This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Sad part is, you post this as DailyKos, and the next thing you know there's a story all over the world of how Sarah Palin and the Tea Baggers conspired to take over the world.
Burun estetigiIt appears Julian Epstein and Rachel Maddow were separated at birth
mamooth - March 12th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
"Hey there Cletus, that there's snow on the ground here! Er, It means global warming is fake! Hardy Har Har, why don't them thar egghead scientists see that?"
Sad thing is, that's an example of the best logic you'll get from denialists. And they actually wonder why the grownups tell them to run along and play.
Funny.
Just when Saint Algore the Pius and the Church of Climatology came within a hairs breadth of snookering the entire world, God sent Mother Nature in to blow up a storm.
Ironic that Mother Nature is as much of a bitch as karma.
ben - March 12th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
I recognize these useful idiots. What is it with this warm, tingly feeling running up his leg? Why doesn't this other guy ever stand up so we can see him fully? And who is the third guy in the picture?
Sure you just keep telling yourself that the only reason we disbelieve in man made global warming is because it snowed a lot and was exceptionally cold this winter.
Maybe it has to do with the fact that earth's global climate has always been fluid throughout history both recorded and not. We know it was warmer than today in the Medieval period. In those days, they named Greenland because it was green and they could farm and mine there. It wasn't called Greenland because of its huge glaciers. They still aren't farming in Greenland, so evidence there suggests that earth's climate still isn't as warm today as it was then.
And that's just one reason to doubt. The revelations about falsified science and missing original data should also be sounding a warning bell in your head.
The third guy?
Mr. Rachel Maddow. But you can call her "Sir."
luckyjoe - March 12th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
"Hey there Cletus, that there's snow on the ground here! Er, It means global warming is REAL! Hardy Har Har, why don't them thar egghead scientists see that?"
Sad thing is, that's an example of the best logic you'll get from "useful" idiots that believe in the fake man made global warming scam. And they actually wonder why the grownups tell them to run along and play.
I don't believe in conspiracies. I do believe that some people came up with what they thought was a legitimate problem, and they found that they got money and attention because of it. When, upon examination, they found they were wrong, they tried to hide it. It's human nature to not want to admit you might have been wrong. Over time, the issue took on a life of its own.
Howeverm the first alarm bell to anyone should have been the saying "the science is settled." Science is seldom if ever "settled." Science is scepticism by its very nature. We learn what is by testing and retesting, and in this case, there are large holes. There are things we've been testing as givens for over a hundred years, and they still aren't scientific law – Theory of Gravity. If something like the theory of gravity is still not an accepted scientific law, how on earth did global warming attain that status in less than ten years particularly coming out of a field of science that is still very new about which we still know relatively little – climatology?
I don't deny that climate changes. Earth's history proves that. I do question how we can be so certain that any current changes are our fault when we still don't know and understand the impact of solar activity or even terrestrial things like cloud cover.
I can't believe NY would be stupid enough to do this. What do they think will happen to all those high cuisine restaurants currently operating in New York? I don't think many chefs will take being told how to season their food lightly.
Expect another loss of small business in NYC and a culinary renaissance coming to a city near you.
Kevin - March 12th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
Great comic strip! I forgot that Maddow wore glasses.
This has been an active research topic for 50+ years. Despite the "ice age" popular media blip in the 70s, science was settling on "warming" by the 60s. It wasn't politicized, but the science was there.
We measure heat flow in and out of the earth. More heat comes in than goes out. Global warming. That part is settled science. Arguing magnitudes, causes, effects, that's reasonable. Arguing that warming doesn't exist isn't reasonable. And declaring that warming is due to a worldwide conspiracy to fabricate data would be especially unreasonable.
Solar activity? We understand that well. There are have been no solar changes to account for the warming. The cosmic ray theories have fallen apart under scrutiny, after the world behaved in a manner opposite to what those theories predicted.
Clouds? Trickier. You're right, cloud effects aren't fully understood. But they could just as well be trending to make things worse. There's currently no good evidence that cloud changes have been causing the warming, and there does come a point when you have to say "good enough, this is a problem", as opposed to waiting for the last detail.
The only thing more pathetic than mamooth's display of willful ignorance and misguided disdain is the smugness with which he expresses it. Typical. What a sorry, ridiculous person. Sad, really.
mamooth - March 12th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
My girlfriend misspelled that, trying to call me a hairy mammoth. You'll have to excuse her. Poor thing lacked the benefits of a public school education.
If you look it up on the urban dictionary, one definition for "mamooth" is a man who likes hairy-backed women. This amused me, given how it reflected on my girlfriend.
bobmac - March 12th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
This strip is going to be real good.
mamooth - March 12th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Don't pretend you had any idea what that article was about. Like all the Pajamas readers, you saw big words and believed.
This is a complex topic. It would take hours to even attempt to explain to you. And there's little likelihood you could understand, given how deep your emotional investment in not understanding is. I'm patient with the sincere, but there are limits to the free education I'll hand out to the insincere. Before I go further, you'll need to send payment into a Paypal account. Indicate if you're willing to do so. After the transaction, we'll proceed.
Hey all you left wing Democrat Socialist Party members. Your lies about global warming is killing people!! you have blood on your hands from the fear mongering you have caused with your lies. How can you sleep at night knowing your responsible for the deaths & injuries of innocent people with your fear tactics? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southam...
Why all the hate?
there, we go, mamooth… Gotta insult people, as you can't use the topic at hand to prove your point. typical liberal whining minge. Attack the person, not the subject. how cute.
run along now, and go play in traffic.
What? you can't hear the cars coming, because they're all hybrids? too bad.
I don't see it so much as a conspiracy theory either, more of a perfect storm, with all the right conditions coming together.
Modern liberalism at its core is a house of cards based upon victimization. And the beauty of man made global warming is it creates the largest class of victims of all time – every one and every thing on the planet. There fore it offers something for every modern liberal movement. What ever it is, blame it on global warming.
So all the various factions have landed on the same page in order to reach their separate goals. No one on the left would dare even think this wasn't gospel. Modern liberals don't do that to each other. That's how greenies can sit down at the same table with big labor – including unions that want drilling jobs. They never speak ill of each other – unless its to save their own skin.
Come on James, is this performance art? It's like your stringing him along to prove the irony of your comic.
It's funny as hell too! Most modern liberals I know refuse to debate me on science (well, on pretty much anything), and it's fun to see it again, like a stroll down memory lane.
It really is an over simplistic debate style. Start out with the premise the modern liberal is correct, then move on to creative insults because we can't see how much smarter they are. All the while bypassing facts, logic and reason.
Ah the shelter of every internet so-called expert. So, are you the one on another forum I used to frequent who also claimed to be an economics expert who would only explain why we were all so disastrously wrong if we chipped into your PayPal account?
You method sounds very similar.
If you're an actual climate expert, I'm Lara Croft.
"Golly Cletus! Them thar egghead scientist won't even look at the sun!"
The sun was the first thing looked at, and it's been studied in detail nonstop since this all began. Figure out the difference between _predicting_ solar cycles and _measuring_ solar output. We have been _measuring_ the energy reaching the earth in detail for a long time, and it doesn't explain the warming.
mrm-in-wnc - March 12th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
"given how deep your emotional investment in not understanding is"
if 'projection' ever has a pro league, i want mamooth on my fantasy team…
And yes, scientists have been studying the sun and solar heat for some time. How ever what they are discovering is when you look at the longer picture, what they thought they understood about solar cycles was pretty much wrong. Imagine that? Scientists redoing data, and discovering mistakes? How unlike scientists! But wait! Never mind, that IS what real scientists do.
And I hoping you'd respond so I could ask you this one last question. From the left's very own NY Times, which being a liberal means you more or less have to believe them, I know the rules, I used to be one. And if its a liberal, you can't say anything bad about them (unless its to save your skin), this is a stellar example of what's wrong with this scam.
"Scientists and officials say that the panel's finding that the earth is warming–probably as a result of human activity–remains indisputable."
Emphasis added. Show me the study that makes probably go away. Because there ain't one. At least not that I've heard. Instead, we just have to take their word for it. That is not science.
Your turn.
mrm-in-wnc - March 12th, 2010 at 9:45 pm
so is your 'girlfriend' real or imaginary? is she doing some sort of community service sentence or just lose a really bad bet? why is she typing for you? why are letting her continue to misspell your 'name', even though it makes you look like an (even bigger) ignoramus? did you get your hands busted for trying to jimmy the token box at the local video arcade? fall down a flight of stairs drunk and/or stoned? enquiring minds want to know…
btw- with a degree in environmental biology from CU-Boulder i could debate the science, but since you just want to sling insults, hey, why not stoop to your level? that, and it's pretty clear you're just another internet expert whose depth of knowledge on any given subject could be measured in nanometers.
mrm-in-wnc - March 12th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
Dismissive condescension- the ignorant liberal's last arrow. "Well if you can't comprehend my brilliance, I'm certainly not going to waste my precious time explaining it to you!" he haughtily sniffed…
If it weren't so serious an issue (gazillions of dollars) it would be comical. These believers, who so defend the science proving man made global warming (AGW I think is the acronym), really don't understand science at all, and yet are more than happy to don the cap and gown to prove how sophisticated and educated they are.
They don't even understand the difference between a casual relationship and a correlation.
A causal relationship is like grouping one study that proves</> drinking slows reactions, with another that proves slow reaction time contributes to traffic accidents, there fore we can conclude that it is likely that drinking contributes to traffic accidents.
A correlation is a study that determines 99% of people who died in the last year ate carrots in their life time, therefore eating carrots causes death.
That's the part that's missing from the science and why this is a scam. I, by no means, am any sort of expert on climate or temperatures, but I am an engineer, and this is a whole in the scientific method that you can sail a nuclear powered air craft carrier through.
Here's how they did it. Because temperatures appear to have risen over the last 150 years, which correlates to the beginning of the industrial revolution, humans creating green house gasses must be the cause, because there is no other possible reason.
And since there is no other possible reason, there's no reason to look. Therefore the science is settled and its time for the politicians to take over.
[...] » Useful Idiots: Snow Job – Big Journalism [...]
palmtree - March 12th, 2010 at 10:03 pm
Your correlation argument reminds me of the tobacco industries arguments that smoking and cancer had nothing to do with one another. Or maybe you agree with them , as many of the anti-global warming lobbyists have ties to former tobacco lobbyists.
here's a good summation of the basic argument: http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidenc...
mamooth - March 12th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
You're ignorant of what drives climate changes on Mars. Solar changes are _not_ the primary driver. Albedo changes caused by dust storms are the primary driver of Martian climate change. Therefore, the "but Mars changed" argument has no bearing on what the sun is doing. Mars does what it does mostly independent of the sun.
I pointed out the primary data, that data being the direct measurements of solar output. There have been no changes there to cause warming. The denialist reply is to ignore the primary data, and substitute irrelevant indirect data about a Martian ice cap. That's a big red flag, a warning sign of pseudoscience. Ignoring good data so you can trumpet your bad data is the hallmark of psuedoscience.
The rest of your post was a ramble, and I am unable to locate a point in it to reply to.
mamooth - March 12th, 2010 at 10:15 pm
I'm focusing out the year, not the author. 1959. This is old science. Only the politicization of it is new. I could have found dry scientific papers, but Asimov is more fun.
Solar cycles and currents have no bearing on the fact that, now, (heat in) > (heat out). Hence, warming. Yes, currents bringing up cold water certainly can depress air temps for a while. We saw that for the past few years, with the strong La Nina. But heat is still going into the oceans, and the reserves of colder water are getting warmed. The trend is up. The La Nina ends, we see record temps we see now. Jan 2010, hottest January on record (since satellite records began in 1978). Feb 2010, second hottest.
I think it's fairly obvious that the causal relationship between smoking and cancer has been established. Where Big Tobacco screwed up was they didn't embrace it, and instead tried to hide it. They should have just come out and state yes, but people want to smoke any way so let's figure out how to do it responsibly and keep it away from kids, the way Big Beer did. That's why Anheuser-Busch ain't having the same problems Reynolds has.
As for lawyers defending contemptible clients like Big Tobacco, they are hired guns and will work for whoever pays them the most in either cash, status or accolades. Just ask the DoJ lawyers who were defending the same Gitmo detainees they are now charged with prosecuting.
I understand what empirical evidence is, and it is a good data point, but its not always conclusive. I've been following this scam for well over a decade now, and very closely, because I smelled something wrong from the start.
All these people have to do is prove causal relationship and I'm on board. I think 90% of the so-called deniers would disappear too. Because then it would be science, and you can't argue with science.
Science is facts. Irrefutable, unquestionable, facts. People can choose to ignore facts in their heads, but that does not change the real world around them. That is why over thousands of years, the scientific method was developed – to divorce emotions from facts.
And I believe that's the exact reason we've been told the debate is over, it's time to act, precisely because they're trying to avoid admitting they don't have a causal relationship.
I am no hater of science, no denier, no member of any flat earth society, nor have I ever been in the employ of any petrochemical corp.
Show me the science.
mamooth - March 12th, 2010 at 10:23 pm
Ah, a conservative tough guy. As Freddy said, "Fresh meat, how sweet".
So what would you like to debate? Is there any point at looking at the data, or are you just going to shriek that the data is all a conspiracy?
I take it you don't know a lot about the fundamental laws of physics. In order to get energy out of a system, you first have to put energy into a system, and the energy you get out will never be as much as the energy you put in.
Have you ever taken a college level physics class? Because it really sounds to me like you're describing the Martian atmosphere as a perpetual motion machine, which generates heat on its own. Put in a little solar energy, and the planet will multiply it.
Dude, the energy has to come from somewhere. That's the entire AGW argument, the ozone layer is trapping the heat so it can't be radiated out to space. Mars does not have a heat trapping atmosphere.
But what can I say, you are amusing.
Show me the science. Not the fake stuff, the real stuff. Oh that's right, you can't because it was lost, misplaced, fudged to hide the decline, their dog ate it.
Show me the real science and I'm 100% on board, scientifically. I'm still against the political solutions which will only destroy wealth generation making it infinitely more difficult to deal with.
And now out comes the stereotypes. How typical of a modern liberal. Anyone who doesn't agree with you must be the enemy.
I'm not a conservative, I'm not a republican, I'm a libertarian, though they may claim I'm a little too normal for their tastes. But as I understand libertarianism, I don't really have to care about what they think. That's what kind of appeals to me.
When you said I believe all the data is a conspiracy, where you referring to the raw data the British CRU said they (surprise, surprise) no longer can locate?
I'm not going to get into a wear down fight quibbling over this study or that. Show me one study, one credible scientific study, that conclusively proves that increased CO2 caused by humans is causing raising temperatures. Do that and I'm on board.
It's the same thing I've been saying for the last decade to my modern liberal friends. Well, except the hard core ones who refuse to talk to me because I must be an idiot for not realizing Al Gore has super human powers and can relate to the inner karma of the planet.
Show me the one study the connects them. They have refused to do so after all this time, and tell me if I ask for it I want to destroy the world.
It's not a conspiracy – its a political movement. That's why we're no longer supposed to debate, but instead, elect democrats.
mamooth - March 12th, 2010 at 10:38 pm
I never said I was a climate expert. I'm just smarter that you guys. That's doesn't say much. I'm an engineer, not a scientist.
I do insult people, and I'm proud of it. After all, I'm good at it, and my targets deserve it. The difference between me and the snivel brigade is I don't cry when I get back what I dished out. You think you can beat me? Choose your weapon, take your best shot, we'll have a merry go of it.
Your best chance is the "avalanche o' crap" tactic. Throw more garbage out than any one person can possibly respond to. We liberals have the time constraints of jobs and families that conservatives rarely have to worry about. Therefore, liberals will always be heavily outnumbered on the internet by conservative basement dwellers. Use those numbers to your advantage. I won't possibly be able to get back to all of you. Use that as an excuse to declare victory.
"Don't pretend you had any idea what that article was about. Like all the Pajamas readers, you saw big words and believed." – shall we also pretend that you are not a douche?
"This is a complex topic. It would take hours to even attempt to explain to you." – Maybe it's just that your communication skills are such that it takes hours for you to explain anything, huh? Also, there is a difference in not agreeing with someone and not understanding them. Most useful idiots like yourself believe that if someone disagree's they just dont' understand.. when the fact is your are one of the people that should have choked on the small toys as an infant.. but we prevented it by legistlating stupidity. We now have plenty of examples in yourself and others of why that was a bad idea. Namely becasue you all grew up to be able to vote instead of self selecting yourself out of the gene pool.
"Before I go further, you'll need to send payment into a Paypal account" – Aren't your welfare payments enough?
Wow, terrific illustration technique. The figure on the far left, second frame is a perfect blend of Brockaw and Mathews.
pcnav - March 12th, 2010 at 11:53 pm
Love Val Mayerik's art. He was good at marvel back when marvel actually produced good comics.
mamooth - March 12th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
Denialist misunderstanding about the MWP (a local phenomenon, which even in its warm areas was cooler than today) and the "farms" on Greenland (which never grew anything other than grass). Followed up by the discredited phony scandal stories. Urban legends and fabrications, two of the pillars of denialism. (We can go over the rest later.)
If you believe that OJ was spontaneously framed by dozens of law enforcement officials who had never met before, then you're of the mindset which would believe that hundreds of independent scientists are all faking data together. Me, I consider both conspiracy theories to be equally loony.
Since I'm in a good mood, I'll give you denialists a new catchphrase. "If the temps don't fit, you must acquit!". Catchy, and it pays homage to your "OJ was framed!" style of thinking.
"Denialist misunderstanding about the MWP (a local phenomenon, which even in its warm areas was cooler than today) and the "farms" on Greenland (which never grew anything other than grass). Followed up by the discredited phony scandal stories. Urban legends and fabrications, two of the pillars of denialism."
You are so, so, so full of shit. "Discredited phony scandal stories!!?"
Ignorant. waste of oxygen. Why don't you off yourself and save us all a carbon footprint. You are the ugliest example of an IGNORANT, preening, know-nothing dim-bulb Gorecock-sucking paid-up Church of Climatology congregant Climate Fraud denier. Why don't you off yourself and save us all a carbon footprint.
Great art! But it seems little effort was put into the dialogue, as it was clearly taken from real newsroom conversation. ;P
palmtree - March 13th, 2010 at 3:13 am
I'm not really talking about lawyers, although Bigwhatevers favorite climate denier Christopher Horner is a lawyer, I'm talking about scientists who were paid to do "research" , and throw just enough doubt on the tobacco/cancer link to forestall regulation and public outcry. The same thing is going on here and it's quite obvious.
I gave you a link to the science.
to WldBil : don't call me shinequa , I had nothing to do with that fake ebonics s*** , go ask Cowboy Logic or one of the other racists on this site about that.
You do realize there has never been any proven casual relationship between global temperatures and human activity.
That's the little part where they prove A + B = C.
If you can show me where this is, I'd be very interested in seeing it. It would seem to me if you actually believe all this, you would be screaming louder than deniers, yet you simply ignore the fact that these scientists make you look pretty foolish. Why don't you demand they produce the casual relationship?
Actually I was reading in National Graphics either last year or the year before that scientists are just beginning to unravel the science of solar cycles.
Perhaps you could have a discussion with those scientists and tell them they're wasting their time because its all been figured out already.
You should follow the link I so thoughtfully provided you. There is no data. Your whole premise is based on lies. But why should I even explain it to you, you're not interested in the facts.
P.S. if you were as intelligent as you think you wouldn't be alienating everyone reading this thread. You have no idea, apparently, how you come off. Not exactly mensa material, dude.
Drewski - March 13th, 2010 at 6:34 am
It appears the only evidence for the mad-made acceleration of earth warming comes from climate scientists, marine biologists, geophysicists and all the other ‘ists’. Thank God I found your web site and now know that the ‘evidence’ and ’studies’ these conspiratorial frauds produce year after year, then review, critique, reproduce, re-review, add to and then produce again are all based on lies.
But as you don’t have any real evidence — other than your ever-so-clever arguments — to definitively prove that man doesn’t have an effect on the earth’s climate or environment, you need to create your own. I suggest you find people who are qualified — definitely not any ‘ists’ though — which can produce a professionally done study done with REAL evidence that other professionals will review and reproduce. But your study must be done WITHOUT any science used because then the professionals will become ’scientists’ and therefore corrupt.
Until there is evidence that can absolutely and once-and-for-all prove that adding CO2 and other heat trapping gasses into the atmosphere will NOT add heat into the atmosphere, I will trust only Big Journalism (and perhaps Fox News) for my information on the subject and I will avoid reading any contaminating science papers. Thank you for all your well-meaning and thoughtful insights. God Bless.
[...] » Useful Idiots: Snow Job – Big Journalism [...]
mamooth - March 13th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
You're talking to me, so I don't care about your past victories over the liberals. Nor is your debunked conspiracy theory about supposedly deleted data of any interest, except possibly to point out your unwillingness to investigate beyond denialist propaganda points.
And are all of really you unfamiliar with the "Whoever mentions Gore first loses" rule? It's an offshoot of the "Whoever mentions Hitler first loses" rule. It shows the speaker has nothing to offer, so they're reduced to sputtering about Gore/Hitler. Needless to say, we never talk about Gore, but denialists always bring him up.
CO2 levels are increasing. The increase is human caused (we know that from isotope measurements). CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It blocks heat transfer out of the atmophere. We actually measure this, with satellites. We see the IR radiation flux "hole" at the CO2 absorption frequencies, and we see this hole widening (it's already saturated in the middle.).
So we know, 100%, that heat energy trying to flow out is being blocked by the CO2 we created. It's not rocket science to see (heat in) > (heat out) –> warming.
In addition, the models that you all sneer at predicted all of this. Even Hansen's 1984 model was right on the money. They predicted temps, along with a whole bunch of very non-obvious things that came true. Mainstream scientists actually did science — they formulated a theory, they made testable predictions with the theory, and those predictions came true.
If that's not good enough for you, what evidence would you accept? Me, when a theory consistently produces good testable results, I tend to accept it. Our side has put forth such a theory. In contrast, what theory has your side put forth to explain the world we observe? "I can't believe it's true!" isn't a theory, nor is "but you haven't proven everything beyond any shadow of a doubt!"
mamooth - March 13th, 2010 at 7:19 pm
If I alienate a 9-11 truther by deriding his stupid science and conspiracy theories, does that also demonstrate my lack of intelligence?
I read your link, long before you posted it. Given how you denialists all parrot the same handful of cranks, it's been impossible to miss. None of you have any idea what your links actually mean, but they have big words and tell you what you want to hear, so you believe on faith.
mamooth - March 13th, 2010 at 7:35 pm
So you're claiming albedo has no effect on temperature, therefore it has to be the sun. Anyone walking barefoot across the blacktop would understand the large effect that albedo has on temperature. Anyone experiencing the urban heat island effect would understand how albedo changes warm the air.
Again, I point out you're deliberately ignoring the direct solar measurements which show no solar increase, and substituting handwaving about Mars instead. Pseudoscience.
mamooth - March 13th, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Your denialist talking points are sorely in need up an update. Luckily, I'm here to help.
Evidence for positive water-vapor feedback? Provided you don't claim NASA is part of the conspiracy, look here. In the middle of this article, where it flat out says we are seeing water vapor positive feedback.
While I was unaware of the upper troposphere asshole, the missing heating in the upper troposphere has pretty much been determined not be to missing after all. This piece talks about it.
nothing like the anonymity of the intardnets to make a liberal whinging crybaby minge like you act like a tough guy. oooh, you are MEAN to people, because you like it. Who says you are good at it? you do. Nobody else. You are an EPIC FAILURE at life.
Then respond by saying "i can't handle all of you responding negatively to me, so I'm gonna assume I am the only one on the internet who has a job and a family, and that will be my excuse to slither away like the snake-azz-POS that I am"
lol. posting to a .gov site, when it's the GOV'T pushing cap-n-tax. geez, can you say conflict of interests? Besides, NASA did withhold info regarding AGW, as their findings were inconsistent with East Anglia's. Yet they shared the same data samples. The EXACT SAME ONES.
No, I'm asking you to show me the proven causal relationship between raising temperatures and human activity.
It's the difference between theory and fact. Otherwise known as science.
Show it too me. Please. I'm not taunting, daring you too. I'm asking you if you are so certain where this study is, then why can't you direct me to it? I can't find it. I've looked. Since I can't find it I am skeptical.
If you're so sure you're scientifically correct, then you must know where it is.
Last weekend, I had the privilege of attending the "Restoring Honor" rally in Washington, D.C. While I'm proud to be an American each and every day, I was especially proud on that day. The feeling I had being amongst so many people that love and appreciate the blessings...
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
105 Comments
Haha. I love it.
Sad part is, you post this as DailyKos, and the next thing you know there's a story all over the world of how Sarah Palin and the Tea Baggers conspired to take over the world.
[...] View full post on Big Journalism [...]
It appears Julian Epstein and Rachel Maddow were separated at birth…
Of the three, which one is supposed to be the woman? I get a tingle just asking that question.
Nicely drawn, by the way.
"How can we turn snow jobs into green jobs?"
"Electric snow blowers?"
Excellent concept Hud & Val. Excellent work.
BandAid? FarmAid? We Are The World? Let's write another song?
No. How about a sledgehammer instead. This works perfectly for me. Ridicule the bastards into the fetal position.
James and Val- great work and so funny. You actually made the 3 stoolies less (relatively) vile looking.
funny!
in regards to the salt issue, I can think of nobody who deserves a salt lick more than the brainwashed gerbils over at Dkos.
Burun estetigiIt appears Julian Epstein and Rachel Maddow were separated at birth
"Hey there Cletus, that there's snow on the ground here! Er, It means global warming is fake! Hardy Har Har, why don't them thar egghead scientists see that?"
Sad thing is, that's an example of the best logic you'll get from denialists. And they actually wonder why the grownups tell them to run along and play.
Loved the "looks" on their faces too!
You gave Tingles that clueless look he had on the night of Jan. 19th (Scott Brown).
You guys could fire-off one of these almost daily with all that low-hangin' fruit over at BSNBC.
Great job and congrats on the new strip!
Funny.
Just when Saint Algore the Pius and the Church of Climatology came within a hairs breadth of snookering the entire world, God sent Mother Nature in to blow up a storm.
Ironic that Mother Nature is as much of a bitch as karma.
I recognize these useful idiots. What is it with this warm, tingly feeling running up his leg? Why doesn't this other guy ever stand up so we can see him fully? And who is the third guy in the picture?
Sure you just keep telling yourself that the only reason we disbelieve in man made global warming is because it snowed a lot and was exceptionally cold this winter.
Maybe it has to do with the fact that earth's global climate has always been fluid throughout history both recorded and not. We know it was warmer than today in the Medieval period. In those days, they named Greenland because it was green and they could farm and mine there. It wasn't called Greenland because of its huge glaciers. They still aren't farming in Greenland, so evidence there suggests that earth's climate still isn't as warm today as it was then.
And that's just one reason to doubt. The revelations about falsified science and missing original data should also be sounding a warning bell in your head.
The third guy?
Mr. Rachel Maddow. But you can call her "Sir."
"Hey there Cletus, that there's snow on the ground here! Er, It means global warming is REAL! Hardy Har Har, why don't them thar egghead scientists see that?"
Sad thing is, that's an example of the best logic you'll get from "useful" idiots that believe in the fake man made global warming scam. And they actually wonder why the grownups tell them to run along and play.
Thats Maddow?
I thought it was a cartoon Bill Schultz!
I wondered what he was doing next to Olby.
Maybe St. Algore the Prius?
Totally thought Madcow was some kind of metrosexual dude
I think it is Anderson Coopers co-joined twin. They were seperated at birth. The only difference is, her beard is a tad heavier than his.
Oops! http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-stunner-...
If you ever meet any real grown ups let us know. Oh, wait, you just did. Go to your room.
I'll see your "thousands" and raise you tens of thousands in the US alone.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
I don't believe in conspiracies. I do believe that some people came up with what they thought was a legitimate problem, and they found that they got money and attention because of it. When, upon examination, they found they were wrong, they tried to hide it. It's human nature to not want to admit you might have been wrong. Over time, the issue took on a life of its own.
Pt. 1
Howeverm the first alarm bell to anyone should have been the saying "the science is settled." Science is seldom if ever "settled." Science is scepticism by its very nature. We learn what is by testing and retesting, and in this case, there are large holes. There are things we've been testing as givens for over a hundred years, and they still aren't scientific law – Theory of Gravity. If something like the theory of gravity is still not an accepted scientific law, how on earth did global warming attain that status in less than ten years particularly coming out of a field of science that is still very new about which we still know relatively little – climatology?
I don't deny that climate changes. Earth's history proves that. I do question how we can be so certain that any current changes are our fault when we still don't know and understand the impact of solar activity or even terrestrial things like cloud cover.
Pt. 2
I can't believe NY would be stupid enough to do this. What do they think will happen to all those high cuisine restaurants currently operating in New York? I don't think many chefs will take being told how to season their food lightly.
Expect another loss of small business in NYC and a culinary renaissance coming to a city near you.
Great comic strip! I forgot that Maddow wore glasses.
Cool toon! Very funny and true.
Why do I get the feeling that this strip is not too far from the truth on what really goes on?
Fact, Climate changes and always will; theory , man caused. Your silly religion is all you have to hang onto. Get over your arrogant self.
Maybe those chefs could find a good substitute to feed the politicians when they prance in for their "usual". You know, something really "special"…
I think Hudnall and Mayerik had a room bugged over at some MSM offices.
10 years? Asimov was writing about it in Jan 1959.
http://thethunderchild.com/Sourcebooks/Asimov/Ais...
This has been an active research topic for 50+ years. Despite the "ice age" popular media blip in the 70s, science was settling on "warming" by the 60s. It wasn't politicized, but the science was there.
We measure heat flow in and out of the earth. More heat comes in than goes out. Global warming. That part is settled science. Arguing magnitudes, causes, effects, that's reasonable. Arguing that warming doesn't exist isn't reasonable. And declaring that warming is due to a worldwide conspiracy to fabricate data would be especially unreasonable.
Solar activity? We understand that well. There are have been no solar changes to account for the warming. The cosmic ray theories have fallen apart under scrutiny, after the world behaved in a manner opposite to what those theories predicted.
Clouds? Trickier. You're right, cloud effects aren't fully understood. But they could just as well be trending to make things worse. There's currently no good evidence that cloud changes have been causing the warming, and there does come a point when you have to say "good enough, this is a problem", as opposed to waiting for the last detail.
If you can't get your facts right you make yourself look like an useless idiot, lies won't work here boy….
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/vikings_d...
http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_me….
http://www.green-agenda.com/greenland.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunderd/
Yea, too bad your beliefe system is flushing downt the toilet in a clockwise direction assuming you live in the northern hemisphere….
It's science fool deal with it.
LOL
The only thing more pathetic than mamooth's display of willful ignorance and misguided disdain is the smugness with which he expresses it. Typical. What a sorry, ridiculous person. Sad, really.
My girlfriend misspelled that, trying to call me a hairy mammoth. You'll have to excuse her. Poor thing lacked the benefits of a public school education.
If you look it up on the urban dictionary, one definition for "mamooth" is a man who likes hairy-backed women. This amused me, given how it reflected on my girlfriend.
This strip is going to be real good.
Don't pretend you had any idea what that article was about. Like all the Pajamas readers, you saw big words and believed.
This is a complex topic. It would take hours to even attempt to explain to you. And there's little likelihood you could understand, given how deep your emotional investment in not understanding is. I'm patient with the sincere, but there are limits to the free education I'll hand out to the insincere. Before I go further, you'll need to send payment into a Paypal account. Indicate if you're willing to do so. After the transaction, we'll proceed.
If you knew what you were talking about you wouldn't believe the lies. And my IQ can beat up your IQ any day of the week.
How about solar powered snow blowers?
Hey all you left wing Democrat Socialist Party members. Your lies about global warming is killing people!! you have blood on your hands from the fear mongering you have caused with your lies. How can you sleep at night knowing your responsible for the deaths & injuries of innocent people with your fear tactics?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southam...
Why all the hate?
[...] » Useful Idiots: Snow Job – Big Journalism [...]
there, we go, mamooth… Gotta insult people, as you can't use the topic at hand to prove your point. typical liberal whining minge. Attack the person, not the subject. how cute.
run along now, and go play in traffic.
What? you can't hear the cars coming, because they're all hybrids? too bad.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southam...
Use budget reconciliation to simply pass a law stating all snow jobs are now classified as green jobs.
As a former lefty, the only real difference is they don't say this out loud, they all think it and agree.
Imagine the fun they could have by throwing an Ariana Huffington character into the mix.
Hmm… real dark humor.. moma likey. more please, life is infinite baby.
I don't see it so much as a conspiracy theory either, more of a perfect storm, with all the right conditions coming together.
Modern liberalism at its core is a house of cards based upon victimization. And the beauty of man made global warming is it creates the largest class of victims of all time – every one and every thing on the planet. There fore it offers something for every modern liberal movement. What ever it is, blame it on global warming.
So all the various factions have landed on the same page in order to reach their separate goals. No one on the left would dare even think this wasn't gospel. Modern liberals don't do that to each other. That's how greenies can sit down at the same table with big labor – including unions that want drilling jobs. They never speak ill of each other – unless its to save their own skin.
Come on James, is this performance art? It's like your stringing him along to prove the irony of your comic.
It's funny as hell too! Most modern liberals I know refuse to debate me on science (well, on pretty much anything), and it's fun to see it again, like a stroll down memory lane.
It really is an over simplistic debate style. Start out with the premise the modern liberal is correct, then move on to creative insults because we can't see how much smarter they are. All the while bypassing facts, logic and reason.
It's like a streaming conscience of a$$ hattery.
"and the "farms" on Greenland (which never grew anything other than grass). "
You mean the farms that people are finding as the snow and ice melt away?
"Other than grass"????
Let's see what Wiki has to say, shall we?
"Barley is a cereal grain derived from the annual grass Hordeum vulgare."
"The common oat (Avena sativa) is a species of cereal grain grown for its seed," and "Cereals, grains or cereal grains, are grasses"
"This amused me, given how it reflected on my girlfriend. "
Your post says a good deal, about /you/.
Well, they did want to get the laws passed as soon as possible, didn't they?
Asimov? So it is settled science because an admittedly good science fiction writer used it? I'll see your Asimov and add in a Crichton.
More impact on earth's climate is made by solar cycles and the ocean current cycles than human impact could ever have.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1041
Oh, and it is entirely possible to farm a place if only grass grows there although we tend to call those farms "ranches."
[...] » Useful Idiots: Snow Job – Big Journalism [...]
Ah the shelter of every internet so-called expert. So, are you the one on another forum I used to frequent who also claimed to be an economics expert who would only explain why we were all so disastrously wrong if we chipped into your PayPal account?
You method sounds very similar.
If you're an actual climate expert, I'm Lara Croft.
Kind of like Al Gore huh?
Speaking of Al Gore, this is pretty funny gag by Zombie Time from a couple of years ago. I was one of the winners.
http://www.zombietime.com/gore_in_marin/al_gores_...
"Golly Cletus! Them thar egghead scientist won't even look at the sun!"
The sun was the first thing looked at, and it's been studied in detail nonstop since this all began. Figure out the difference between _predicting_ solar cycles and _measuring_ solar output. We have been _measuring_ the energy reaching the earth in detail for a long time, and it doesn't explain the warming.
"given how deep your emotional investment in not understanding is"
if 'projection' ever has a pro league, i want mamooth on my fantasy team…
Ya know, comics usually change their jokes, or at least have a rotation for them. But I can deal with that.
"Hmmm Poindexter, then why in Sherman's Beard is Mars warming also?"
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=...
And yes, scientists have been studying the sun and solar heat for some time. How ever what they are discovering is when you look at the longer picture, what they thought they understood about solar cycles was pretty much wrong. Imagine that? Scientists redoing data, and discovering mistakes? How unlike scientists! But wait! Never mind, that IS what real scientists do.
And I hoping you'd respond so I could ask you this one last question. From the left's very own NY Times, which being a liberal means you more or less have to believe them, I know the rules, I used to be one. And if its a liberal, you can't say anything bad about them (unless its to save your skin), this is a stellar example of what's wrong with this scam.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/science/earth/1...
"Scientists and officials say that the panel's finding that the earth is warming–probably as a result of human activity–remains indisputable."
Emphasis added. Show me the study that makes probably go away. Because there ain't one. At least not that I've heard. Instead, we just have to take their word for it. That is not science.
Your turn.
so is your 'girlfriend' real or imaginary? is she doing some sort of community service sentence or just lose a really bad bet? why is she typing for you? why are letting her continue to misspell your 'name', even though it makes you look like an (even bigger) ignoramus? did you get your hands busted for trying to jimmy the token box at the local video arcade? fall down a flight of stairs drunk and/or stoned? enquiring minds want to know…
btw- with a degree in environmental biology from CU-Boulder i could debate the science, but since you just want to sling insults, hey, why not stoop to your level? that, and it's pretty clear you're just another internet expert whose depth of knowledge on any given subject could be measured in nanometers.
Dismissive condescension- the ignorant liberal's last arrow. "Well if you can't comprehend my brilliance, I'm certainly not going to waste my precious time explaining it to you!" he haughtily sniffed…
Just amusing myself on a Friday afternoon.
I took a break to finish my New Fascists closer. Look for that this weekend.
If it weren't so serious an issue (gazillions of dollars) it would be comical. These believers, who so defend the science proving man made global warming (AGW I think is the acronym), really don't understand science at all, and yet are more than happy to don the cap and gown to prove how sophisticated and educated they are.
They don't even understand the difference between a casual relationship and a correlation.
A causal relationship is like grouping one study that proves</> drinking slows reactions, with another that proves slow reaction time contributes to traffic accidents, there fore we can conclude that it is likely that drinking contributes to traffic accidents.
A correlation is a study that determines 99% of people who died in the last year ate carrots in their life time, therefore eating carrots causes death.
That's the part that's missing from the science and why this is a scam. I, by no means, am any sort of expert on climate or temperatures, but I am an engineer, and this is a whole in the scientific method that you can sail a nuclear powered air craft carrier through.
Here's how they did it. Because temperatures appear to have risen over the last 150 years, which correlates to the beginning of the industrial revolution, humans creating green house gasses must be the cause, because there is no other possible reason.
And since there is no other possible reason, there's no reason to look. Therefore the science is settled and its time for the politicians to take over.
[...] » Useful Idiots: Snow Job – Big Journalism [...]
Your correlation argument reminds me of the tobacco industries arguments that smoking and cancer had nothing to do with one another. Or maybe you agree with them , as many of the anti-global warming lobbyists have ties to former tobacco lobbyists.
here's a good summation of the basic argument:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidenc...
You're ignorant of what drives climate changes on Mars. Solar changes are _not_ the primary driver. Albedo changes caused by dust storms are the primary driver of Martian climate change. Therefore, the "but Mars changed" argument has no bearing on what the sun is doing. Mars does what it does mostly independent of the sun.
I pointed out the primary data, that data being the direct measurements of solar output. There have been no changes there to cause warming. The denialist reply is to ignore the primary data, and substitute irrelevant indirect data about a Martian ice cap. That's a big red flag, a warning sign of pseudoscience. Ignoring good data so you can trumpet your bad data is the hallmark of psuedoscience.
The rest of your post was a ramble, and I am unable to locate a point in it to reply to.
I'm focusing out the year, not the author. 1959. This is old science. Only the politicization of it is new. I could have found dry scientific papers, but Asimov is more fun.
Solar cycles and currents have no bearing on the fact that, now, (heat in) > (heat out). Hence, warming. Yes, currents bringing up cold water certainly can depress air temps for a while. We saw that for the past few years, with the strong La Nina. But heat is still going into the oceans, and the reserves of colder water are getting warmed. The trend is up. The La Nina ends, we see record temps we see now. Jan 2010, hottest January on record (since satellite records began in 1978). Feb 2010, second hottest.
fHey Shinequa, read this,
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-stunner-...
It's over, you go girl…
I think it's fairly obvious that the causal relationship between smoking and cancer has been established. Where Big Tobacco screwed up was they didn't embrace it, and instead tried to hide it. They should have just come out and state yes, but people want to smoke any way so let's figure out how to do it responsibly and keep it away from kids, the way Big Beer did. That's why Anheuser-Busch ain't having the same problems Reynolds has.
As for lawyers defending contemptible clients like Big Tobacco, they are hired guns and will work for whoever pays them the most in either cash, status or accolades. Just ask the DoJ lawyers who were defending the same Gitmo detainees they are now charged with prosecuting.
I understand what empirical evidence is, and it is a good data point, but its not always conclusive. I've been following this scam for well over a decade now, and very closely, because I smelled something wrong from the start.
All these people have to do is prove causal relationship and I'm on board. I think 90% of the so-called deniers would disappear too. Because then it would be science, and you can't argue with science.
Science is facts. Irrefutable, unquestionable, facts. People can choose to ignore facts in their heads, but that does not change the real world around them. That is why over thousands of years, the scientific method was developed – to divorce emotions from facts.
And I believe that's the exact reason we've been told the debate is over, it's time to act, precisely because they're trying to avoid admitting they don't have a causal relationship.
I am no hater of science, no denier, no member of any flat earth society, nor have I ever been in the employ of any petrochemical corp.
Show me the science.
Ah, a conservative tough guy. As Freddy said, "Fresh meat, how sweet".
So what would you like to debate? Is there any point at looking at the data, or are you just going to shriek that the data is all a conspiracy?
"Jane you ignorant slut."
Is that really the best you have?
I take it you don't know a lot about the fundamental laws of physics. In order to get energy out of a system, you first have to put energy into a system, and the energy you get out will never be as much as the energy you put in.
Have you ever taken a college level physics class? Because it really sounds to me like you're describing the Martian atmosphere as a perpetual motion machine, which generates heat on its own. Put in a little solar energy, and the planet will multiply it.
Dude, the energy has to come from somewhere. That's the entire AGW argument, the ozone layer is trapping the heat so it can't be radiated out to space. Mars does not have a heat trapping atmosphere.
But what can I say, you are amusing.
Show me the science. Not the fake stuff, the real stuff. Oh that's right, you can't because it was lost, misplaced, fudged to hide the decline, their dog ate it.
Show me the real science and I'm 100% on board, scientifically. I'm still against the political solutions which will only destroy wealth generation making it infinitely more difficult to deal with.
But I still want to see the science.
And now out comes the stereotypes. How typical of a modern liberal. Anyone who doesn't agree with you must be the enemy.
I'm not a conservative, I'm not a republican, I'm a libertarian, though they may claim I'm a little too normal for their tastes. But as I understand libertarianism, I don't really have to care about what they think. That's what kind of appeals to me.
When you said I believe all the data is a conspiracy, where you referring to the raw data the British CRU said they (surprise, surprise) no longer can locate?
I'm not going to get into a wear down fight quibbling over this study or that. Show me one study, one credible scientific study, that conclusively proves that increased CO2 caused by humans is causing raising temperatures. Do that and I'm on board.
It's the same thing I've been saying for the last decade to my modern liberal friends. Well, except the hard core ones who refuse to talk to me because I must be an idiot for not realizing Al Gore has super human powers and can relate to the inner karma of the planet.
Show me the one study the connects them. They have refused to do so after all this time, and tell me if I ask for it I want to destroy the world.
It's not a conspiracy – its a political movement. That's why we're no longer supposed to debate, but instead, elect democrats.
I never said I was a climate expert. I'm just smarter that you guys. That's doesn't say much. I'm an engineer, not a scientist.
I do insult people, and I'm proud of it. After all, I'm good at it, and my targets deserve it. The difference between me and the snivel brigade is I don't cry when I get back what I dished out. You think you can beat me? Choose your weapon, take your best shot, we'll have a merry go of it.
Your best chance is the "avalanche o' crap" tactic. Throw more garbage out than any one person can possibly respond to. We liberals have the time constraints of jobs and families that conservatives rarely have to worry about. Therefore, liberals will always be heavily outnumbered on the internet by conservative basement dwellers. Use those numbers to your advantage. I won't possibly be able to get back to all of you. Use that as an excuse to declare victory.
Asimov was a science fiction writer for the most part. He also wrote about robotics and psycho-history.. nice example of cherry picking examples.
Your arguments are specious and without substance, I dub thee Chicken Little.
"Don't pretend you had any idea what that article was about. Like all the Pajamas readers, you saw big words and believed." – shall we also pretend that you are not a douche?
"This is a complex topic. It would take hours to even attempt to explain to you." – Maybe it's just that your communication skills are such that it takes hours for you to explain anything, huh? Also, there is a difference in not agreeing with someone and not understanding them. Most useful idiots like yourself believe that if someone disagree's they just dont' understand.. when the fact is your are one of the people that should have choked on the small toys as an infant.. but we prevented it by legistlating stupidity. We now have plenty of examples in yourself and others of why that was a bad idea. Namely becasue you all grew up to be able to vote instead of self selecting yourself out of the gene pool.
"Before I go further, you'll need to send payment into a Paypal account" – Aren't your welfare payments enough?
Wow, terrific illustration technique. The figure on the far left, second frame is a perfect blend of Brockaw and Mathews.
Love Val Mayerik's art. He was good at marvel back when marvel actually produced good comics.
Denialist misunderstanding about the MWP (a local phenomenon, which even in its warm areas was cooler than today) and the "farms" on Greenland (which never grew anything other than grass). Followed up by the discredited phony scandal stories. Urban legends and fabrications, two of the pillars of denialism. (We can go over the rest later.)
If you believe that OJ was spontaneously framed by dozens of law enforcement officials who had never met before, then you're of the mindset which would believe that hundreds of independent scientists are all faking data together. Me, I consider both conspiracy theories to be equally loony.
Since I'm in a good mood, I'll give you denialists a new catchphrase. "If the temps don't fit, you must acquit!". Catchy, and it pays homage to your "OJ was framed!" style of thinking.
[...] » Useful Idiots: Snow Job – Big Journalism [...]
"Denialist misunderstanding about the MWP (a local phenomenon, which even in its warm areas was cooler than today) and the "farms" on Greenland (which never grew anything other than grass). Followed up by the discredited phony scandal stories. Urban legends and fabrications, two of the pillars of denialism."
You are so, so, so full of shit. "Discredited phony scandal stories!!?"
Ignorant. waste of oxygen. Why don't you off yourself and save us all a carbon footprint. You are the ugliest example of an IGNORANT, preening, know-nothing dim-bulb Gorecock-sucking paid-up Church of Climatology congregant Climate Fraud denier. Why don't you off yourself and save us all a carbon footprint.
Where are the equatorial hot spots in the upper troposhere, asshole?
Where is the evidence of any trace of positive water-vapor feedback?
House of cards, you brainwashed tool.
did you just misspell "mammoth" or does "mamooth" mean thomething elth? douthbag…
Great art! But it seems little effort was put into the dialogue, as it was clearly taken from real newsroom conversation. ;P
I'm not really talking about lawyers, although Bigwhatevers favorite climate denier Christopher Horner is a lawyer, I'm talking about scientists who were paid to do "research" , and throw just enough doubt on the tobacco/cancer link to forestall regulation and public outcry. The same thing is going on here and it's quite obvious.
I gave you a link to the science.
to WldBil : don't call me shinequa , I had nothing to do with that fake ebonics s*** , go ask Cowboy Logic or one of the other racists on this site about that.
You do realize there has never been any proven casual relationship between global temperatures and human activity.
That's the little part where they prove A + B = C.
If you can show me where this is, I'd be very interested in seeing it. It would seem to me if you actually believe all this, you would be screaming louder than deniers, yet you simply ignore the fact that these scientists make you look pretty foolish. Why don't you demand they produce the casual relationship?
Actually I was reading in National Graphics either last year or the year before that scientists are just beginning to unravel the science of solar cycles.
Perhaps you could have a discussion with those scientists and tell them they're wasting their time because its all been figured out already.
[...] » Useful Idiots: Snow Job – Big Journalism [...]
[...] » Useful Idiots: Snow Job – Big Journalism [...]
Now, didn't you see him tell James that we must pay to have access to his deep well of wisdom and understanding.
You should follow the link I so thoughtfully provided you. There is no data. Your whole premise is based on lies. But why should I even explain it to you, you're not interested in the facts.
P.S. if you were as intelligent as you think you wouldn't be alienating everyone reading this thread. You have no idea, apparently, how you come off. Not exactly mensa material, dude.
It appears the only evidence for the mad-made acceleration of earth warming comes from climate scientists, marine biologists, geophysicists and all the other ‘ists’. Thank God I found your web site and now know that the ‘evidence’ and ’studies’ these conspiratorial frauds produce year after year, then review, critique, reproduce, re-review, add to and then produce again are all based on lies.
But as you don’t have any real evidence — other than your ever-so-clever arguments — to definitively prove that man doesn’t have an effect on the earth’s climate or environment, you need to create your own. I suggest you find people who are qualified — definitely not any ‘ists’ though — which can produce a professionally done study done with REAL evidence that other professionals will review and reproduce. But your study must be done WITHOUT any science used because then the professionals will become ’scientists’ and therefore corrupt.
Until there is evidence that can absolutely and once-and-for-all prove that adding CO2 and other heat trapping gasses into the atmosphere will NOT add heat into the atmosphere, I will trust only Big Journalism (and perhaps Fox News) for my information on the subject and I will avoid reading any contaminating science papers. Thank you for all your well-meaning and thoughtful insights. God Bless.
[...] » Useful Idiots: Snow Job – Big Journalism [...]
[...] » Useful Idiots: Snow Job – Big Journalism [...]
[...] » Useful Idiots: Snow Job – Big Journalism [...]
[...] » Useful Idiots: Snow Job – Big Journalism [...]
[...] » Useful Idiots: Snow Job – Big Journalism [...]
How much must it suck to wake up every morning and realize you're one of the sh:t stains at MSNBC?
Excellent cartoon. Looking forward to many more…
[...] » Useful Idiots: Snow Job – Big Journalism [...]
[...] » Useful Idiots: Snow Job – Big Journalism [...]
You're talking to me, so I don't care about your past victories over the liberals. Nor is your debunked conspiracy theory about supposedly deleted data of any interest, except possibly to point out your unwillingness to investigate beyond denialist propaganda points.
And are all of really you unfamiliar with the "Whoever mentions Gore first loses" rule? It's an offshoot of the "Whoever mentions Hitler first loses" rule. It shows the speaker has nothing to offer, so they're reduced to sputtering about Gore/Hitler. Needless to say, we never talk about Gore, but denialists always bring him up.
CO2 levels are increasing. The increase is human caused (we know that from isotope measurements). CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It blocks heat transfer out of the atmophere. We actually measure this, with satellites. We see the IR radiation flux "hole" at the CO2 absorption frequencies, and we see this hole widening (it's already saturated in the middle.).
So we know, 100%, that heat energy trying to flow out is being blocked by the CO2 we created. It's not rocket science to see (heat in) > (heat out) –> warming.
In addition, the models that you all sneer at predicted all of this. Even Hansen's 1984 model was right on the money. They predicted temps, along with a whole bunch of very non-obvious things that came true. Mainstream scientists actually did science — they formulated a theory, they made testable predictions with the theory, and those predictions came true.
If that's not good enough for you, what evidence would you accept? Me, when a theory consistently produces good testable results, I tend to accept it. Our side has put forth such a theory. In contrast, what theory has your side put forth to explain the world we observe? "I can't believe it's true!" isn't a theory, nor is "but you haven't proven everything beyond any shadow of a doubt!"
If I alienate a 9-11 truther by deriding his stupid science and conspiracy theories, does that also demonstrate my lack of intelligence?
I read your link, long before you posted it. Given how you denialists all parrot the same handful of cranks, it's been impossible to miss. None of you have any idea what your links actually mean, but they have big words and tell you what you want to hear, so you believe on faith.
So you're claiming albedo has no effect on temperature, therefore it has to be the sun. Anyone walking barefoot across the blacktop would understand the large effect that albedo has on temperature. Anyone experiencing the urban heat island effect would understand how albedo changes warm the air.
Again, I point out you're deliberately ignoring the direct solar measurements which show no solar increase, and substituting handwaving about Mars instead. Pseudoscience.
Your denialist talking points are sorely in need up an update. Luckily, I'm here to help.
Evidence for positive water-vapor feedback? Provided you don't claim NASA is part of the conspiracy, look here. In the middle of this article, where it flat out says we are seeing water vapor positive feedback.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=200...
While I was unaware of the upper troposphere asshole, the missing heating in the upper troposphere has pretty much been determined not be to missing after all. This piece talks about it.
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/...
nothing like the anonymity of the intardnets to make a liberal whinging crybaby minge like you act like a tough guy. oooh, you are MEAN to people, because you like it. Who says you are good at it? you do. Nobody else. You are an EPIC FAILURE at life.
Then respond by saying "i can't handle all of you responding negatively to me, so I'm gonna assume I am the only one on the internet who has a job and a family, and that will be my excuse to slither away like the snake-azz-POS that I am"
lol. posting to a .gov site, when it's the GOV'T pushing cap-n-tax. geez, can you say conflict of interests? Besides, NASA did withhold info regarding AGW, as their findings were inconsistent with East Anglia's. Yet they shared the same data samples. The EXACT SAME ONES.
No, I'm asking you to show me the proven causal relationship between raising temperatures and human activity.
It's the difference between theory and fact. Otherwise known as science.
Show it too me. Please. I'm not taunting, daring you too. I'm asking you if you are so certain where this study is, then why can't you direct me to it? I can't find it. I've looked. Since I can't find it I am skeptical.
If you're so sure you're scientifically correct, then you must know where it is.
Please tell me.
You must be logged in to post a comment.