Top 5 tall tales by climate change deniers in 2009
Harry Hope
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-change/stories/media-mayhem-top-5-tall-tales-by-climate-change-deniers-in-2009
Media Mayhem: Top 5 tall tales by climate change deniers in 2009
By Ken Edelstein
It was a banner year for myth making about climate change.
Despite mounting evidence that temperatures are rising, the deniers�
camp spun bigger, better and more believable tall tales than ever
before.
And those stories worked like a charm in 2009.
Amplified by broadcast bloviators and a compliant mainstream media,
advocates for burying our collective head in the sand convinced
millions of Americans that climate change isn�t happening, isn�t
caused by people, or wouldn�t be such a bad thing anyway.
Here are five of the top 10 tall tales in the 2009 climate change
denier�s storybook.
1) -----Temperatures have dropped over the last decade.
Tall tale:
Yellow journalist Matt Drudge peddled this whopper with sensational
headlines in 2008.
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/04/04/drudge-sells-false-headlines/
This year, it was repeated so many times that it turned into the kind
of contrarian cocktail party factoid that can�t be disputed by mere
... facts.
The premise is simple:
Draw a line from a particularly hot thermometer level (in this case,
the one-time record hot year of 1998) to any lower temperature that
came later. Voila! You�ve got a downward trend!
I don�t think so:
The cooling myth has been debunked so many times, and so easily, that
it�s painful.
You don�t have to be a climatologist to understand that temperatures
rise and fall all year, every year; a climbing trend can include steps
down.
Trends can best be identified by looking at moving averages.
For example, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency readings show
that the five-year averages for global temperatures have risen by more
than half-a-degree Celsius since 1980.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
And before the denialists reading this declare NOAA to be part of a
conspiracy, consider that the tall tale relies on the same data in the
first place.
In October, the cooling myth was debunked by an Associated Press
article in which the writer presented the data to four statisticians
without telling them what it was about.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33482750/ns/us_news-environment/
Each concluded the cooling interpretation bogus.
On Dec. 8, the World Meteorological Organization reported that this
decade has been the warmest on record, which would have been difficult
if temperatures had been cooling.
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_869_en.html
Media spin:
To their credit, few national mainstream journalists swallowed the
global cooling story whole.
But the frenzy it generated on conservative blogs and airwaves was so
pervasive that �cooling� has risen to the level of unassailable fact
for a large portion of the population.
Reflexive �truthiness,� stated confidently enough and said often
enough, sticks around.
Fox News was particularly nonchalant about repeating the falsehood.
Anchor Brett Baier announced in May �a number of studies now [show]
there has been no global warming over at least the last 10 years, and
that the Earth is actually cooling now.�
He never cited those studies.
Then, there�s this sampling of righteous indignation from Glenn Beck:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200905040036
Has the cooling story been doused enough to snuff it out.
I doubt it.
Temperature trends are so fundamental to the climate debate that
they�re likely to come up every time there�s an unseasonable cold
spell.
It�s happened before.
Earlier this decade columnist George Will was among those propagating
a separate cooling myth based on his misinterpretation of temperature
data from the 1970s.
Then, this year, he was among those falsely claiming that the World
Meteorological Organization backed up the cooling myth.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200902260029
Don�t be surprised if Will, Beck and all the rest of them come back
with another variant of the cooling story in 2010.
2)-----Al Gore�s pushing the climate change myth so he can get rich.
Tall tale:
Gore�s political enemies often gripe that he�s made a lot of money
since losing the 2000 selection.
They�re convinced not only that those were ill-gotten gains, but that
the main reason he�s pushing now for climate legislation is so that he
can make even more money on carbon credits, or green energy
technology, or both, or something.
The suspicions reached their apex in a congressional committee hearing
when a backbench Republican from Gore�s home state of Tennessee
interrogated him on his investments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXGkI-mw7Pw&feature=player_embedded
While Gore and his defenders argue that the former vice president
simply is putting his money where his mouth is, leading climate change
denier Steven Milloy stated the objection pithily in Human Events:
�It is probably more accurate to say that he is putting his mouth
where his money is.�
I don�t think so:
The most obvious problem with the Gore�s-getting-rich complaint is
that he�s allowed to do that.
I mean we do still live in a capitalist country, don�t we?
Vice presidents tend to be well-connected.
Gore�s better positioned than most, partly because he earns $100,000
speaking fees and partly because he�s made some very good investments
since leaving office.
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-change/stories/media-mayhem-al-gore-bogeyman
But tying Gore�s wealth to investments that haven�t even happened yet
seems more of an effort to appeal to class envy rather than to make a
coherent argument that the Nobel Peace Prize winner has a devilish
plan to take over global commerce.
Then there�s the timeline.
Gore has been �mouthing� his concerns about climate change for more
than two decades.
In the 1980s, he began to develop the talk that became the basis for
the movie An Inconvenient Truth.
In 1990, I interviewed him after one of those talks from the backseat
of a Toyota Tercel and reported then that I was surprised by the
passion and detail he brought to the subject.
In 1992, Gore�s first book on the climate threat, Earth in the
Balance, was published.
So when Milloy writes that Gore�s putting �his mouth where his money
is,� he�s got it exactly backwards.
The commitment on climate change came long before he started making
money.
Gore also stresses that a fair chunk of his earnings tied to climate
change go toward two non-profits that he�s founded to push for climate
change action.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore.html?_r=3&ref=us
The former vice president might quell the suspicions if he publicly
released all his financial information.
Then again, name me a private citizen who does that, and explain why
Gore is the one who ought to.
Media spin:
The mainstream media doesn�t seem so concerned about Gore�s money.
But for the right-wing media he serves a useful purpose as the
deniers� bogeyman.
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-change/stories/media-mayhem-al-gore-bogeyman
It�s truly impressive how much vitriol is reserved for the man.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200911300015
3)-----Many climate scientists don�t believe in anthropogenic climate
change.
Tall tale:
Every time you turn around, there�s another petition supposedly signed
by skeptical climate scientists.
First there was the list of �500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts
Man-Made Global Warming Scares,� put together by the
anti-climate-action Heartland Institute.
Then, there were more than 30,000 scientists who supposedly signed the
�Oregon Petition.�
And then, just before this month�s Copenhagen climate summit, 141
�Science and Technology Experts well Qualified in Climate Science�
signed an open letter to the U.N. secretary-general demanding
�convincing evidence� that climate change is occurring.
I don�t think so:
Each document is far less than what it purports to be -- at times
hilariously so. When contacted in 2008 by DeSmogBlog, dozens of
scientists who found themselves on the list of 500 quickly responded
with outrage, saying they never gave permission to be listed.
http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about-the-heartland-institute
One example:
�I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last
20 years arguing the opposite."
DeSmogBlog found even more wrong with the Oregon Petition.
http://www.desmogblog.com/30000-global-warming-petition-easily-debunked-propaganda
Many of its signers were undergraduate science majors, not scientists.
Others didn�t even exist.
Only 39 of the 30,000 signers actually turned out to be climatologists
-- but even that claim couldn�t be verified.
Et cetera.
In the more recent list of 141 �well-qualified experts,�
�well-qualified� is in the eye of the beholder.
http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64
A close look reveals that many are scientists in unrelated fields,
while others are engineers rather than scientists.
Why do deniers keep coming up with new petitions?
Seems to me it�s because every time one petition is thoroughly
discredited, the bloggers, broadcasters and political operatives can
breathlessly trot out a fresh one that hasn�t been debunked yet.
Numerous
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/12/10/tech-climate-uk-scientists.html
petitions
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/12/10/tech-climate-uk-scientists.html
by thousands of actual climate scientists have pressed for politicians
to take strong action quickly on climate change, but those efforts
haven�t drawn nearly the attention of the deniers� petitions.
Neither have credible polls of scientists, including one early this
year in which 97 percent of climatologists agreed that �human activity
been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.�
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/97-climate-scientists-humans-causing-global-warming.php
In an entry on �Scientific Opinion on Climate Change,� Wikipedia lists
45 scientific organizations that concur with the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change�s assessment that some global warming is
likely caused by people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_dissenting_organizations
It adds:
�no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is
known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent
climate change.�
Media spin:
It�s not surprising anymore that right-wing blogs, industry-funded
think tanks, talk radio hosts and Fox News amplify denier-slanted
petitions without mentioning their flaws, or that they fail to mention
the more credible evidence of the overwhelming consensus of
anthropogenic climate change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mf1b_y8rxE&feature=player_embedded
But mainstream media organizations have done little to counter the
noise machine.
The result:
A poll this fall by the Pew Research Center for People & the Press
cited �a sharp decline over the past year in the percentage of
Americans who say there is solid evidence that global temperatures are
rising.�
4)-----It�d be a heck of a lot cheaper to fix things after the fact.
Tall tale:
The economist and the journalist who wrote the spectacularly
successful Freakonomics published the followup this fall:
SuperFreakonomics.
It�s filled with all kinds of errors about climate change,
http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/books/stories/geoengineering-blunderamong
them that the Earth is cooling, and that solar panels and trees make
the Earth hotter.
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2009/11/superfreakonomics-climate-contrarianism/
The most entertaining of bit of unsubstantiated conjecture is that,
rather than reducing greenhouse gases, it would be more effective and
less expensive to suppress climate change through �geo-engineering� --
by pumping vast amounts of sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere to
reflect away heat.
I don�t think so:
Authors Stephen J. Dubner and Steven D. Levitt market themselves as
iconoclasts -- unafraid to attack sacred cows and to push novel
solutions.
The problem is that they don�t know what they�re talking about when it
comes to climate change -- a subject upon which there�s no shortage of
expert opinion and, for that matter, creative thinking.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/why-levitt-and-dubner-like-geo-engineering-and-why-they-are-wrong/
In a post on a science blog, geophysicist Raymond T. Pierrehumbert
pretty convincingly accuses Levitt of �academic malpractice.�
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/an-open-letter-to-steve-levitt/
Meanwhile, Dubner admitted grudgingly
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/global-warming-in-superfreakonomics-the-anatomy-of-a-smear/
-- and incompletely
http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/12/superfreakonomics-errors-levitt-caldeira-myhrvold/
-- on the New York Times� Freakonomics blog that he and Levitt
misquoted a key source on geoengineering.
http://www.mnn.com/local-reports/new-york
His mea culpa came across as careful backpedaling.
And the miracle cure they suggest for climate change comes across more
like one of the predictable ideas you�d see in an old Popular
Mechanics magazine than like original thinking.
Media spin:
Hell hath no fury like a writer scorned.
When I reported last month on Levitt and Dubner�s freaky ideas about
climate change, I gave them the benefit of the doubt.
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-change/stories/media-mayhem-high-noon-for-superfreakonomics
They didn�t seem like dishonest deniers to me -- more like they
over-reached to make their book more sensational.
Now, I�m not so sure.
Maybe the controversy drove Dubner into the denial camp.
Here he is peddling his book by participating on the most willfully
misleading Fox segment on �Climategate�
http://www.mnn.com/eco-glossary/climategate I�ve seen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3o-dc0kwHo&feature=player_embedded
Many news organizations gave Levitt and Dubner the free publicity ride
that media darling authors get.
But the real story here is that two celebrity authors are using their
platform to spread bad information.
SuperFreakonomics remains No. 5 on Amazon�s bestsellers� list.
How many people will get most of what they learn about climate change
from that book?
5)-----Climategate discredited the �myth� of anthropogenic climate
change.
Tall tale:
E-mails stolen from a British climate research center proved once and
for all that an insider gang of climate scientists fudged data showing
that the Earth is getting colder.
The proof?
Two or three missives out of thousands between leading climate
scientists.
In one, a researcher talks about using the �Nature trick� to �hide the
decline�; deniers say that proves scientists were hiding temperature
declines from the public for years (see #2, above).
In another, a scientist says:
"I have been fiddling with the best way to illustrate the stable
nature of the medieval warm period.�
Hmmm.
�Fiddling.�
Sounds suspicious doesn�t it?
I don�t think so:
The stolen e-mails are embarrassing.
Wouldn�t some of the stuff you wrote to friends and colleagues over
the past 13 years look embarrassing?
Some seem nasty on a personal level.
A few show possible attempt to skirt British open records laws.
There�s even a question as to whether pressure placed by at least one
e-mailer on scientific journal editors to not publish the work of
skeptical scientists went beyond usual competitive world of academia.
All of that obscures the fact that nobody has pointed to anything --
anything -- in any of the e-mails that discredits the theory of
anthropogenic climate change.
Scientists pointed this out from the very start,
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html and
news organizations
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2009/12/cru-emails-whats-really-there/
that belatedly reviewed the actual facts arrived at the same
conclusion.
Media spin:
The anti-climate-action media filed error-ridden �Climategate� reports
loudly and early.
One example:
columnist George Will, who wrongly stated on ABC�s This Week that,
�One of the e-mails said it is a travesty, his word, it is a travesty
that we cannot explain the fact that global warming has stopped� and
that another scientist said �he wished he could delete, get rid of,
the medieval warming period.�
ABC hasn�t corrected the errors. Don�t hold your breath.
On �Climategate,� the right-wing media served as a predictable echo
chamber; what�s more important is that the mainstream media utterly
failed in its duty.
Rather than balancing legitimate, authoritative sources with
right-wing spin -- as often occurs -- mainstream reporters just opted
for the right-wing spin this time.
Now, the spin has become its reality, even down to the name --
�Climategate.�
The story morphed from sloppy reporting about the facts into coverage
of calls for investigations and talk about the momentum skeptics were
feeling on the eve of the Copenhagen talks.
The actual fact that there was no evidence of data manipulation?
Boring.
Even three weeks after the story broke, in fact, a CBS anchor and
reporter bantered about how the e-mails �cast doubt on the very
science� behind climate change.
As has so often been the case in 2009 when it came to climate change,
they were talking about a mythic world where reality didn�t matter as
much as a neat story line.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200912080018
____________________________________________________________
Harry
1-20-2013
> http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-change/stories/media-mayhem-top-5-tall-tales-by-climate-change-deniers-in-2009
>
> Media Mayhem: Top 5 tall tales by climate change deniers in 2009
>
> By Ken Edelstein
>
>
> It was a banner year for myth making about climate change.
>
> Despite mounting evidence that temperatures are rising,
It's 19 Fahrenheit here tonight....and falling.
This is gonna be a LOOOONNNNNNGGGGGG, COOOOOLLLLLDDDDD winter! :^\
James
> http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-change/stories/media-mayhem-top-5-tall-tales-by-climate-change-deniers-in-2009
>
> Media Mayhem: Top 5 tall tales by climate change deniers in 2009
>
> By Ken Edelstein
>
Nothing new here. Same old bs, different blogger. I think they just do a rewrite of each other's piece.
richp
> http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-change/stories/media-mayhem-...
>
> Media Mayhem: Top 5 tall tales by climate change deniers in 2009
>
> By Ken Edelstein
>
> It was a banner year for myth making about climate change.
>
> Despite mounting evidence that temperatures are rising, the deniers’
> camp spun bigger, better and more believable tall tales than ever
> before.
>
> And those stories worked like a charm in 2009.
>
> Amplified by broadcast bloviators and a compliant mainstream media,
> advocates for burying our collective head in the sand convinced
> millions of Americans that climate change isn’t happening, isn’t
> caused by people, or wouldn’t be such a bad thing anyway.
>
> Here are five of the top 10 tall tales in the 2009 climate change
> denier’s storybook.
>
> 1) -----Temperatures have dropped over the last decade.
>
> Tall tale:
>
> Yellow journalist Matt Drudge peddled this whopper with sensational
>
> This year, it was repeated so many times that it turned into the kind
> of contrarian cocktail party factoid that can’t be disputed by mere
> ... facts.
>
> The premise is simple:
>
> Draw a line from a particularly hot thermometer level (in this case,
> the one-time record hot year of 1998) to any lower temperature that
> came later. Voila! You’ve got a downward trend!
>
> I don’t think so:
>
> The cooling myth has been debunked so many times, and so easily, that
> it’s painful.
>
> You don’t have to be a climatologist to understand that temperatures
> rise and fall all year, every year; a climbing trend can include steps
> down.
>
> Trends can best be identified by looking at moving averages.
>
> For example, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency readings show
> that the five-year averages for global temperatures have risen by more
>
> And before the denialists reading this declare NOAA to be part of a
> conspiracy, consider that the tall tale relies on the same data in the
> first place.
>
> In October, the cooling myth was debunked by an Associated Press
> article in which the writer presented the data to four statisticians
>
> Each concluded the cooling interpretation bogus.
>
> On Dec. 8, the World Meteorological Organization reported that this
> decade has been the warmest on record, which would have been difficult
>
> But tying Gore’s wealth to investments that haven’t even happened yet
> seems more of an effort to appeal to class envy rather than to make a
> coherent argument that the Nobel Peace Prize winner has a devilish
> plan to take over global commerce.
>
> Then there’s the timeline.
>
> Gore has been “mouthing” his concerns about climate change for more
> than two decades.
>
> In the 1980s, he began to develop the talk that became the basis for
> the movie An Inconvenient Truth.
>
> In 1990, I interviewed him after one of those talks from the backseat
> of a Toyota Tercel and reported then that I was surprised by the
> passion and detail he brought to the subject.
>
> In 1992, Gore’s first book on the climate threat, Earth in the
> Balance, was published.
>
> So when Milloy writes that Gore’s putting “his mouth where his money
> is,” he’s got it exactly backwards.
>
> The commitment on climate change came long before he started making
> money.
>
> Gore also stresses that a fair chunk of his earnings tied to climate
> change go toward two non-profits that he’s founded to push for climate
>
> The former vice president might quell the suspicions if he publicly
> released all his financial information.
>
> Then again, name me a private citizen who does that, and explain why
> Gore is the one who ought to.
>
> Media spin:
>
> The mainstream media doesn’t seem so concerned about Gore’s money.
>
> But for the right-wing media he serves a useful purpose as the
>
> It’s truly impressive how much vitriol is reserved for the man.
>
> http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200911300015
>
> 3)-----Many climate scientists don’t believe in anthropogenic climate
> change.
>
> Tall tale:
>
> Every time you turn around, there’s another petition supposedly signed
> by skeptical climate scientists.
>
> First there was the list of “500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts
> Man-Made Global Warming Scares,” put together by the
> anti-climate-action Heartland Institute.
>
> Then, there were more than 30,000 scientists who supposedly signed the
> “Oregon Petition.”
>
> And then, just before this month’s Copenhagen climate summit, 141
> “Science and Technology Experts well Qualified in Climate Science”
> signed an open letter to the U.N. secretary-general demanding
> “convincing evidence” that climate change is occurring.
>
> I don’t think so:
>
> Each document is far less than what it purports to be -- at times
> hilariously so. When contacted in 2008 by DeSmogBlog, dozens of
> scientists who found themselves on the list of 500 quickly responded
>
> One example:
>
> “I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last
> 20 years arguing the opposite."
>
>
> Many of its signers were undergraduate science majors, not scientists.
> Others didn’t even exist.
>
> Only 39 of the 30,000 signers actually turned out to be climatologists
> -- but even that claim couldn’t be verified.
>
> Et cetera.
>
> In the more recent list of 141 “well-qualified experts,”
>
> A close look reveals that many are scientists in unrelated fields,
> while others are engineers rather than scientists.
>
> Why do deniers keep coming up with new petitions?
>
> Seems to me it’s because every time one petition is thoroughly
> discredited, the bloggers, broadcasters and political operatives can
> breathlessly trot out a fresh one that hasn’t been debunked yet.
>
> petitionshttp://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/12/10/tech-climate-uk-scienti...
> by thousands of actual climate scientists have pressed for politicians
> to take strong action quickly on climate change, but those efforts
> haven’t drawn nearly the attention of the deniers’ petitions.
>
> Neither have credible polls of scientists, including one early this
> year in which 97 percent of climatologists agreed that “human activity
>
> In an entry on “Scientific Opinion on Climate Change,” Wikipedia lists
> 45 scientific organizations that concur with the Intergovernmental
> Panel on Climate Change’s assessment that some global warming is
>
> It adds:
>
> “no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is
> known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent
> climate change.”
>
> Media spin:
>
> It’s not surprising anymore that right-wing blogs, industry-funded
> think tanks, talk radio hosts and Fox News amplify denier-slanted
> petitions without mentioning their flaws, or that they fail to mention
> the more credible evidence of the overwhelming consensus of
> anthropogenic climate change.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mf1b_y8rxE&feature=player_embedded
>
> But mainstream media organizations have done little to counter the
> noise machine.
>
> The result:
>
> A poll this fall by the Pew Research Center for People & the Press
> cited “a sharp decline over the past year in the percentage of
> Americans who say there is solid evidence that global temperatures are
> rising.”
>
> 4)-----It’d be a heck of a lot cheaper to fix things after the fact.
>
> Tall tale:
>
> The economist and the journalist who wrote the spectacularly
> successful Freakonomics published the followup this fall:
> SuperFreakonomics.
>
> them that the Earth is cooling, and that solar panels and trees make
>
> The most entertaining of bit of unsubstantiated conjecture is that,
> rather than reducing greenhouse gases, it would be more effective and
> less expensive to suppress climate change through “geo-engineering” --
> by pumping vast amounts of sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere to
> reflect away heat.
>
> I don’t think so:
>
> Authors Stephen J. Dubner and Steven D. Levitt market themselves as
> iconoclasts -- unafraid to attack sacred cows and to push novel
> solutions.
>
> The problem is that they don’t know what they’re talking about when it
> comes to climate change -- a subject upon which there’s no shortage of
>
> In a post on a science blog, geophysicist Raymond T. Pierrehumbert
>
> Meanwhile, Dubner admitted grudginglyhttp://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/global-warming-in-su...
> -- and incompletelyhttp://climateprogress.org/2009/10/12/superfreakonomics-errors-levitt...
> -- on the New York Times’ Freakonomics blog that he and Levitt
>
> His mea culpa came across as careful backpedaling.
>
> And the miracle cure they suggest for climate change comes across more
> like one of the predictable ideas you’d see in an old Popular
> Mechanics magazine than like original thinking.
>
> Media spin:
>
> Hell hath no fury like a writer scorned.
>
> When I reported last month on Levitt and Dubner’s freaky ideas about
>
> They didn’t seem like dishonest deniers to me -- more like they
> over-reached to make their book more sensational.
>
> Now, I’m not so sure.
>
> Maybe the controversy drove Dubner into the denial camp.
>
> Here he is peddling his book by participating on the most willfully
Harry you desrve an attaboy award for that post
1-20-2013
The best news about global warming/climate change in 2009 is that is was
totally and completely exposed as a massive, money grabbing hoax after
the ClimateGate scandal.
Thankfully, even Obama decided to give up on his Cap and Tax scam and
made a token visit to the liberal tree huggers in Copenhagen and gave
them a pat on the back ;^D
The Ugly Republican Brand is Dead
"1-20-2013" <0120...@obamas-lastday.com> wrote in message
news:3ZOdnRbAQr_mfa_W...@rcn.net...
> James wrote:
>> Harry Hoax wrote:
>>> http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-change/stories/media-mayhem-top-5-tall-tales-by-climate-change-deniers-in-2009
>>>
>>> Media Mayhem: Top 5 tall tales by climate change deniers in 2009
>>>
>>> By Ken Edelstein
>>>
>>
>> Nothing new here. Same old bs, different blogger. I think they just do a
>> rewrite of each other's piece.
>>
>
> The best news about global warming/climate change in 2009 is that is was
> totally and completely exposed as a massive, money grabbing hoax after the
> ClimateGate scandal.
>
http://forwardnotion.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/polar-bear-on-melting-ice2.jpg
Doesn't matter the reason. You monkeys gotta fling the shit against the
walls. Hopefully, they'll be trees left to climb back into for you. See, it
doesn't matter WHY. The FACT is that it IS happening.
1-20-2013
You gw/cc kooks are *still* going with the polar bear silliness??? :^D
LOL!!!
Three seconds after that photo you provided was snapped, the polar bear
joyously dove into the water and ate a salmon....then leisurely swam to
another iceberg a few hundred yards away.
You've gotta do better than the ol' "stranded polar bear" stunt ;^D
Good luck!!!
Hope this helps!!!!
The Ugly Republican Brand is Dead
> The Ugly Republican Brand is Dead wrote:
>> "1-20-2013" <0120...@obamas-lastday.com> wrote in message
>> news:3ZOdnRbAQr_mfa_W...@rcn.net...
>>> James wrote:
>>>> Harry Hoax wrote:
>>>>> http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-change/stories/media-mayhem-top-5-tall-tales-by-climate-change-deniers-in-2009
>>>>>
>>>>> Media Mayhem: Top 5 tall tales by climate change deniers in 2009
>>>>>
>>>>> By Ken Edelstein
>>>>>
>>>> Nothing new here. Same old bs, different blogger. I think they just do
>>>> a rewrite of each other's piece.
>>>>
>>> The best news about global warming/climate change in 2009 is that is was
>>> totally and completely exposed as a massive, money grabbing hoax after
>>> the ClimateGate scandal.
>>>
>>
>>
>> http://forwardnotion.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/polar-bear-on-melting-ice2.jpg
>>
>> Doesn't matter the reason. You monkeys gotta fling the shit against the
>> walls. Hopefully, they'll be trees left to climb back into for you. See,
>> it doesn't matter WHY. The FACT is that it IS happening.
>
> You gw/
Again, it doesn't matter why. The Caps are melting. It's only Big Oil (which
controls you) speaking thru your lips.
1-20-2013
Ice has melted and refrozen throughout the eons....and will continue to
do so. Man cannot control it whatsoever. Hence, no reason for liberal
tree-huggers to tax the bejeezus out of everyone so a polar bear can
have a bigger iceberg to stand on while he's looking for a fish to
devour ;^D
ROTFFLMMFAO!!!!!
James
Such worn out yarns came in the beginning when they needed a villain. Now it's changed to just deniers.
Freestyle
> James wrote:
> > Harry Hoax wrote:
>
> >> Media Mayhem: Top 5 tall tales by climate change deniers in 2009
>
> >> By Ken Edelstein
>
> > Nothing new here. Same old bs, different blogger. I think they just do a rewrite of each other's piece.
>
> The best news about global warming/climate change in 2009 is that is was
> totally and completely exposed as a massive, money grabbing hoax after
> the ClimateGate scandal.
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg&
>
> Thankfully, even Obama decided to give up on his Cap and Tax scam and
> made a token visit to the liberal tree huggers in Copenhagen and gave
> them a pat on the back ;^D
The Ugly Republican Brand is Dead
> The Ugly Republican Brand is Dead wrote:
>> "1-20-2013" <0120...@obamas-lastday.com> wrote in message
>> news:c8OdnZk2xq3nf6_W...@rcn.net...
>>> The Ugly Republican Brand is Dead wrote:
>>>> "1-20-2013" <0120...@obamas-lastday.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:3ZOdnRbAQr_mfa_W...@rcn.net...
>>>>> James wrote:
>>>>>> Harry Hoax wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-change/stories/media-mayhem-top-5-tall-tales-by-climate-change-deniers-in-2009
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Media Mayhem: Top 5 tall tales by climate change deniers in 2009
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By Ken Edelstein
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing new here. Same old bs, different blogger. I think they just
>>>>>> do a rewrite of each other's piece.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The best news about global warming/climate change in 2009 is that is
>>>>> was totally and completely exposed as a massive, money grabbing hoax
>>>>> after the ClimateGate scandal.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://forwardnotion.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/polar-bear-on-melting-ice2.jpg
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't matter the reason. You monkeys gotta fling the shit against the
>>>> walls. Hopefully, they'll be trees left to climb back into for you.
>>>> See, it doesn't matter WHY. The FACT is that it IS happening.
>>> You gw/
>>
>> Again, it doesn't matter why. The Caps are melting. It's only Big Oil
>> (which controls you) speaking thru your lips.
>
> Ice has melted and refrozen throughout the eons
And species have come and gone.Too bad we couldn't engineer a virus that
only kills conservatives. That would be a big seller.
The Ugly Republican Brand is Dead
1-20-2013
But then, where would you liberal layabouts get your handouts from? ;^D
The Ugly Republican Brand is Dead
Attention Deficit Disorder.
1-20-2013
Hilarious, coming from the kook that talks about killing conservatives
in a global warming thread ;^D
ROTFFLMMFAO!!!!!
Face it son, man-made gw/cc is a liberal tree-huggers wet dream. But
ClimateGate thoroughly exposed it as a massive, money grabbing hoax. If
you were entrepreneurial - you made a few bucks off of it before the
hoax was exposed. If not, well, better luck next time ;^D
leona...@gmail.com
> http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-change/stories/media-mayhem-...
>
>
> By Ken Edelstein
>
> It was a banner year for myth making about climate change.
Global warming is a myth and does not exist. On
the other hand "Climate Change" is functioning
as it has for 5 million years or more.
The Ugly Republican Brand is Dead
Did something give you the impression that I was joking, creep?
You fucktards and your blind allegiance have drug this country down to it's
knees. Kill all you motherfuckers and let's be done with it. You all
certainly had no qualms about allowing Bush and Rumsfeld to rape and kill
children. Fuck you all. Fuck you all right straight to Hell.
1-20-2013
And, as usual, the liberal gets furious and goes into "Tourette's
Syndrome Mode". ;^D LOL!!!!!
You might want to go outside and hug a tree (or similar) to help you to
calm down a bit, son.
BTW - despite your morphing into Rumpelstiltskin here in this
thread...manmade gw/cc is *STILL* a hoax!!!
Hope this helps!!!!
The Ugly Republican Brand is Dead
I don't think you have a firm grasp on what "furious" is.
James
I don't think you have a firm grasp period.
Blue
> http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-change/stories/media-mayhem-top-5-tall-tales-by-climate-change-deniers-in-2009
>
> 1) -----Temperatures have dropped over the last decade.
--
THERE are 3,000 free-drifting buoys in the world�s ocean; first
deployed in the year 2000 they allow continuous monitoring of
the temperature, salinity, and velocity of the upper ocean.
There has though been some difficulty in interpreting the data
from these buoys. Initial signs of cooling were dismissed as due
to technical errors subsequently corrected based on a small
sample of the 3,000 buoys known as profiling floats.
Craig Loehle has analysed the data from only the profiling
floats for ocean heat content from 2003 to 2008. In a paper
recently published in the journal Energy and Environment he has
concluded that there has been ocean cooling over this period.
This graphic is from figure 1 of the technical paper and shows
the decline in ocean heat content (x1022J) smoothed with a 1-2-1 filter.
Dr Loehle�s findings are consistent with satellite and surface
instrumental records that do not showing a warming trend over recent years.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/the-ocean-really-is-cooling/
--
Approximately, 71.1% of the Earth's surface is covered by Ocean.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_the_Earth%27s_surface_is_covered_by_ocean
The Ugly Republican Brand is Dead
"Blue" <bl...@there.com> wrote in message
news:7pg95k...@mid.individual.net...
> Harry Hope wrote:
>> http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-change/stories/media-mayhem-top-5-tall-tales-by-climate-change-deniers-in-2009
>>
>
>> 1) -----Temperatures have dropped over the last decade.
>
>
>
> --
> deployed in the year 2000 they allow continuous monitoring of
> the temperature, salinity, and velocity of the upper ocean.
>
> There has though been some difficulty in interpreting the data
> from these buoys. Initial signs of cooling were dismissed as due
> to technical errors subsequently corrected based on a small
> sample of the 3,000 buoys known as profiling floats.
>
> Craig Loehle has analysed the data from only the profiling
> floats for ocean heat content from 2003 to 2008. In a paper
> recently published in the journal Energy and Environment he has
> concluded that there has been ocean cooling over this period.
>
> This graphic is from figure 1 of the technical paper and shows
> the decline in ocean heat content (x1022J) smoothed with a 1-2-1 filter.
>
> instrumental records that do not showing a warming trend over recent
> years.
> http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/the-ocean-really-is-cooling/
>
>
>
> --
> Approximately, 71.1% of the Earth's surface is covered by Ocean.
> http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_the_Earth%27s_surface_is_covered_by_ocean
I would imagine that the SURFACE temps have dropped dramatically, given all
of the melting ice.
Blue
> news:7pg95k...@mid.individual.net...
>> Harry Hope wrote:
>>> http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-change/stories/media-mayhem-top-5-tall-tales-by-climate-change-deniers-in-2009
>>>
>>> 1) -----Temperatures have dropped over the last decade.
>>
>> --
>> deployed in the year 2000 they allow continuous monitoring of
>> the temperature, salinity, and velocity of the upper ocean.
>>
>> floats for ocean heat content from 2003 to 2008. In a paper
>> recently published in the journal Energy and Environment he has
>> concluded that there has been ocean cooling over this period.
>>
>> instrumental records that do not showing a warming trend over recent
>> years.
>> http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/the-ocean-really-is-cooling/
>>
>> --
>> Approximately, 71.1% of the Earth's surface is covered by Ocean.
>> http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_the_Earth%27s_surface_is_covered_by_ocean
>
>
> I would imagine that the SURFACE temps have dropped dramatically, given all
> of the melting ice.
How much melting ?
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=12&fd=01&fy=2006&sm=12&sd=01&sy=2009
Climate scientist models say the Oceans warm and that gives off more Water Vapour
and that is the greenhouse effect. However, Relative Humidity continues to fall.
Therefore no greenhouse effect.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/globalrelativehumidity300_700mb.jpg
Freestyle
>
> BTW - despite your morphing into Rumpelstiltskin here in this
> thread...manmade gw/cc is *STILL* a hoax!!!
>
> Hope this helps!!!!
This moron thinks that if you repeat a lie enough it will become
truth.
It's like a sad case of turrets and it has nothing to do with AGW.
It is about revenge for getting bitch slapped by the Democrats at the
hands of the American people.
Like a child holding its breath and stomping its feet. It's really
that simple and petty.
They will do and say ANYTHING in their desperate attempt to win back
power, even if it means America's failure.
Their leaders would shamefully filibuster funding for American troops
to pull a political stunt.
Sick, traitorous, pathetic LOSERS who would see America fail and the
world burn rather than accept the reality of their utter
insignificance and marginalization.
Sid9
<leona...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e14b9711-3df3-4265...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
.
Science?
We don' nee' no stinkin' science
1-20-2013
And even after all *that*, man-made gw/cc is *STILL* a hoax ;^D
Freestyle
>
> > Sick, traitorous, pathetic LOSERS who would see America fail and the
> > world burn rather than accept the reality of their utter
> > insignificance and marginalization.
>
> And even after all *that*, man-made gw/cc is *STILL* a hoax ;^D
You lost healthcare and you will lose this one too.
Might as well get used to losing.
This nonsense is dying in the news cycles.
Nobody but fringe looney rightarded conspiracy theory kooks and the
pundits who feed them really care.
What will be the next nontroversy you will get wee-weed up about I
wonder?
Blue
None of these arguments cross the pond, and we got big health care, welfare.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/144551/Global-warming-Brits-deny-humans-are-to-blame
Kevin Cunningham
> >>http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-change/stories/media-mayhem-...
>
> >> Media Mayhem: Top 5 tall tales by climate change deniers in 2009
>
> >> By Ken Edelstein
>
>
> The best news about global warming/climate change in 2009 is that is was
> totally and completely exposed as a massive, money grabbing hoax after
> the ClimateGate scandal.
>
> made a token visit to the liberal tree huggers in Copenhagen and gave
> them a pat on the back ;^D
And the above is a filth ridden lie by a scum sucking liar.
So tell all of us, filth, who is going to be indicted? When is that
going to happen?
Or is this the typical repug "scandal"? Lots of hot air but not
enough scandal to get any indictments, even for a misdemeanor.
What ever happened to the murderous Clinton "scandal"? No
indictments, no nothing. You filth though had a few problems with
thieves, homos and child molesters. Indictments, trials and tons of
fun.
Kevin Cunningham
> The Ugly Republican Brand is Dead wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:c8OdnZk2xq3nf6_W...@rcn.net...
> >> The Ugly Republican Brand is Dead wrote:
> >>>news:3ZOdnRbAQr_mfa_W...@rcn.net...
> >>>> James wrote:
> >>>>> Harry Hoax wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Media Mayhem: Top 5 tall tales by climate change deniers in 2009
>
> >>>>>> By Ken Edelstein
>
> >>>>> Nothing new here. Same old bs, different blogger. I think they just do
> >>>>> a rewrite of each other's piece.
>
> >>>> The best news about global warming/climate change in 2009 is that is was
> >>>> totally and completely exposed as a massive, money grabbing hoax after
> >>>> the ClimateGate scandal.
>
>
> >>> Doesn't matter the reason. You monkeys gotta fling the shit against the
> >>> walls. Hopefully, they'll be trees left to climb back into for you. See,
> >>> it doesn't matter WHY. The FACT is that it IS happening.
> >> You gw/
>
> > Again, it doesn't matter why. The Caps are melting. It's only Big Oil (which
> > controls you) speaking thru your lips.
>
> Ice has melted and refrozen throughout the eons....and will continue to
> do so. Man cannot control it whatsoever. Hence, no reason for liberal
> tree-huggers to tax the bejeezus out of everyone so a polar bear can
> have a bigger iceberg to stand on while he's looking for a fish to
> devour ;^D
>
> ROTFFLMMFAO!!!!!
Notice, lots of hot air, no proof. None.
Kevin Cunningham
wrote:
Prove what you said piss bag.
Show me one paper, peer reviewed, that says there is no global
warming.
See, scum, there isn't one. At last count I have 980 papers on my
side and you have zero, zip, nada.
So put up or shut up, drooler.
leona...@gmail.com
> On Dec 23, 11:11 pm, "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 23, 10:14 pm, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-change/stories/media-mayhem-...
>
> > > Media Mayhem: Top 5 tall tales by climate change deniers in 2009
>
> > > By Ken Edelstein
>
> > > It was a banner year for myth making about climate change.
>
> > Global warming is a myth and does not exist. On
> > the other hand "Climate Change" is functioning
> > as it has for 5 million years or more.
>
> Prove what you said piss bag.
>
> Show me one paper, peer reviewed, that says there is no global
> warming.
# ROTFLMAO
You must know that you can not prove a negative
Weeeelllll Kevin scum how about providing 'valid'
proofs from your 980 pieces of garbage
>
> See, scum, there isn't one. At last count I have 980 papers on my
> side and you have zero, zip, nada.
# Indeed Kevin putz, I am waiting for your proofs.
BTW - I am going to show you what a distinguished
scientist thinks of your 980 papers.
Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller
University and chairman of the George C. Marshall
Institute, summed it up nicely after seeing the
changes made to the IPCC report.
"In my more than 60 years as a member of the American
scientific community, including service as president of
both the National Academy of Sciences and the American
Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more
disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than
the events that led to this IPCC report."
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
Tom P
In fact, using the figure of 1000km3 ice loss in Greenland and
calculating the number of megajoules need to melt that amount of ice,
the possibility that GW is going into melting icecap ice rather than
simply raising temperatures is plausible.
Tom P
years, the picture looks quite different.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=12&fd=01&fy=1979&sm=12&sd=01&sy=2009
In 1979, Novya Zemlya was completely ice bound. Half the Hudson Bay was
frozen. Ice in the Baltic and the Gulf of Bothnia. Ice in the China Sea.
leona...@gmail.com
> Blue wrote:
> > The Ugly Republican Brand is Dead wrote:
> >>news:7pg95k...@mid.individual.net...
> >>> Harry Hope wrote:
>
> >>>> 1) -----Temperatures have dropped over the last decade.
>
> >>> --
> >>> deployed in the year 2000 they allow continuous monitoring of
> >>> the temperature, salinity, and velocity of the upper ocean.
>
> >>> Craig Loehle has analysed the data from only the profiling
> >>> floats for ocean heat content from 2003 to 2008. In a paper
> >>> recently published in the journal Energy and Environment he has
> >>> concluded that there has been ocean cooling over this period.
>
> >>> instrumental records that do not showing a warming trend over recent
> >>> years.
> >>>http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/the-ocean-really-is-cooling/
>
> >>> --
> >>> Approximately, 71.1% of the Earth's surface is covered by Ocean.
>
> >> I would imagine that the SURFACE temps have dropped dramatically,
> >> given all of the melting ice.
>
> > How much melting ?
You can imagine all you like there is not all that much
being melted. Not near as much
> In fact, using the figure of 1000km3 ice loss in Greenland and
> calculating the number of megajoules need to melt that amount of ice,
> the possibility that GW is going into melting icecap ice rather than
> simply raising temperatures is plausible.
# Perhaps plausible but highly unlikely and so is the
1000km3 ice loss in Greenland.
> > Climate scientist models say the Oceans
As soon as you hear "Climate scientist models" you
know ipso facto it is bullshit.
warm and that gives off more
> > Water Vapour
> > and that is the greenhouse effect.
# Indeed it is and when the H2O + CO2 rise into the air
(by convection) it gathers in cloud formations and is
carried on the wind. When the warm front hits a cold
front the convection effect dies. Presto precipitation!
When it hits earth it becomes fertilizer. This cycle
takes as little as 2 days and as much as 5 or 6.
In that kind of cycle there is no opportunity for any IR
effect or feedback.
However, Relative Humidity continues
> > to fall.
> > Therefore no greenhouse effect.
Greenhouse effect has zero effect on climate
VFW
Tom P <wero...@freent.dd> wrote:
> Blue wrote:
> > The Ugly Republican Brand is Dead wrote:
> >> "Blue" <bl...@there.com> wrote in message
> >> news:7pg95k...@mid.individual.net...
> >>> Harry Hope wrote:
> >>>> http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-change/stories/media-mayhem-top-
> >>>> 5-tall-tales-by-climate-change-deniers-in-2009
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) -----Temperatures have dropped over the last decade.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> THERE are 3,000 free-drifting buoys in the world�s ocean; first
> >>> deployed in the year 2000 they allow continuous monitoring of
> >>> the temperature, salinity, and velocity of the upper ocean.
> >>>
> >>> Craig Loehle has analysed the data from only the profiling
> >>> floats for ocean heat content from 2003 to 2008. In a paper
> >>> recently published in the journal Energy and Environment he has
> >>> concluded that there has been ocean cooling over this period.
> >>>
> >>> Dr Loehle�s findings are consistent with satellite and surface
> >>> instrumental records that do not showing a warming trend over recent
> >>> years.
> >>> http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/the-ocean-really-is-cooling/
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Approximately, 71.1% of the Earth's surface is covered by Ocean.
> >>> http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_the_Earth%27s_surface_is_cove
> >>> red_by_ocean
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> I would imagine that the SURFACE temps have dropped dramatically,
> >> given all of the melting ice.
> >
> >
> > How much melting ?
> >
> > http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=12&fd=01&fy=2006&sm=12&
> > sd=01&sy=2009
> >
> > a
> In fact, using the figure of 1000km3 ice loss in Greenland and
> calculating the number of megajoules need to melt that amount of ice,
> the possibility that GW is going into melting icecap ice rather than
> simply raising temperatures is plausible.
>
> >
> > Climate scientist models say the Oceans warm and that gives off more
> > Water Vapour
> > and that is the greenhouse effect. However, Relative Humidity continues
> > to fall.
> > Therefore no greenhouse effect.
> >
> > http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/globalrelativehu
> > midity300_700mb.jpg
> >
did I hear something about acidification of the oceans?
--
Hint; Enjoy the moment !
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>On Dec 24, 12:00 am, 1-20-2013 <01202...@obamas-lastday.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Sick, traitorous, pathetic LOSERS who would see America fail and the
>> > world burn rather than accept the reality of their utter
>> > insignificance and marginalization.
>>
>> And even after all *that*, man-made gw/cc is *STILL* a hoax ;^D
>
>You lost healthcare and you will lose this one too.
You won healthcare? How much a month will
that cost you? Or are you eligible for 100 percent
subsidy.
>Might as well get used to losing.
Funny, the $750 dollar fines for not buying
health insurance are not though.
>This nonsense is dying in the news cycles.
>Nobody but fringe looney rightarded conspiracy theory kooks and the
>pundits who feed them really care.
>What will be the next nontroversy you will get wee-weed up about I
>wonder?
>
>http://i46.tinypic.com/3097v4j.jpg
>
>http://i46.tinypic.com/107qhig.jpg
Wait till November, the results then will
show how much the independent voter likes
the legislation being steamrolled like AGW
data has been.
James
> On Dec 23, 11:18 pm, 1-20-2013 <01202...@obamas-lastday.com> wrote:
>>
>> BTW - despite your morphing into Rumpelstiltskin here in this
>> thread...manmade gw/cc is *STILL* a hoax!!!
>>
>> Hope this helps!!!!
>
> This moron thinks that if you repeat a lie enough it will become
> truth.
> It's like a sad case of turrets and it has nothing to do with AGW.
>
> It is about revenge for getting bitch slapped by the Democrats at the
> hands of the American people.
> Like a child holding its breath and stomping its feet. It's really
> that simple and petty.
>
> They will do and say ANYTHING in their desperate attempt to win back
> power, even if it means America's failure.
They don't have to do anything much. Failure seems to follow liberals around automatically.
*us*
>... liberals ...
Your idols Hitler and Stalin hated them, too.
>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:14:32 -0500, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-change/stories/media-mayhem-top-5-tall-tales-by-climate-change-deniers-in-2009
>>
>>Media Mayhem: Top 5 tall tales by climate change deniers in 2009
>>
>>By Ken Edelstein
>>
>>
>>It was a banner year for myth making about climate change.
>>
>>Despite mounting evidence that temperatures are rising, the deniers�
>>camp spun bigger, better and more believable tall tales than ever
>>before.
>>
>>And those stories worked like a charm in 2009.
>>
>>Amplified by broadcast bloviators and a compliant mainstream media,
>>advocates for burying our collective head in the sand convinced
>>millions of Americans that climate change isn�t happening, isn�t
>>caused by people, or wouldn�t be such a bad thing anyway.
>>
>>Here are five of the top 10 tall tales in the 2009 climate change
>>denier�s storybook.
>>
>>
>>1) -----Temperatures have dropped over the last decade.
>>
>>
>>Tall tale:
>>
>>
>>Yellow journalist Matt Drudge peddled this whopper with sensational
>>headlines in 2008.
>>http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/04/04/drudge-sells-false-headlines/
>>
>>This year, it was repeated so many times that it turned into the kind
>>of contrarian cocktail party factoid that can�t be disputed by mere
>>... facts.
>>
>>The premise is simple:
>>
>>Draw a line from a particularly hot thermometer level (in this case,
>>the one-time record hot year of 1998) to any lower temperature that
>>came later. Voila! You�ve got a downward trend!
>>
>>
>>I don�t think so:
>>
>>
>>The cooling myth has been debunked so many times, and so easily, that
>>it�s painful.
>>
>>You don�t have to be a climatologist to understand that temperatures
>>rise and fall all year, every year; a climbing trend can include steps
>>down.
>>
>>Trends can best be identified by looking at moving averages.
>>
>>For example, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency readings show
>>that the five-year averages for global temperatures have risen by more
>>than half-a-degree Celsius since 1980.
>>http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
>>
>>And before the denialists reading this declare NOAA to be part of a
>>conspiracy, consider that the tall tale relies on the same data in the
>>first place.
>>
>>In October, the cooling myth was debunked by an Associated Press
>>article in which the writer presented the data to four statisticians
>>without telling them what it was about.
>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33482750/ns/us_news-environment/
>>
>>Each concluded the cooling interpretation bogus.
>>
>>On Dec. 8, the World Meteorological Organization reported that this
>>decade has been the warmest on record, which would have been difficult
>>if temperatures had been cooling.
>>http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_869_en.html
>>
>>
>>Media spin:
>>
>>
>>To their credit, few national mainstream journalists swallowed the
>>global cooling story whole.
>>
>>But the frenzy it generated on conservative blogs and airwaves was so
>>pervasive that �cooling� has risen to the level of unassailable fact
>>for a large portion of the population.
>>
>>Reflexive �truthiness,� stated confidently enough and said often
>>enough, sticks around.
>>
>>Fox News was particularly nonchalant about repeating the falsehood.
>>
>>Anchor Brett Baier announced in May �a number of studies now [show]
>>there has been no global warming over at least the last 10 years, and
>>that the Earth is actually cooling now.�
>>
>>He never cited those studies.
>>
>>Then, there�s this sampling of righteous indignation from Glenn Beck:
>>
>>http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200905040036
>>
>>Has the cooling story been doused enough to snuff it out.
>>
>>I doubt it.
>>
>>Temperature trends are so fundamental to the climate debate that
>>they�re likely to come up every time there�s an unseasonable cold
>>spell.
>>
>>It�s happened before.
>>
>>Earlier this decade columnist George Will was among those propagating
>>a separate cooling myth based on his misinterpretation of temperature
>>data from the 1970s.
>>
>>Then, this year, he was among those falsely claiming that the World
>>Meteorological Organization backed up the cooling myth.
>>http://mediamatters.org/research/200902260029
>>
>>Don�t be surprised if Will, Beck and all the rest of them come back
>>with another variant of the cooling story in 2010.
>>
>>
>>2)-----Al Gore�s pushing the climate change myth so he can get rich.
>>
>>
>>Tall tale:
>>
>>
>>Gore�s political enemies often gripe that he�s made a lot of money
>>since losing the 2000 selection.
>>
>>They�re convinced not only that those were ill-gotten gains, but that
>>the main reason he�s pushing now for climate legislation is so that he
>>can make even more money on carbon credits, or green energy
>>technology, or both, or something.
>>
>>The suspicions reached their apex in a congressional committee hearing
>>when a backbench Republican from Gore�s home state of Tennessee
>>interrogated him on his investments.
>>
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXGkI-mw7Pw&feature=player_embedded
>>
>>While Gore and his defenders argue that the former vice president
>>simply is putting his money where his mouth is, leading climate change
>>denier Steven Milloy stated the objection pithily in Human Events:
>>
>>�It is probably more accurate to say that he is putting his mouth
>>where his money is.�
>>
>>
>>I don�t think so:
>>
>>
>>The most obvious problem with the Gore�s-getting-rich complaint is
>>that he�s allowed to do that.
>>
>>I mean we do still live in a capitalist country, don�t we?
>>
>>Vice presidents tend to be well-connected.
>>
>>Gore�s better positioned than most, partly because he earns $100,000
>>speaking fees and partly because he�s made some very good investments
>>since leaving office.
>>http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-change/stories/media-mayhem-al-gore-bogeyman
>>
>>But tying Gore�s wealth to investments that haven�t even happened yet
>>seems more of an effort to appeal to class envy rather than to make a
>>coherent argument that the Nobel Peace Prize winner has a devilish
>>plan to take over global commerce.
>>
>>Then there�s the timeline.
>>
>>Gore has been �mouthing� his concerns about climate change for more
>>than two decades.
>>
>>In the 1980s, he began to develop the talk that became the basis for
>>the movie An Inconvenient Truth.
>>
>>In 1990, I interviewed him after one of those talks from the backseat
>>of a Toyota Tercel and reported then that I was surprised by the
>>passion and detail he brought to the subject.
>>
>>In 1992, Gore�s first book on the climate threat, Earth in the
>>Balance, was published.
>>
>>So when Milloy writes that Gore�s putting �his mouth where his money
>>is,� he�s got it exactly backwards.
>>
>>The commitment on climate change came long before he started making
>>money.
>>
>>Gore also stresses that a fair chunk of his earnings tied to climate
>>change go toward two non-profits that he�s founded to push for climate
>>change action.
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore.html?_r=3&ref=us
>>
>>The former vice president might quell the suspicions if he publicly
>>released all his financial information.
>>
>>Then again, name me a private citizen who does that, and explain why
>>Gore is the one who ought to.
>>
>>
>>Media spin:
>>
>>
>>The mainstream media doesn�t seem so concerned about Gore�s money.
>>
>>But for the right-wing media he serves a useful purpose as the
>>deniers� bogeyman.
>>http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-change/stories/media-mayhem-al-gore-bogeyman
>>
>>It�s truly impressive how much vitriol is reserved for the man.
>>
>>http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200911300015
>>
>>
>>
>>3)-----Many climate scientists don�t believe in anthropogenic climate
>>change.
>>
>>
>>Tall tale:
>>
>>
>>Every time you turn around, there�s another petition supposedly signed
>>by skeptical climate scientists.
>>
>>First there was the list of �500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts
>>Man-Made Global Warming Scares,� put together by the
>>anti-climate-action Heartland Institute.
>>
>>Then, there were more than 30,000 scientists who supposedly signed the
>>�Oregon Petition.�
>>
>>And then, just before this month�s Copenhagen climate summit, 141
>>�Science and Technology Experts well Qualified in Climate Science�
>>signed an open letter to the U.N. secretary-general demanding
>>�convincing evidence� that climate change is occurring.
>>
>>
>>I don�t think so:
>>
>>
>>Each document is far less than what it purports to be -- at times
>>hilariously so. When contacted in 2008 by DeSmogBlog, dozens of
>>scientists who found themselves on the list of 500 quickly responded
>>with outrage, saying they never gave permission to be listed.
>>http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about-the-heartland-institute
>>
>>One example:
>>
>>�I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last
>>20 years arguing the opposite."
>>
>>DeSmogBlog found even more wrong with the Oregon Petition.
>>http://www.desmogblog.com/30000-global-warming-petition-easily-debunked-propaganda
>>
>>Many of its signers were undergraduate science majors, not scientists.
>>Others didn�t even exist.
>>
>>Only 39 of the 30,000 signers actually turned out to be climatologists
>>-- but even that claim couldn�t be verified.
>>
>>Et cetera.
>>
>>In the more recent list of 141 �well-qualified experts,�
>>�well-qualified� is in the eye of the beholder.
>>http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64
>>
>>A close look reveals that many are scientists in unrelated fields,
>>while others are engineers rather than scientists.
>>
>>Why do deniers keep coming up with new petitions?
>>
>>Seems to me it�s because every time one petition is thoroughly
>>discredited, the bloggers, broadcasters and political operatives can
>>breathlessly trot out a fresh one that hasn�t been debunked yet.
>>
>>Numerous
>>http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/12/10/tech-climate-uk-scientists.html
>>petitions
>>http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/12/10/tech-climate-uk-scientists.html
>>by thousands of actual climate scientists have pressed for politicians
>>to take strong action quickly on climate change, but those efforts
>>haven�t drawn nearly the attention of the deniers� petitions.
>>
>>Neither have credible polls of scientists, including one early this
>>year in which 97 percent of climatologists agreed that �human activity
>>been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.�
>>http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/97-climate-scientists-humans-causing-global-warming.php
>>
>>In an entry on �Scientific Opinion on Climate Change,� Wikipedia lists
>>45 scientific organizations that concur with the Intergovernmental
>>Panel on Climate Change�s assessment that some global warming is
>>likely caused by people.
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_dissenting_organizations
>>
>>It adds:
>>
>>�no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is
>>known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent
>>climate change.�
>>
>>
>>Media spin:
>>
>>
>>It�s not surprising anymore that right-wing blogs, industry-funded
>>think tanks, talk radio hosts and Fox News amplify denier-slanted
>>petitions without mentioning their flaws, or that they fail to mention
>>the more credible evidence of the overwhelming consensus of
>>anthropogenic climate change.
>>
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mf1b_y8rxE&feature=player_embedded
>>
>>But mainstream media organizations have done little to counter the
>>noise machine.
>>
>>The result:
>>
>>A poll this fall by the Pew Research Center for People & the Press
>>cited �a sharp decline over the past year in the percentage of
>>Americans who say there is solid evidence that global temperatures are
>>rising.�
>>
>>
>>
>>4)-----It�d be a heck of a lot cheaper to fix things after the fact.
>>
>>
>>Tall tale:
>>
>>
>>The economist and the journalist who wrote the spectacularly
>>successful Freakonomics published the followup this fall:
>>SuperFreakonomics.
>>
>>It�s filled with all kinds of errors about climate change,
>>http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/books/stories/geoengineering-blunderamong
>>them that the Earth is cooling, and that solar panels and trees make
>>the Earth hotter.
>>http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2009/11/superfreakonomics-climate-contrarianism/
>>
>>The most entertaining of bit of unsubstantiated conjecture is that,
>>rather than reducing greenhouse gases, it would be more effective and
>>less expensive to suppress climate change through �geo-engineering� --
>>by pumping vast amounts of sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere to
>>reflect away heat.
>>
>>
>>I don�t think so:
>>
>>
>>Authors Stephen J. Dubner and Steven D. Levitt market themselves as
>>iconoclasts -- unafraid to attack sacred cows and to push novel
>>solutions.
>>
>>The problem is that they don�t know what they�re talking about when it
>>comes to climate change -- a subject upon which there�s no shortage of
>>expert opinion and, for that matter, creative thinking.
>>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/why-levitt-and-dubner-like-geo-engineering-and-why-they-are-wrong/
>>
>>In a post on a science blog, geophysicist Raymond T. Pierrehumbert
>>pretty convincingly accuses Levitt of �academic malpractice.�
>>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/an-open-letter-to-steve-levitt/
>>
>>Meanwhile, Dubner admitted grudgingly
>>http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/global-warming-in-superfreakonomics-the-anatomy-of-a-smear/
>>-- and incompletely
>>http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/12/superfreakonomics-errors-levitt-caldeira-myhrvold/
>>-- on the New York Times� Freakonomics blog that he and Levitt
>>misquoted a key source on geoengineering.
>>http://www.mnn.com/local-reports/new-york
>>
>>His mea culpa came across as careful backpedaling.
>>
>>And the miracle cure they suggest for climate change comes across more
>>like one of the predictable ideas you�d see in an old Popular
>>Mechanics magazine than like original thinking.
>>
>>
>>Media spin:
>>
>>
>>Hell hath no fury like a writer scorned.
>>
>>When I reported last month on Levitt and Dubner�s freaky ideas about
>>climate change, I gave them the benefit of the doubt.
>>http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-change/stories/media-mayhem-high-noon-for-superfreakonomics
>>
>>They didn�t seem like dishonest deniers to me -- more like they
>>over-reached to make their book more sensational.
>>
>>Now, I�m not so sure.
>>
>>Maybe the controversy drove Dubner into the denial camp.
>>
>>Here he is peddling his book by participating on the most willfully
>>misleading Fox segment on �Climategate�
>>http://www.mnn.com/eco-glossary/climategate I�ve seen:
>>
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3o-dc0kwHo&feature=player_embedded
>>
>>Many news organizations gave Levitt and Dubner the free publicity ride
>>that media darling authors get.
>>
>>But the real story here is that two celebrity authors are using their
>>platform to spread bad information.
>>
>>SuperFreakonomics remains No. 5 on Amazon�s bestsellers� list.
>>
>>How many people will get most of what they learn about climate change
>>from that book?
>>
>>
>>
>>5)-----Climategate discredited the �myth� of anthropogenic climate
>>change.
>>
>>
>>Tall tale:
>>
>>
>>E-mails stolen from a British climate research center proved once and
>>for all that an insider gang of climate scientists fudged data showing
>>that the Earth is getting colder.
>>
>>The proof?
>>
>>Two or three missives out of thousands between leading climate
>>scientists.
>>
>>In one, a researcher talks about using the �Nature trick� to �hide the
>>decline�; deniers say that proves scientists were hiding temperature
>>declines from the public for years (see #2, above).
>>
>>In another, a scientist says:
>>
>>"I have been fiddling with the best way to illustrate the stable
>>nature of the medieval warm period.�
>>
>>Hmmm.
>>
>>�Fiddling.�
>>
>>Sounds suspicious doesn�t it?
>>
>>
>>I don�t think so:
>>
>>
>>The stolen e-mails are embarrassing.
>>
>>Wouldn�t some of the stuff you wrote to friends and colleagues over
>>the past 13 years look embarrassing?
>>
>>Some seem nasty on a personal level.
>>
>>A few show possible attempt to skirt British open records laws.
>>
>>There�s even a question as to whether pressure placed by at least one
>>e-mailer on scientific journal editors to not publish the work of
>>skeptical scientists went beyond usual competitive world of academia.
>>
>>All of that obscures the fact that nobody has pointed to anything --
>>anything -- in any of the e-mails that discredits the theory of
>>anthropogenic climate change.
>>
>>Scientists pointed this out from the very start,
>>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html and
>>news organizations
>>http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2009/12/cru-emails-whats-really-there/
>>that belatedly reviewed the actual facts arrived at the same
>>conclusion.
>>
>>
>>Media spin:
>>
>>
>>The anti-climate-action media filed error-ridden �Climategate� reports
>>loudly and early.
>>
>>One example:
>>
>>columnist George Will, who wrongly stated on ABC�s This Week that,
>>�One of the e-mails said it is a travesty, his word, it is a travesty
>>that we cannot explain the fact that global warming has stopped� and
>>that another scientist said �he wished he could delete, get rid of,
>>the medieval warming period.�
>>
>>ABC hasn�t corrected the errors. Don�t hold your breath.
>>
>>On �Climategate,� the right-wing media served as a predictable echo
>>chamber; what�s more important is that the mainstream media utterly
>>failed in its duty.
>>
>>Rather than balancing legitimate, authoritative sources with
>>right-wing spin -- as often occurs -- mainstream reporters just opted
>>for the right-wing spin this time.
>>
>>Now, the spin has become its reality, even down to the name --
>>�Climategate.�
>>
>>The story morphed from sloppy reporting about the facts into coverage
>>of calls for investigations and talk about the momentum skeptics were
>>feeling on the eve of the Copenhagen talks.
>>
>>The actual fact that there was no evidence of data manipulation?
>>
>>Boring.
>>
>>Even three weeks after the story broke, in fact, a CBS anchor and
>>reporter bantered about how the e-mails �cast doubt on the very
>>science� behind climate change.
>>
>>As has so often been the case in 2009 when it came to climate change,
>>they were talking about a mythic world where reality didn�t matter as
>>much as a neat story line.
>>
>>http://mediamatters.org/research/200912080018
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>
>>Harry
Freestyle
Right.
Republicons just rewrite history and lie about their failures.
Mission Accomplished.