that something is up, weather wise. Just because I don't monitor every post does not mean I dont agree / disagree with what's being said.

So unless the weather was exactly the same as the year before, it is a pretty good indication that something is up. Can't argue against that.

 

[Koya]

Lots of people complaining about the snow here in May. Global cooling is upon us. :( :( :(

Let's please stop being disingenuous. It only makes us more skeptical of those who claim to be skeptics of climate change but then act like it's all politics.

It's climate change... general warming trend but more extremes, odd weather, swings and some places will actually end up colder. That's the theory of many / most at least.

Yeah, they have a cast a pretty comprehensive net so that any weather can be used as "support". I didn't see you taking this sort of stance as Curly was blaming California droughts or fires on global warming though.

Not sure what you mean. I would suggest that a fire season that is really an extension of LAST YEARS fire season, and a winter that was as warm as most springs is another of many indications that something is up, weather wise. Just because I don't monitor every post does not mean I dont agree / disagree with what's being said.

Strong suspicion that many of the fires in Cali are arson. Two kids arrested for a couple of them already. I don't that's indicative of a weather related event.

And the fact that fire season from last year never ended? This cherry picking of facts again only spurs more questioning of motive, I'm sorry.

 

[DrJ]

Lots of people complaining about the snow here in May. Global cooling is upon us. :( :( :(

Let's please stop being disingenuous. It only makes us more skeptical of those who claim to be skeptics of climate change but then act like it's all politics.

It's climate change... general warming trend but more extremes, odd weather, swings and some places will actually end up colder. That's the theory of many / most at least.

Yeah, they have a cast a pretty comprehensive net so that any weather can be used as "support". I didn't see you taking this sort of stance as Curly was blaming California droughts or fires on global warming though.

Not sure what you mean. I would suggest that a fire season that is really an extension of LAST YEARS fire season, and a winter that was as warm as most springs is another of many indications that something is up, weather wise. Just because I don't monitor every post does not mean I dont agree / disagree with what's being said.

Strong suspicion that many of the fires in Cali are arson. Two kids arrested for a couple of them already. I don't that's indicative of a weather related event.

And the fact that fire season from last year never ended? This cherry picking of facts again only spurs more questioning of motive, I'm sorry.

It's all cherry picking when we only have a minute understanding of the weather system. You happen to prefer cherry picking that has a certain bias, we know.

 

[Koya]

Lots of people complaining about the snow here in May. Global cooling is upon us. :( :( :(

Let's please stop being disingenuous. It only makes us more skeptical of those who claim to be skeptics of climate change but then act like it's all politics.

It's climate change... general warming trend but more extremes, odd weather, swings and some places will actually end up colder. That's the theory of many / most at least.

Yeah, they have a cast a pretty comprehensive net so that any weather can be used as "support". I didn't see you taking this sort of stance as Curly was blaming California droughts or fires on global warming though.

Not sure what you mean. I would suggest that a fire season that is really an extension of LAST YEARS fire season, and a winter that was as warm as most springs is another of many indications that something is up, weather wise. Just because I don't monitor every post does not mean I dont agree / disagree with what's being said.

Strong suspicion that many of the fires in Cali are arson. Two kids arrested for a couple of them already. I don't that's indicative of a weather related event.

And the fact that fire season from last year never ended? This cherry picking of facts again only spurs more questioning of motive, I'm sorry.

It's all cherry picking when we only have a minute understanding of the weather system. You happen to prefer cherry picking that has a certain bias, we know.

What bias do I have? Other than those I admit (not being flippant, asking honestly).

Honestly, I'm trying to understand the truth, while the dedicated left and right are pushing agenda's which make an objective look at this VERY important issue which has huge ramifications for us all.

 

[tommyboy]

Lots of people complaining about the snow here in May. Global cooling is upon us. :( :( :(

Let's please stop being disingenuous. It only makes us more skeptical of those who claim to be skeptics of climate change but then act like it's all politics.

It's climate change... general warming trend but more extremes, odd weather, swings and some places will actually end up colder. That's the theory of many / most at least.

Yeah, they have a cast a pretty comprehensive net so that any weather can be used as "support". I didn't see you taking this sort of stance as Curly was blaming California droughts or fires on global warming though.

Not sure what you mean. I would suggest that a fire season that is really an extension of LAST YEARS fire season, and a winter that was as warm as most springs is another of many indications that something is up, weather wise. Just because I don't monitor every post does not mean I dont agree / disagree with what's being said.

Strong suspicion that many of the fires in Cali are arson. Two kids arrested for a couple of them already. I don't that's indicative of a weather related event.

And the fact that fire season from last year never ended? This cherry picking of facts again only spurs more questioning of motive, I'm sorry.

It's all cherry picking when we only have a minute understanding of the weather system. You happen to prefer cherry picking that has a certain bias, we know.

What bias do I have? Other than those I admit (not being flippant, asking honestly).

Honestly, I'm trying to understand the truth, while the dedicated left and right are pushing agenda's which make an objective look at this VERY important issue which has huge ramifications for us all.

the truth is one year of weather anomaly doesn't prove anything, scientifically.

 

[Koya]

Lots of people complaining about the snow here in May. Global cooling is upon us. :( :( :(

Let's please stop being disingenuous. It only makes us more skeptical of those who claim to be skeptics of climate change but then act like it's all politics.

It's climate change... general warming trend but more extremes, odd weather, swings and some places will actually end up colder. That's the theory of many / most at least.

Yeah, they have a cast a pretty comprehensive net so that any weather can be used as "support". I didn't see you taking this sort of stance as Curly was blaming California droughts or fires on global warming though.

Not sure what you mean. I would suggest that a fire season that is really an extension of LAST YEARS fire season, and a winter that was as warm as most springs is another of many indications that something is up, weather wise. Just because I don't monitor every post does not mean I dont agree / disagree with what's being said.

Strong suspicion that many of the fires in Cali are arson. Two kids arrested for a couple of them already. I don't that's indicative of a weather related event.

And the fact that fire season from last year never ended? This cherry picking of facts again only spurs more questioning of motive, I'm sorry.

It's all cherry picking when we only have a minute understanding of the weather system. You happen to prefer cherry picking that has a certain bias, we know.

What bias do I have? Other than those I admit (not being flippant, asking honestly).

Honestly, I'm trying to understand the truth, while the dedicated left and right are pushing agenda's which make an objective look at this VERY important issue which has huge ramifications for us all.

the truth is one year of weather anomaly doesn't prove anything, scientifically.

Agreed. I've seen a lot more than one year of data and one extreme weather event.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Lots of people complaining about the snow here in May. Global cooling is upon us. :( :( :(

Let's please stop being disingenuous. It only makes us more skeptical of those who claim to be skeptics of climate change but then act like it's all politics.

It's climate change... general warming trend but more extremes, odd weather, swings and some places will actually end up colder. That's the theory of many / most at least.

Yeah, they have a cast a pretty comprehensive net so that any weather can be used as "support". I didn't see you taking this sort of stance as Curly was blaming California droughts or fires on global warming though.

Not sure what you mean. I would suggest that a fire season that is really an extension of LAST YEARS fire season, and a winter that was as warm as most springs is another of many indications that something is up, weather wise. Just because I don't monitor every post does not mean I dont agree / disagree with what's being said.

Strong suspicion that many of the fires in Cali are arson. Two kids arrested for a couple of them already. I don't that's indicative of a weather related event.

And the fact that fire season from last year never ended? This cherry picking of facts again only spurs more questioning of motive, I'm sorry.

I'm not sure what you mean by the fire season never ended. I grew up in So. Cal. and the general feeling was that fires were always possible. Goes with the fact that you get very little rain there. Things are dry. Do you have a link that describes what you're suggesting?

 

[Koya]

Lots of people complaining about the snow here in May. Global cooling is upon us. :( :( :(

Let's please stop being disingenuous. It only makes us more skeptical of those who claim to be skeptics of climate change but then act like it's all politics.

It's climate change... general warming trend but more extremes, odd weather, swings and some places will actually end up colder. That's the theory of many / most at least.

Yeah, they have a cast a pretty comprehensive net so that any weather can be used as "support". I didn't see you taking this sort of stance as Curly was blaming California droughts or fires on global warming though.

Not sure what you mean. I would suggest that a fire season that is really an extension of LAST YEARS fire season, and a winter that was as warm as most springs is another of many indications that something is up, weather wise. Just because I don't monitor every post does not mean I dont agree / disagree with what's being said.

Strong suspicion that many of the fires in Cali are arson. Two kids arrested for a couple of them already. I don't that's indicative of a weather related event.

And the fact that fire season from last year never ended? This cherry picking of facts again only spurs more questioning of motive, I'm sorry.

I'm not sure what you mean by the fire season never ended. I grew up in So. Cal. and the general feeling was that fires were always possible. Goes with the fact that you get very little rain there. Things are dry. Do you have a link that describes what you're suggesting?

Heard an interview with one of the local electeds yesterday saying that last years' season never ended. They never shut down firehouses (that I presume they usually do), haven't had a break, and this is not something new but an extension of whats been going on since last season.

 

[DrJ]

Lots of people complaining about the snow here in May. Global cooling is upon us. :( :( :(

Let's please stop being disingenuous. It only makes us more skeptical of those who claim to be skeptics of climate change but then act like it's all politics.

It's climate change... general warming trend but more extremes, odd weather, swings and some places will actually end up colder. That's the theory of many / most at least.

Yeah, they have a cast a pretty comprehensive net so that any weather can be used as "support". I didn't see you taking this sort of stance as Curly was blaming California droughts or fires on global warming though.

Not sure what you mean. I would suggest that a fire season that is really an extension of LAST YEARS fire season, and a winter that was as warm as most springs is another of many indications that something is up, weather wise. Just because I don't monitor every post does not mean I dont agree / disagree with what's being said.

Strong suspicion that many of the fires in Cali are arson. Two kids arrested for a couple of them already. I don't that's indicative of a weather related event.

And the fact that fire season from last year never ended? This cherry picking of facts again only spurs more questioning of motive, I'm sorry.

I'm not sure what you mean by the fire season never ended. I grew up in So. Cal. and the general feeling was that fires were always possible. Goes with the fact that you get very little rain there. Things are dry. Do you have a link that describes what you're suggesting?

Heard an interview with one of the local electeds yesterday saying that last years' season never ended. They never shut down firehouses (that I presume they usually do), haven't had a break, and this is not something new but an extension of whats been going on since last season.

Well, that's pretty scientific.