Seriously, somebody send these headlines out

[calfoxwc]

BLIZZARD WARNING NYC...

NEW BLAST: DC COULD GET ANOTHER FOOT!

25% of plows broken...

New Jersey road crews running out of salt...

Up to 22 in Philadelphia...

Watches/Warnings...

RADAR...

Snowstorm shatters local records in Chicago...

It's official: Baltimore Snow Record!

BIG CITIES SHUT...

Senate global warming hearing cancelled...

Legislation buried under record snowfall in capital...

Feds Warn: Snow Costs Taxpayers $100 Million A Day...

Washington Builds a Snow Mountain...

Dog Mugged, Doggie Coat Missing...

Left shivering in the buff...

 

 

ANOTHER BLIZZARD WARNING

DRIFTS UP TO 4 FT

[heckofajobbrownie]

Oh, how happy I was to peek in here today. More "It's snowing someplace! Global warming is hooey!"

 

I can't resist.

 

Cal, this is almost as funny as when you posted the results of Drudge online polls to support your claims. (And then kept doing it, even after people pointed out to you why those are meaningless measures. Because it didn't sink in. Because you're not that bright.)

 

There's a lot of snow in the mid-Atlantic states. Yes. It's also been unseasonably warm in Vancouver, where the Winter Olympics are being held, so much so that they're having to move snow by helicopter and truck from the higher elevations down to the lower elevations in order to hold the events. Because they don't have the normal amount of snow. It's also going to rain even more this week, complicating things further.

 

What does any of this prove of disprove about global warming? Nothing. Neither are measurements that mean much to the larger picture. The shift in weather patterns are due to El Nino. The mid-Atlantic states are seeing the same moisture-heavy Pacific storms that Southern California sees first. It doesn't have anything to do with global warming.

 

You want a measurement that does? According to our satellite measurements, the first month of this year was the hottest January on record. And 2009 was the second hottest year on record, but just barely missed out on being the hottest ever.

 

Those are measure of global and atmospheric temperatures. They matter.

 

But it is good to see you guys still don't have a basic understanding of statistics. Also fun to see you complain about RFK Jr. using one spot in America to suggest that global warming is a problem, then using one spot in America to suggest that it isn't, without ever realizing you're using the same lousy logic that he is.

 

Carry on.

[osusev]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100210/hl_time/08599196229400

 

Heck this only backs your last post....

[Westside Steve]

I can't resist.

 

We know.

We're doomed.

 

 

Hey, weren't you supposed to tell us how much better life was gonna be under Obamacare?

(you remember that list of bebefits for all?)

Or how the Afghans would hail us as liberators?

Or how happy days were here again?

No?

WSS

[Kosar_For_President]

What is the "liberal" form of Drudge? Grudge.

 

Time Magazine Has a Problem with the Truth about Global Warming

By Alan Caruba Thursday, February 4, 2010

 

Bryan Walsh has a great career in public relations awaiting him. Unfortunately he is currently passing himself off as a journalist for Time Magazine.

 

PR, a profession I have enjoyed for several decades, is widely seen to “spin” facts to a client’s advantage and this is frequently the case. PR is advocacy. Journalism is supposed to be something else, i.e., the unbiased, objective reporting of the facts. Someone needs to explain this to Bryan.

 

In an article titled “Explaining a Global Climate Panel’s Key Missteps”, Bryan barely pretends to be a journalist as he engages in whitewashing some widely known facts about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations’ scam for the propagation of the huge global warming hoax.

 

Bryan correctly notes that the IPCC was “one of the most respected organizations in the world” and, in October 2007, had shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, a famed global warming blowhard and fabulist best known for predicting the end of the world next Tuesday.

 

Bryan noted that the Norwegian Nobel committee had “lauded the IPCC’s fourth assessment report in 2007 as creating an ever broader consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming.” Note that these are stated as facts, but in truth there never was a “consensus” in the worldwide community of climatologists and meteorologists, and other scientists.

 

Indeed, there have been three international conferences to debunk global warming, all sponsored by the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based non-profit, free market think tank that brought together some of the world’s leading scientists who participated in seminars and gave addresses that were illustrated by graphs and other data that debunked global warming. A fourth conference is scheduled in May and, who knows, some members of the U.S. media might actually attend and report the truth this time?

 

The assertion that there is a connection between human activities and the non-existent global warming doesn’t even meet the lowest standard of journalistic accuracy. There is no connection. None has ever been proven despite the claims. In general terms, the Earth’s climate is determined by the sun, the oceans, and other factors of such magnitude as to suggest that an ant hill poses a threat to a skyscraper.

 

Bryan finally got around to mentioning that “over the past week or two, the IPCC has seen its reputation for impartiality and accuracy take serious hits.” Hello! Those hits have been around for years, but the leak of emails in November 2009 between the key players in the global warming fraud unleashed a tsunami of revelations about the way the IPCC relied on deliberately distorted “facts” and strove to suppress the publication of the truth in leading science publications. It wasn’t over the past week or two unless Bryan has been in a deep comma for three months.

 

Calls for the resignation of IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, were noted. He has been under fire because he knew in advance of the Copenhagen conference that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were bogus. Plaintively, Bryan asked, “What’s wrong with the IPCC?” and then answered saying, “To some degree, it’s a victim of its own size.”

 

Wrong again. The IPCC may have claimed that it had some 2,500 scientists participating, but the real “work” of the IPCC was undertaken by a close knit group of global warming fraudsters, several of whom are under investigation. They include Prof. Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) that provided key data regarding the planet’s temperatures—-which always seemed to be rising exponentially.

 

Others included Prof. Michael Mann of Penn State University, a paleoclimatologist famed for his “hockey stick” graph of temperatures over the past 1,000 years that managed to overlook the Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1850. Joining the merry pranksters was Prof. Keith Briffa, another CRU researcher, who dished up a tree ring theory that confirmed global warming.

 

Dr. Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, linked increased hurricane activity to global warming, but was probably hard pressed to explain those years when it did not increase. There are others like Dr. James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute that got the whole ball rolling in 1986 when he told Congress that global warming would destroy the Earth if we didn’t put an end to all energy use that generated greenhouse gas emissions.

 

Instead of noting the misdeeds of these and others closely affiliated with the IPCC, Bryan quoted a scientist from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, a “lead author on the 2007 IPCC report.” And we know how eager Richard Somerville must have been to suggest it might have been a thousand pages of nonsense. Bryan also quoted Peter Frumhoff of the left-learning Union of Concerned Scientists who repeated the tired IPCC message that “there is no debate about the core urgency” of global warming.

 

No debate? The debate has been raging for decades. Bryan, however, just plowed on, offering one excuse after another to cover the IPCC’s serious breach of ethics and accuracy, concluding that its “self-assessment” after each report and “the pressure…to be flawless” is the problem,but not the lies it has been putting forth since 1988.

 

“But that’s exactly the sort of information policymakers will need to prepare for climate change going forward,” said Bryan.

 

No, policymakers need is real science, proven science. And the IPCC “science” about global warming, now rebranded as “climate change”, is an insult to all real scientists and, beyond them, to a worldwide public that was consistently led to believe a massive hoax.

 

Time, Newsweek, and countless others in the mainstream media have been co-conspirators in the global warming fraud. It is time to end this shameful blot on journalism and begin to report facts, not apocalyptic fantasy.

 

LINK

 

Bryan Walsh is like Gloria Steinem working for the CIA.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Easy, fellas. I'm just trying to get you to admit that snow in Washington DC doesn't say anything about anything, like no snow in Vancouver doesn't either.

 

It's not that hard. It's high school level stuff.

 

Can we admit that even though we're friends with Cal and don't want to tell him he's embarrassingly foolish?

 

[Kosar_For_President]

Easy, fellas. I'm just trying to get you to admit that snow in Washington DC doesn't say anything about anything, like no snow in Vancouver doesn't either.

 

It's not that hard. It's high school level stuff.

 

Can we admit that even though we're friends with Cal and don't want to tell him he's embarrassingly foolish?

 

Easy Heck. What I am trying to say is both sides have an agenda. This is referring to the Walsh and Caruba articles. If everything is so clear cut you know, "high school stuff", then why are the smartest people in the world in disagreement about it?

[Westside Steve]

Easy, fellas. I'm just trying to get you to admit

 

Admit?????????????

 

That's rich, Heck. Really.

 

WSS

[calfoxwc]

LOL...

 

Heck, weather patterns change. From year to year, decade to decade, century etc.

 

You and your silly goofballs, and Algore, your teen idol, say that Republicans are causing the earth to fry

 

because they drive Suv's. (see? I can set you up invalidly, too !)

 

The freakin point is, that Kennedy said the lack of snow meant MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING.

 

So, I knew you'd probably complain. My point is, you didn't disagree with Kennedy.

 

THAT is the point.

 

It isn't just that DC had a lot of snow, but in the entirely of the frauds coming out about the bogus

 

scientific claims, and all those titles of subjects...

 

The idea that you and your other political mercenaries claim man made global warming when it's not snowing,

 

and it's HOT, then you run and hide when it's freakin cold and snow is dumping where Kennedy said it

 

was not going to anymore....

 

Hey, your'alls defense of man made global warming as a "fact" is what is really embarrassing.

 

But thanks, Heck, for once again trying to emulate Saul Alinski. You still need years of practice to be respectable.

[Kosar_For_President]

The idea that you and your other political mercenaries claim man made global warming when it's not snowing, and it's HOT, then you run and hide when it's freakin cold and snow is dumping

 

Perfectly valid point here Heck. I do remember at some point an argument being made (not sure who it was) because it wasn't snowing then global warming was in effect. Now there are blizzards because of global warming?

[heckofajobbrownie]

Oh, brother.

 

All I'm trying to get you guys to do is to stop pointing to where it's cold, or where it's snowing, and think it proves something about global warming. That's it. Because it's not a valid argument. Nor would pointing to a place where it's warm, or not snowing, as I mentioned above, be a good argument for global warming.

 

The "high school stuff" is being able to recognize that which is anecdotal, and if you're going to use anecdotal evidence to at least recognize that it's anecdotal. But you don't. This is obviously a huge problem for you guys, because you keep using these arguments over and over and over. I knew if I peeked in here on another big snow day you'd all be crowing about it. It's sort of sad, seeing as how you're all grown men.

 

It's also being able to keep two thoughts in your head at once, like yes, global warming theory predicts stronger storms, and sometimes that will mean snow, even in a warmer world. It's crazy, I know. Even if global temperatures went up by 5-7 degrees, which would be a huge problem, it's still going to snow in some places. And I'm sure Drudge will still be pointing it out, and it'll get posted in here.

 

I know you think we all left here because we can't take your "logic", but this is a good example of the reason why everyone left. It's also the reason why no one is posting the story about there being no snow in Vancouver. Because it's not a serious argument, and me or Alo or some of the other guys wouldn't make it.

 

And worse than that, these arguments are proudly idiotic. It just leaves one shaking their head. And that gets old.

[Kosar_For_President]

Oh, brother.

 

All I'm trying to get you guys to do is to stop pointing to where it's cold, or where it's snowing, and think it proves something about global warming. That's it. Because it's not a valid argument. Nor would pointing to a place where it's warm, or not snowing, as I mentioned above, be a good argument for global warming.

 

The "high school stuff" is being able to recognize that which is anecdotal, and if you're going to use anecdotal evidence to at least recognize that it's anecdotal. But you don't. This is obviously a huge problem for you guys, because you keep using these arguments over and over and over. I knew if I peeked in here on another big snow day you'd all be crowing about it. It's sort of sad, seeing as how you're all grown men.

 

It's also being able to keep two thoughts in your head at once, like yes, global warming theory predicts stronger storms, and sometimes that will mean snow, even in a warmer world. It's crazy, I know. Even if global temperatures went up by 5-7 degrees, which would be a huge problem, it's still going to snow in some places. And I'm sure Drudge will still be pointing it out, and it'll get posted in here.

 

I know you think we all left here because we can't take your "logic", but this is a good example of the reason why everyone left. It's also the reason why no one is posting the story about there being no snow in Vancouver. Because it's not a serious argument, and me or Alo or some of the other guys wouldn't make it.

 

And worse than that, these arguments are proudly idiotic. It just leaves one shaking their head. And that gets old.

 

The question was still not answered. Why is it global warming when it's not snowing and when it IS snowing?

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

It's not. That's the whole point I'm making!

 

Jesus Christ.

[Westside Steve]

It's not. That's the whole point I'm making!

 

Jesus Christ.

 

So, really, seriously Heck, why keep on beating that horse?

Who are you trying to convince?

 

You stop in on occasion call everybody racists and bigots and rail about Global Warming.

Most everybody here thinks the crisis is exaggerated to some extent.

I bet if you were honest you might too.

 

There are plenty of othere subjects that go untouched.

Pick one and show everyone how smart you are.

 

"Obama probably isn't techically a Socialist or a Muslim or a foreign national, and the earth is a bit warm, at least as recent history goes"

There.

You happy or is that the extent of your interest?

WSS

 

WSS[/b]

[heckofajobbrownie]

Oh, no. It's a sociological experiment at this point.

 

Can the base of the Republican Party take in new information, or can they just repeat what they're told to repeat by the Rush/Drudge/Fox axis?

 

At least in here, it's pretty clear it's the latter.

 

At least you seem to know that snow in DC isn't a good argument. You don't hop on that train. So there's that.

 

And sorry if I mention that your friend isn't that bright. Really. I know there's no point and it doesn't make me feel any better. I just don't know how else you'd describe his posts. It's the craziest, dumbest shit I run into at any point, and I run into a lot of crazy and dumb shit.

 

[calfoxwc]

Heck,

 

you ARE crazy and full of dumb sheet.

 

Any time we ever make a point, you go off and twist it around so you can refute it.

 

Kennedy made a huge point about "no more snow in Mass, boo hoo, it's global warming".

 

Not once have you admitted that was bogus.

 

See? THAT is stupid sheet, Heck. You didn't complain about that then,

 

and so far, we can't get you to complain about Kennedy using that as some doofus

 

proof of global warming.

 

You don't seem to be very bright to me. Seriously. Can't you ever just stay on topic?

 

The point was, that the heavy snow completely refutes Kennedy's assertion that the lack of

 

snow meant man made global warming crisis vote Democratic and let us pass cap n tax.

 

Bullsheet.

 

You dweebs are the fools that lambasted anyone who disagreed with your ignorant assertion, that

 

no matter what, your man made global warming (talk about being a politically expedient parrot) was

 

an absolute FACT that has no justified doubt it, that the debate was over, etc etc etc.

 

Just once, Heck, talk about the real issue here.

 

MMGW is not a fact. It is a theory. So, with the scandals, the corrupt assertions, the incredulous lack

 

of peer review, honesty, and accuracy doesn't make for your-alls arrogant assertions seem all that valid to me,

 

and others.

 

You left because after eight years of dang whining and snivelling and arrogant put-downs of everybody who

 

disagrees strongly with you, you can't back up where you stand now, without name calling and endless

 

reiterations of subject twisting and pouty pouty denials.

 

It would be nicer to have you stop by, if you would just once sincerely entertain the weakness of some of your assertions.

 

That being said, they are far, far weaker now, and more grieviously misguided than you currently will admit.

 

The first thing you did, was to make a personal attack on T, in your very first post when you came back to visit.

 

Give all that a rest, and thanks for stopping by a lot, but only letting it be known when you think

 

you have a chance to belittle someone.

[Westside Steve]

Oh, no. It's a sociological experiment at this point.

 

Can the base of the Republican Party take in new information, or can they just repeat what they're told to repeat by the Rush/Drudge/Fox axis?

 

At least in here, it's pretty clear it's the latter.

 

At least you seem to know that snow in DC isn't a good argument. You don't hop on that train. So there's that.

 

And sorry if I mention that your friend isn't that bright. Really. I know there's no point and it doesn't make me feel any better. I just don't know how else you'd describe his posts. It's the craziest, dumbest shit I run into at any point, and I run into a lot of crazy and dumb shit.

 

I don't read 'em Heck, mainly because I don't care.

But were I doing a "sociological study" I'd notice how these posts keep the Democrat base in a frenzy. That'd be you Heck as the moderates and independents are jumping off the bandwagon.

 

I figure you're not as terrified by the impending disatster as you let on and that the main reason to fight for putting the clamps on the US has less to do with saving the world as you'd like us to believe.

 

And it makes you (the collective you) angry that so many have failed to buy into the panic you want to generate.

 

WSS

[Kosar_For_President]

[Kosar_For_President]

Heck's favorite cartoon.

 

[Kosar_For_President]

This is the best one, please watch. Heck any comments on this video? Look at 00:01:57! LOL

 

LINK

[Kosar_For_President]

Media Hype on ‘Melting’ Antarctic Ignores Record Ice Growth

 

The media is once again hyping an allegedly dire consequence of man-made global warming. This time the media is promoting the ice loss of one tiny fraction of the giant ice-covered continent and completely ignoring the current record ice growth on Antarctica. Contrary to media hype, the vast majority of Antarctica has cooled over the past 50 years and ice coverage has grown to record levels since satellite monitoring began in the 1979, according to peer-reviewed studies and scientists who study the area.

 

Former Weather Channel Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo rejected the hype surrounding the recent Wilkins Ice Shelf collapse in Western Antarctica. “The shattered part of the Wilkins ice sheet was 160 square miles in area, which is just 0.01% of the total current Antarctic ice cover, like an icicle falling from a snow and ice covered roof,” D’Aleo wrote on March 25. “We are very likely going to exceed last year’s record [for Southern Hemisphere ice extent]. Yet the world is left with the false impression Antarctica’s ice sheet is also starting to disappear,” D’Aleo added.

 

Climate scientist Dr. Ben Herman, past director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics and former Head of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Arizona, stated, “It is interesting that all of the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) stories concerning Antarctica are always about what's happening around the [western] peninsula, which seems to be the only place on Antarctica that has shown warming. How about the net ‘no change’ or ‘cooling’ over the rest of the continent, which is probably about 95% of the land mass, not to mention the record sea ice coverage recently.”

 

Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., presently senior scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder, chastised the media’s Antarctic reporting as “typical of the bias that many journalists have.” Pielke wrote on March 25, “The media has ignored in their reporting the increase in Antarctic sea ice cover in recent years, with, at present, a coverage that is well one million square kilometers above average.” Pielke added, “Unfortunately, it appears that most journalists just parrot the perspective of the first news release on these climate issues, without doing any further investigation. If this is inadvertent, they need to be educated in climate science. If deliberate bias, they are clearly advocates and the reporters should be clearly and publically identified as having such a bias. In either case, the public is being misinformed!”

 

But the news media sadly tossed out objectivity and balance when it came to this new Antarctic story. Media headlines blared: Bye-bye, Antarctica? (Salon Magazine 3-26-08); Massive ice shelf collapsing off Antarctica (C/Net News 3- 26-08); Slab of Antarctic ice shelf collapses amid warming (Reuters 3-26-08); Ice shelf 'hangs by a thread' (Sydney Morning Herald 2-26-08).

[choco]

there's no oher way to frame the argument UNLESS you ignore conflicting data.

 

if they were really trying to help the earth, it would be incomprehensible to fudge data.

[calfoxwc]

This is the best one, please watch. Heck any comments on this video? Look at 00:01:57! LOL

 

LINK

 

 

Heck IS "Kelvin", and just said : "(crickets chirping)"

 

ROF,LMAO !!!

[Kosar_For_President]

there's no oher way to frame the argument UNLESS you ignore conflicting data.

 

if they were really trying to help the earth, it would be incomprehensible to fudge data.

 

In this case Choco, the data was intentionally manipulated to formulate an outcome.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Oh, more fun.

 

Does anyone want to claim that the recent snowstorms prove something about global warming, as this thread suggests that they do? As many of your comments also suggest?

 

Anyone? That's what this thread is about.

 

Anyone want to retract?

[Mr. T]

Sarcasm is another way of manipulating people's thoughts.

 

 

If the truth about global warming were to smak a liberal greenie in the face they would still be blinded on their own/others ideals of how we can rip off everyone.

 

 

A cap n trade story

 

She makes some valid points, but it is also an opinion piece. I think this was done before the peer review studies were discovered to be bogus.

 

What about the fact we already have a "clean air act".

 

 

 

 

 

 

[choco]

meh....snow one way or the other means nothing.....the seasons are not controlled by greenhouse gases, but by our orbit and tilt.

 

 

 

your grappling to the idea that a few facetious posts about record snows are proof one way or the other. the fact remains, the the data was cooked to reach a conclusion that was predetermined.....which is completely opposite of scientific process.

 

the cats outta the bag.....there is no more interpretation of the findings....because they were not determined by scientific process. i accept that pollution is not good for the earth, no doubt. but the idea that we're all going to die soon from the man-made global warming is, at best, based on bad scientific analysis.

 

 

yet, we still have idiot blowhards that ignore how the hypothesis was formed, and choose to believe what the media is feeding them.

 

until someone does a real analysis, with ALL the data regardless of whether it fits the mold or not, you can cry till your face is blue that global warming is real. when in fact, there is nothing scientific to back up that claim.

[Kosar_For_President]

Oh, more fun.

 

Does anyone want to claim that the recent snowstorms prove something about global warming, as this thread suggests that they do? As many of your comments also suggest?

 

Anyone? That's what this thread is about.

 

Anyone want to retract?

 

Spin.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Haha. You guys are unbelievable.

[choco]

yet, you have nothing to refute it.

 

your pet program is based on a lie. accept it, you've been duped.