Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Eric's Bad Night


When the news came over my computer early this morning, I could scarcely fathom what it was I was reading. Was this some kind of Onionesque parody, I asked myself? The news was so baffling - and unexpected - that I had a difficult time processing it. A quick check of the other news sources that make their way into my inbox each-and-every morning confirmed that this was not a hoax: the extremist conservative, house majority leader, Eric Cantor, just wasn't right wing enough for the knuckleheads in the state of Virginia who tend to vote in Republican primaries; defeated by an underfunded, unknown Teapartier with the curious name, "David Brat". Aren't politics a gas?

Harry gives 'em Hell
To say that this was a "Dewey Defeats Truman" moment would be about right. When the polls closed on Election Night 1948 everybody (with the exception of Harry Truman it seems) expected that New York governor Thomas Dewey would commence packing his bags for his new digs at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Dreams can die a ghastly death. Mr. Dewey, like Mr. Cantor this morning, had some unpleasant realities to contend with come the dawn. Both had expected, not a campaign, but a coronation. Both became, instead, charter members of history's Losers Club. On Election Day when he should have been campaigning in his district and reaching out to his constituents, Eric Cantor was at a Starbucks in Washington DC, meeting with some of his richest donors. How's that for arrogance?  

Yesterday wasn't just a calamity for Eric Cantor; the cracking bells of doom for the "party of Abraham Lincoln" could be clearly heard all through the evening and into the early morning hours. The damned things kept me up all night.

Sorry, I couldn't resist
`
The Republicans are undergoing an ideological earthquake that has been decades in the making.  When Dick Nixon rolled out the "Southern Strategy" in the long ago campaign of 1968, the GOP overtly sought the support of the racist Dixiecrats who had dominated the Democratic party for over a century. By 1980 the bigots were securely in the tent. It was then that candidate Ronald Reagan set out to woo the clinically insane. By 2001 the coalition was securely in place. The cabal of thieves, criminals and crazy people who have hijacked that disgusting party now seem hellbent on destroying it. 

Not that this hasn't been oodles of fun to watch. It has. It's just that one has to wonder what their ultimate goal is. The Tea Party is taking a stand, not merely in Dixieland but in a lot of regions nationwide. In the weeks to come there are twenty-three Republican primaries scheduled. Watch as the incumbents move even further to the extreme right. What happened in Virginia yesterday might very well be a nasty harbinger of things to come. That would be too good to be true. 

The weirdest thing about Congressman Cantor has always been his demeanor of contentment. He always has this strange look of almost cherubic calm when spouting the right-wing agenda. At least Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, to their credit, have the decency to look somewhat ill-at-ease when defending the indefensible. Not so with Eric Cantor! He's perfectly at peace with himself: Buddy Holly on quaaludes. Weird!

Howard K. Smith
I initially intended to call this piece "The Political Obituary of Eric Cantor" - until I remembered Howard K Smith.

In 1962, after Dick Nixon was defeated by Pat Brown in his quest for the California Governor's mansion, Smith concocted a piece for ABC News called "The Political Obituary of Richard M. Nixon". Nixon had originally been favored to win. A former vice-President who came so close to defeating Jack Kennedy for the presidency two years earlier, he seemed a shoe-in. It didn't quite work out that way. On the night of his defeat, Nixon had a public meltdown and told the assembled press, "Just think how much you're going to be missing: You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore, because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference." Howard took him at his work. Tricky Dick had effectively committed political suicide. Who could blame Smith for pounding out the Trickster's epitaph? 

Six years and two months later, Nixon was living in the White House. Ouch!

Although Smith went on to distinguish himself during an illustrious career that lasted until his retirement seventeen years later, the "Political Obituary" broadcast was an albatross that hung around his neck for the rest of his life. Bearing that in mind, I'm not going to make the mistake of writing off Eric Cantor as a goner - much as I'd love to, mind you. 

Come to think about it we really shouldn't be all that surprised by the outcome of the Cantor/Brat contest. The Frankenstein monster in the guise of the Tea Party was created by the Republicans to do their ideological bidding. Unfortunately the monster has turned on them. What no one is saying is that this is now a separate party. David Brat may technically be a Republican, but if they try to nominate a "moderate" in 2016 (Mitt Romney was too much of a lefty for these clowns) there is every reason to expect a third-party uprising, dooming the GOP on Election Day of that year - and every four years from here on. 

The Republicans' extremism has rendered them a self-inflicted, mortal wound that will eventually destroy that party. Last night was but a prelude of still nastier things to come. The Clown Car is on fire. It really is amusing watching that elephant have a nervous breakdown, isn't it?

I'm loving every minute of this. Seriously.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

SUGGESTED READING

Events Leading Up to My Death:
by Howard K. Smith

The journalistic memoirs of a giant from the golden age of television news.

88 Comments:

At 4:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cantor could run as an Independant...the fastest growing Party in the US.

 
At 6:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No. According to Virginia law, his name cannot appear on the ballot. He could run a write-in campaign. Let's see how well that works.

 
At 7:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see the "Tea Bagger" with the sign "Don't Spread My Wealth, Spread My Work Ethic".

Just wondering Tom, when is the last time you have had a fucking job?

Are you on the now bloated Social Security Disability rolls thanks to Obama the Candy Man in the White House?


Sing along with me fellow marxists:

Who can take a sunrise, sprinkle it with dew
Cover it with choc'late and a miracle or two
The Obama Candy Man, oh the Obama Candy Man can
The Candy Man can 'cause he mixes it with love and makes the world taste good

Who can take a rainbow, wrap it in a sigh
Soak it in the sun and make a groovy lemon pie
The Obama Candy Man, the Obama Candy Man can
The Obama Candy Man can 'cause he mixes it with love and makes the world taste good

 
At 8:40 PM, Anonymous Liberals Are Sexy said...

Poor little Eric. His world came tumbling down. Bye, bye, you smarmy con man. He puts the "con" in "con"-servative. Couldn't walk that tightrope between the corporate GOP and the...whatever the hell that other tea bagger faction is now. Lots of venom coming from his own party today. He just wasn't all that hard core for the rabid ones. 6 years of obstruction from this boob. Sounds like the Democrats may have had some play in the primary voting with Virginia's open voting law. Mister Boner looked a particular happy shade of orange today as well. Nice writing Tom. Thanks for all you do.

 
At 8:44 PM, Anonymous Susie Q said...

Anonymous, why are you so interested as to whether Tom has a job or not? And judging from the number of Anonymous postings on the Rant, suppose you tell us if you are working and if so, what your job is that would allow you to spend so much time posting.

 
At 8:51 PM, Anonymous Dave Alinsky Dubya said...

If the Media would actually do some homework, they would realize that Cantor’s loss was not about the Tea Party. It was about people being sick and tired of Political Players who are more interested in the voices of their financial backers and Party ideologies than actually listening to all the people in their home districts. The People in the 7CD have spoken, yes. Money will not buy our Democracy in AmeriKa!

 
At 10:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Be careful what you wish for.
Tan Man will be the next to go.
Who will replace these leaders the right wing is so dissatisfied with?
Cantor has endorsed Kevin McCarthy for his job.

 
At 12:47 PM, Anonymous J S RANK said...

757Tom ...thouroughly enjoyed your article.
A few others ( including myself ) have been saying or posting for years how what is now the Republican party is really just a social club for stupid people, psychotics, racists, and assorted other degraded misfits.

Cantor personified this, as he is truly a moron. He's just one IQ point above the rest to repeat the inanities and slogans uttered by the majority of the rest of the fools.
I have wondered, though, if Cantor is an android or an alien, ET type. Watch him. He never blinks !

But, this has been a long time coming. With these idiots that pride themselves on their willful lack of knowledge, there is no limit to stupidity. It was inevitable that Cantor would be taken down by one even crazier.

 
At 3:50 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Looks like Anonymous is getting even MORE desparate. People already know that "Independant" along with "Libertarian" are just euphemisms for "Embarrassed Republican".
These clowns can win a primary or two, but they'll never win the general without cheating.

 
At 8:18 PM, Anonymous John said...

If only the Democratic party would disappear too...

 
At 10:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who would have thought that a Politician Supporting CRIMINAL ALIENS would have lost in a primary???

 
At 9:11 AM, Blogger Harley A. said...


"A few others ( including myself ) have been saying or posting for years how what is now the Republican party is really just a social club for stupid people, psychotics, racists, and assorted other degraded misfits."


True. And, the sophomoric and unfounded ad hominem is old and worn. It is all you have because you cannot engage in debate.

 
At 2:04 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Harley, what's to "debate"? The GOP has gone round the bend. The only way they win a national election is by disenfranchising voters or gerrymandering the house districts. In other words...CHEATING.
It is fun to watch you guys DESPARATELY trying to lay a scandal on Obama, and Anonymous, don't the teabaggers holding the signs about "work ethic" have JOBS?

 
At 4:03 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

"What's to debate?"

With the likes of you folks, nothing, clearly...

 
At 8:50 PM, Anonymous Barnie Sanders said...

Tom,

I'm really getting worried that the number of people of joining the Tea Party is growing astronomically.

I'm thinking of leaving AmeriKa for Cuba where everyone is equally poor and drive old beat up American cars. I'll take my chances with the chronic shortage of toilet paper manufactured by their government run toilet paper company.

I thought Alan Grayson would fill my shoes when I kicked the bucket, but he turned out to be a 1 percenter who lost all his money with a Bernie Madoff type of investment advisor. LOL Alan that you lost all your money you greedy capitalist pig!

 
At 9:07 AM, Anonymous James Hansen said...

Would any body debate that going into Iraq was anything but a decades long disaster? The whole middle east is changing at a rapid rate and we will be worse off as a result.

The policies of the Bush era are haunting us now and into the foreseeable future. Of course the few will benefit at the expense of the many, which was the whole point of the Neocon agenda in the first place

 
At 12:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James,

I would not debate that at all.

Would you debate that Obama and his neocon administration are bringing the world to the brink of war by continuing the Wolfowitz doctrine of American exceptionalism/hegenomy in Ukraine?

HarleyA

 
At 1:28 PM, Anonymous James Hansen said...

Obama is Neo-Liberal, but other than that we are in agreement.

 
At 3:25 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Anonymous..better to be
"on the brink" of war than neck deep in TWO of them with no exit strategy. At least "on the brink" we can hope for a peaceful solution.

 
At 7:30 PM, Blogger Rain Trueax said...

Pundits are looking for why. Maybe Virginians got as sick of looking at his smug face as the rest of us did. Some said it was immigration but Graham skated to a win with the same stands on immigration. I think maybe they just wanted a change. He'll show up on Fox but fortunately I won't have to see him pontificate from there :)

 
At 12:23 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was refering to the brink of a WORLD WAR - not just another oil war. Wars with Iraq or Afghanistan are wholly different situations than a war with Russia and/or China. Wake up and pay attention. This president is a disaster. The only thing that may save us is if the Euros realize they need to quit answering to us and protect their own interests.

But, no, everybody wants to complain about Bush's wars. When does Obama answer for his actions with you people? Ridiculous.

- HarleyA

 
At 8:32 AM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Anonymous, Obama has been successful at nearly everything he's done, and would hevae MRE successes had your teabagger buddies not blocked him at every turn. We are NOT on the brink of a "world war", but you can rest assured we'd already be IN one if Romney or McCain were POTUS.

 
At 12:01 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

everybody wants to complain about Bush's wars. When does Obama answer for his actions with you people?

Neither will be held accountable.

War is business-as-usual for empire, and a free pass for those who engage in it. In fact, supporting war was the path to re-election for both corporate parties in 2002 and 2004.

 
At 10:56 PM, Anonymous Ralph Nader said...

"Oh, most definitely," Nader said when asked if Congress should bring forward articles of impeachment against Obama. "The reason why Congress doesn't want to do it is because it's abdicated its own responsibility under the Constitution."

Nader said the president's use of military force in Libya has been his most "egregious violation of the Constitution."

 
At 7:39 AM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Hey Anonymous, MY version of Candyman" is better.

"Who can make the dead rise?
Heal the lepers too...
Walk across the water and annoy a lot of Jews?
That Jesus man!..."


I still think it's funny how Anonymous and a coupe others can turn ANY blog here into an Obama whinefest.

 
At 9:19 AM, Blogger Harley A. said...

YAWN...

 
At 9:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Obama has been successful at nearly everything he's done, and would hevae MRE successes had your teabagger buddies not blocked him at every turn. We are NOT on the brink of a "world war", but you can rest assured we'd already be IN one if Romney or McCain were POTUS."


Proof once again that you can not fix stupid.






 
At 3:20 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

For once Anonymous was right. No matter what Obama does that helps the country, people like Anonymous will STILL insist that he's a "failure" and parrot Fox news word for word WHINING AND CRYING because his guy didn't win and the evil Black democrat is taking HIS COUNTRY away from him.

let me ask you something anonymous...do you buy tissues in bulk to save money?

 
At 7:08 PM, Anonymous James Hansen said...

Harley, here is a rather alarming article about climate change, something I believe we disagree on.

What do you think of it?

http://truth-out.org/news/item/24370-atmospheric-co2-crosses-ominous-threshold

 
At 7:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

White House Dismisses Furor Over IRS Losing Lois Lerner’s Emails As “Far-Fetched” And A Conspiracy Theory…

Only tea party racists are upset, right Mozart? Nothing to see here, just move along.

 
At 10:34 PM, Anonymous FineFrogAssHairs said...

This President keeps creating turds all over the place.

Now the IRS has lost all of Lois Lerner's emails, just like the dog ate my homework LOL.

Unfortunately for us progressives, Obama is showing that Big Government gets progressively worse as it grows like a cancer.

 
At 11:48 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

James -

Ironically, if your article is correct, then a logical man would come to quite the opposite conclusion it seeks... what is the impetus for action if we are past the point of no return?

I typically don't debate this issue for two reasons. People don't understand the science and are open to any claim. As a result, they have no choice but to dig in based on politics and seek opinions that agree with their own. And, they believe the "science" is apolitical, which is a very bad assumption.

 
At 12:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Harley,

It's not science, it's weather forecasting theory based on computer program projections. To date none of the projections have proven to be correct. There is no empirical data to support the theory of climate change.

Ask James to provide facts supported by empirical data that support's the position of "climate change, A.K.A. Man caused global warming. Ask James for examples of past climate change that would support the current theory.

Just ask for the proof that can withstand the scientific method, IE:
The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.
The steps of the scientific method are to:

Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

It is important for your experiment to be a fair test. A "fair test" occurs when you change only one factor (variable) and keep all other conditions the same.

Where are the experiments, where are the fair tests, what variable has been changed to prove or disprove the hypothesis? There haven't been any.

 
At 12:48 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Harley,

Man caused climate change is not a scientifically proven fact. It is a computer based weather forecasting model that has no empirical data to support it's claim. It is still a theory.

Ask James for the results produced to prove the theory as fact using the scientific method.
The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.
The steps of the scientific method are to:

Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

It is important for your experiment to be a fair test. A "fair test" occurs when you change only one factor (variable) and keep all other conditions the same.

Ask for the results of the "fair test" the one variable and what conditions were not changed? Ask what the Hypothesis is and what was the experiment?
There are no results or variables because the theory is based on computer models.

 
At 1:17 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...


I typically don't debate this issue for two reasons. People don't understand the science and are open to any claim. As a result, they have no choice but to dig in based on politics and seek opinions that agree with their own. And, they believe the "science" is apolitical, which is a very bad assumption.

Yes indeed. This was the same case made when Science, not "science", determined that smoking tobacco was linked to lung cancer.

The political Right and tobacco corporations politicized the "science" just like political Right and fossil fuel corporations politicize the "science" now.

We can learn from both history AND science, but only over the howls of protest from the corporate Right.

What if the effects of high CO2 levels are real now, and we do nothing about it?

If we cannot evolve past our sheep-like submission to corporate PR and their well funded political "Free speech", what else do we deserve but extinction?

It would like believing John McCain as he tells us there was never conflict between Sunnis and Shias. It would be like believing Saddam and al-Qaeda were in cahoots.

Trust them. Invade Iraq. Bomb Iran. Ignore science and fabricate an evil conspiracy of climate scientists.

We're well on our way...







 
At 10:11 AM, Blogger Harley A. said...

Anon -

I agree with you. And I do have some credentials and background to understand the basic science and the hubris involved in making bold statements based on computer models of systems we do not understand - nor do we even understand the variables involved. But to discuss it is typically like talking to a fencepost - which I don't have time nor inclination for. And, I'm not angry with those who disagree - I simply disagree.

My main point was to point out that the article makes such a ridiculous assertion as to pull the rug out from under its own implied thesis. It is to show that illogic reigns in the minds of the average post-modern American. Given that fact, again, debate becomes futile. And, so, I rarely do.

DD -

The tobacco issue was observable scientific method. And, a powerful entity covered up the truth. Has NO bearing on climate change study.

What if? I don't know - what if abortion really IS murder, DD. What if? What if laissez-faire capitalism IS the best economic model? What if? That is the crux of "climate change science" - the narrative of unobservable and non-understood make-believe. It is simply not hard science. That is the truth - do with it what you will.

 
At 11:27 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Just before the invasion of Iraq, 70% of Americans believed Saddam and Iraq had something to do with 9-11. Even more believed in the WMD and nuclear program lies.

The propaganda was that effective.

Now the same club is telling us there's no cause for concern about pollution affecting our atmosphere and climate.

Is it your contention that the measurable effects of air pollution, rising levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are not "hard science" and "observable scientific method"?

OK. That's fine if you trust an expert like Limbaugh over an overwhelming scientific consensus.

I bet you can still find a tobacco-smoking MD who'll tell you smoking won't cause lung cancer.

Or ask Rush, as he puffs on his cigar.

Powerful wealthy interests and an entire political party would prefer we ignore a 97% consensus and believe in the conspiracy theory of evil climate scientists.

Millions of Americans take this on faith, just like the WMDs and Saddam being in cahoots with al-Qaeda.

Perhaps you can revert to the notion that maybe, just maybe, there is real science behind the climate change issue.

If not and we put trust in corporate PR over science, we have a safe bet for our extinction.





 
At 11:28 AM, Blogger Harley A. said...

DD -

Obama smokes.

 
At 11:37 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

As anonymous said, "It is still a theory."

So is the theory of gravity. Ignorance of what scientific theory is abounds.

And it's not just computers that say so.

Same with climate change. It's not just the "evil climate scientists" and their "liberal thermometers".

Observable events like thawing permafrost, melting glaciers, Arctic Sea coastline erosion, breaking off Antarctic ice, etc. are there to see.

Just not on FOX(R), where all you need to know is if a liberal says anything, it is wrong. Where disagreeing with corporate PR is an evil conspiracy or mental illness.

So go ahead and trust Limbaugh, FOX(R) and Exxon-Mobil. They have your best interests at heart, right?









 
At 11:39 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Obama admits smoking is bad for you, though.

At least he's right about a couple things.

 
At 3:41 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Anonymous, how nuch of your day do you spend looking for "boogiemen" in the Obama administration so you can come here and WHINE about it?

 
At 4:20 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

Mozart -

It doesn't take much time or effort to find problems in the Obama administration - it is a relatively easy task.

 
At 5:33 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Harley, especially if you BLAME Obama for everything bad in the world and disregard the years 2000-2008.

Try looking for the GOOD things he's done (It's a long list, but YOU will consider them "problems" since they don't support your corporate teabagging buddies) and you will be surprised. Embarrassed, but surprised.

 
At 6:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"an overwhelming scientific consensus"

Like the earth is flat, bleeding a person reduces fever, going over 60 MPH will cause your blood to boil, bathing is bad for you?

All were the scientific consensus of their day until, by using the scientific method, they were proven wrong.

"Observable events like thawing permafrost, melting glaciers, Arctic Sea coastline erosion, breaking off Antarctic ice, etc. are there to see." Where are the scientific method tests to prove these are caused by man? You can observe an eclipse but observing one doesn't mean your belief that it is the result of a dragon eating the sun is true.

And I should trust liberals because they have my best interests at heart?

I would ask those who believe in man caused climate change to hold their beliefs to the same standards as they hold those who believe in Christianity.


 
At 7:05 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

"an overwhelming scientific consensus" Like the earth is flat, bleeding a person reduces fever...

So your position is to equate medieval beliefs with modern science and NASA? How fitting.

No wonder you are so confused. Maybe you believe in both the conspiracy of evil climate scientists and the fake moon landing.

Maybe when money talks, you listen.

"The science is sobering—the global temperature in 2012 was among the hottest since records began in 1880. Make no mistake: without concerted action, the very future of our planet is in peril."
~ Christine Lagarde, Managing Director International Monetary Fund

And your infallible holy of holies, the Pentagon, takes climate change very seriously. But you and Rush know better, Right?

And I should trust liberals because they have my best interests at heart?

No. Spoken like a fool. And yes, liberals DO have the interests of the public at heart. "We're in this together" is clearly opposite of the Right's "You're on your own".

Liberals and sane people trust science more than they trust Limbaugh and Exxon-Mobil. Get a fuckin clue.

You’re saying we should trust FOX(R), Limbaugh and corporate PR for the same reason?

Laughable, but sad.

Cause and effect: here:

Globally, April 2014 tied 2010 as the warmest April since global temperature records began in 1880. Annually, 2013 tied 2003 as the 4th warmest year globally since 1880. Nine of the ten warmest years in the past 134 years occurred since the Year 2000. Only one year during the 20th Century--1998--was warmer than 2013.


Sourced here:

The global concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – the primary driver of recent climate change – has reached 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in recorded history, according to data from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii.


And here:


While CO2 emissions come from a variety of natural sources, human-related emissions are responsible for the increase that has occurred in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution.

Care to hold Christianity to the same scientific standards?

Better start preaching real hard. And good luck finding evidence.

We know your only standards are your radical Right, and religious, beliefs. Now THAT is truly medieval in every way.

Bet you're proud of that, too.

"Ignorance is strength".

 
At 7:13 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

I would ask those who believe in man caused climate change to hold their beliefs to the same standards as they hold those who believe in Christianity.

And just what are those standards, pray tell?

Like we expect and answer from Chuckie the troll.

 
At 8:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And just what are those standards"

The same scientific method used to prove that the earth is not flat, bleeding a person will not reduces fever, going over 60 MPH will not cause your blood to boil, bathing is not bad for you. Those same standards.
If the scientific method is not followed to find the truth, the belief is faith, not science. It is theory, not fact.

"That is the crux of "climate change science" - the narrative of unobservable and non-understood make-believe. It is simply not hard science. That is the truth - do with it what you will."

 
At 9:02 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Anonymous is on a roll. Never before has someone looked so stupid at his own request.

 
At 10:14 PM, Anonymous James Hansen said...

Actually, according to the scientific community there is not any controversy about man made Global Warming at all. It is accepted as settled science.

The basis of GW is simple, the heat holding ability's of the various green house gases is beyond dispute and we make billions of tons of them per year.

Throwing immense amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere which is only seven miles thick for a hundred years will have an effect weather you believe it or not.

The fossil fuel companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to create doubt about GW, most of it to Republican politicians. I think the scientific community has more integrity than politicians.

 
At 10:25 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Big News!

We can dismiss the Theory of Gravity as "the belief is faith, not science. It is theory, not fact."

LOL!!!

As amply exhibited, the Right loves to destroy language by redefining words to fit their beliefs.

As I said, they don't know what scientific theory is.

They DENY science, and still try to define it for us.

Amazing.

Their ideological fanaticism can be so arrogant, while being so wrong.

Wiki has what they just can't wrap their narrow minds around:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.

What can else can we expect from those frightened and confused ideologues who prefer to believe Rush Limbaugh over real science.

This goes far to explains why, and how, humanity faces self-extinction.

 
At 11:53 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

Anon -

Read enough silliness yet? Point proved...

 
At 1:38 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Yes, point proved. Enough silliness.

Nine of the ten warmest years in the past 134 years occurred since the Year 2000. This is plain silly.

Point proved.

Carbon levels in the atmosphere are at the highest in the last 800,000 years. Isn't that just silly?

Silly carbon dioxide. Silly greenhouse gasses. Silly observable evidence.

All this proves climate change is just plain silly.

Yes, silly NASA, silly Pentagon, silly IMF, Silly NOAA, silly EPA, silly liberals, silly scientists and silly me.

Anonymous Chuckie and Harley are not silly. Rush is not silly. Glenn Beck is not silly. Sarah Palin used to be silly when she admitted to climate change, but she is not silly now.

The Kochs, the Republican Party, and Exxon-Mobil are also not silly.

They are solemn and serious and only solemn and serious facts matter to them. Science is silly when it contradicts corporate PR.

Silly people just don't get it, do they? It's because they are just too silly to be solemn and serious like Rush and Glenn and the Kochs and the Republican Party, and Exxon-Mobil.

How silly of me and every other sane person on the planet. Next thing you know, they'll start saying that silly "theory of evolution" is real.

Silly people just don't get it, do they?




 
At 10:34 AM, Blogger Harley A. said...

I can say, though, I learned that the scientific basis behind GW is "simple" and that a French lawyer has credentials sufficient to make definitive assertions on climatology.

Be patient with me... I may yet come around to the liberal way of thinking. I'm learning how to more every day...

I also continue to learn that I get my information from Rush and Glenn. Which is frightening because it has to be coming in when I'm not conscious, as I don't consciously listen to their programs. Very, very concerning...

The great "freethinkers" out here are exactly the opposite. That's the most satisfying irony of all.

Done.

 
At 11:01 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

accepted as settled science.
just like the earth was flat was accepted science?

Where are the results from experiments using the scientific method to prove climate change global warming is man made?

Yes Harley I get and see your point.

 
At 11:52 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Where are the results from experiments using the scientific method to prove climate change global warming is man made?

So carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas? And humans have not poured any CO2 into the atmosphere? And pollution has no negative effects?

Now THAT is what the far right calls "sound science".

Silly rational sane people just don't get it.

 
At 3:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Show me the results from experiments using the scientific method proving that there is global warming, climate change that man has caused.
With the reported vast numbers of scientists who believe in man caused climate change, that should be easy enough to do.

I would gladly join the GW crowd if there was proof provided as a result of experiments using the scientific method. Doing so would end my being called names and having my IQ questioned because I refuse to take GW/climate change being caused by man on faith like those who currently believe it is. I want scientific proven proof. So far no one has offer that.

Wouldn't it make sense to find out if there has there ever been the same levels of co2 in our atmosphere before as there is now? Then what caused it then? What made it go away? Wouldn't it make sense to find out what caused the first ice age and then the mini ice age and what caused them to end? What was man's part in those changes? or the Koch Brothers, GOP, Tea Party and corporations? How long have we been keeping records of earth's weather, 200, 300 years? How old is the earth? Is 300 years of data enough for a computer to project our future climate or for that matter and climate change say from 500 years ago?

Wouldn't it be logical, and not silly, to stop the countries who are pumping the co2 into our air, instead of trying to limit the economic growth of the countries who have already reduced their co2 foot print? All of this is based on computer models, not facts that can be recreated in a lab experiments. That is all I'm asking for.

 
At 4:17 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Among other questions, "How old is the earth?" has been answered.

(They won't bother to read our references from NASA or any other qualified source.)

If the person asking the question believes the Earth is only six thousand years old, and there is no such thing as greenhouse gasses, provable by scientific experiment, then we are talking to a brick wall of ignorance mixed with self-righteousness.

 
At 8:46 PM, Anonymous Sally Sinden said...

I just love all the "anons." I guess that eliminates some of the redundancies in the happy horseshit that you post on The Rant. I'm certain that Tom having a job or not has absolutely nothing to do with the price of a can of fucking green beans in Zanzabar or anywhere else for that matter. Watching too much Faux Noise perhaps? I'd advise you (if I happened to be in the regular business of dispensing advice) to quit extracting your posts from the south end of the horse...as there is always the danger of having that horseshit that close to your mouth...I'll leave the rest to that active imagination you are the proud owner of...

 
At 12:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Only asking for proof that has been found from experiments using the scientific method. No need to get nasty cause you cant provide same.
Sorry that is so hard for you to accept that basic scientific foundation to our knowledge today. It's almost like dealing with a religious cult.

Also, there is not 100% agreement within NASA, supporting the theory that climate change, global warming is being caused by man. Far from it.

Two Examples:
“I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.” — Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled “The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere” and he published a paper in August 2009 titled “Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field.”

"The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.” — Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University.

Great, so we know how old the earth is, now how many years of weather reporting do we have? Instead of calling names, maybe you should be opened minded enough to think about what caused weather changes, global warming before mankind? Isn't it a "brick wall of ignorance mixed with self-righteousness" to not do so?

As I said before, show me the proof uncovered as a result of using the scientific method and I have no problem switching my position. Odd how this position is a lot more open minded than the ones who disagree with me and call me a "ideological fanatic can be so arrogant, while being so wrong."

 
At 12:50 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

With your cult, we don't even have consensus that the Earth is older than 6,000 years.

Quoting paid shills of energy corporations is hardly objective evidence.

maybe you should be opened minded enough to think about what caused weather changes, global warming before mankind?

The correlation and cause of warming by high CO2 levels are documented.

Are you denying the scientifically proven greenhouse effect?

How “open minded”. LOL!

Of course, it means nothing to a brick wall.

 
At 6:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

DD -

You are either ignorant of the fact (or intellectually dishonest in posturing as if) the majority of research isn't funded by agents with agendas. Not the least of which is the bag of hot air Gore.

Your fair and unbiased research is a myth.

I hope you enjoy the glass house you are in...

HarleyA

 
At 9:19 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

I've noted, for comparison, the power of the Right's propaganda back in 2002 and early 2003. The Bush/Cheney war crime cartel, with its subservient corporate media, fooled 70% of Americans into believing Iraq/Saddam had something to do with 9-11.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link
Posted 9/6/2003 8:10 AM

WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.


How can any sane American not feel horrified by this?

Many of these same deluded souls now believe in a dark conspiracy of evil climate scientists, out to deceive the world.

We can follow the money to the oily corporate backers of this wild conspiracy.

Very sad and very disturbing.

This is why we have dictators and tyranny. This is why we have so many wars. Many good people are fooled by despotic authoritarians all the time.

This is also how mankind will assure its self-extinction, after they've submitted to corporate power over government, and their expanding rule over us.

So, if a corporation is a person, it can be a liar and a dictator too. Right?

Absolutely.

But not to their cult of mammon-serving true believers.




 
At 9:27 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

agents with agendas. Not the least of which is the bag of hot air Gore.

We note Harley loves to assign these negative attributes, not to the machinery of corporate power, but to peer-reviewed men of science, and to a guy that DID NOT lie us into war.

How does this not represent moral relativism in the extreme?



 
At 11:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Uh, because it's not moral relativism for starters...

Moral relativism would be me saying it is okay for one but not for the other. My assertion was that your "peer reviewed" (another myth) men of science are indeed funded by agencies with agendas - just like pretty much any man of science in today's world, including many of the detractors.

I might be wrong - but I am not a moral relativist. IF the corporate world were driving real non-politically-driven science underground to make money, I would be outraged.

You are clearly not a scientist and you don't understand the scientific method nor the burden of proof involved. Nor do you appear to understand the immense complexity of the climatic patterns of Earth. If you did, you would at least be a tiny bit skeptical of the "consensus" (in my opinion).

Agree to disagree - how about that.

We have talked around and past each other enough - it isn't going anywhere and likely won't. And no one is listening anymore...

HarleyA

 
At 1:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm still listening Harley A and agree with your position about global warming being caused by man 100%. So do thousands of scientists. All who simply ask, as I have, for proof to support claims of man caused climate change, GW, found by using the scientific method, not by the science of "what if".

 
At 4:26 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Harley,
IF the corporate world were driving real non-politically-driven science underground to make money, I would be outraged.

Open your eyes. The science denial is all corporate funded and backed, just like the GOP.

You are mighty generous in accepting corporate purity of motive and action.

So what is a greenhouse effect? Is it scientific fact, or the agenda of a conspiracy of evil climate scientists?

One or the other. Your choice, but not your decision.

Well?

Seems to me if you are all so convinced of this grand evil climate science conspiracy, you'd be searching for proof of its existence, outside of your echo chamber of corporate induced phobia and paranoia.

We have proof of the greenhouse effect. Where's the proof of your evil conspiracy?

You made the charge now support it.

Science supports the greenhouse effect. Mankind has increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

So go ahead, and prove there's no effects from it. Or is it easier to prove your conspiracy theory?

Either way, Good luck. But your faith is in corporate PR over scientific consensus. Any way you look at it.

 
At 11:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

" When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.

When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous “hockey stick” graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology. "

Christopher Booker

 
At 12:01 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Wiki says Booker “has taken a stance which runs counter to the scientific consensus on a number of issues, including global warming, the link between passive smoking and cancer, evolution and the dangers posed by asbestos.”

So is Booker a scientist?

NO.

So is Steven Goddard a scientist?

NO.

But the RRBC will trust any non-scientist over the overwhelming consensus.

Right Wing Con-servatism is a mental illness.

Their insane raving ignores the highest CO2 level in our atmosphere in 800,000 years. There is no such thing as the greenhouse effect in their insane, science-denying world view.

AND THEY WANT TO RUN THE WORLD!!!

 
At 2:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where are the results from use of the scientific method to prove GW?

 
At 3:59 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

The Greenhouse Effect:

Here.

Here.

And here.

Pure science.

 
At 4:04 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Speaking of "where is", where is old Chuckie now that his dishonest posting by multiple IDs has been exposed?

Gee, he wouldn't be cowardly hiding behind "anonymous" again, would he?

LOL!

Run, Chicken Chuckie, run and hide. Run and hide from reason. Run and hide from science. Run and hide from the truth. Run back to your Radical Right Bubble Cult.


 
At 1:56 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

DD -

A few questions I have. You don't have to answer but feel free if you'd like. I know your epistemological basis I think, but your answers will help me be sure.


Has the scientific community proven without a shadow of doubt that atmospheric CO2 levels drive average earth temps vs. average earth temps driving atmospheric CO2 levels?


Has the scientific community been able to demonstrate the relative importance of CO2 as a GHG vs. the other atmospheric GHG's (since CO2 represents a very small fraction of atmospheric GHG's)?


Has the scientific community been able to definitively explain variations in ice core CO2 data/results from various locations/studies?


Do you understand the challenges and level of "judgment" and "estimation" that occurs when building models for age correlation with core data?


How has the scientific community demonstrated that the assumptions in their models/correlations for estimating atmospheric CO2 based on ancient core samples are accurate?



I'm fully willing to go where good science takes us on these issues.

 
At 2:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Run Davie, run. Hide Davie, hide.

Run and hide from science.

Run dumb Davie, run.

Run to your religion of man caused global warming and climate change.

Run from finding out what caused the ice age to begin and to end.

Run Davie, run!


 
At 4:48 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Harley,
We see Chicken Chuckie’s hiding in your shadow. Bwaack, buck, buck. LOL!

I know your epistemological basis I think

If you read anything I linked to, you’d understand part of the epistemological basis. We know Chuckie has, and will always, run from the facts. Corporate PR/GOP propaganda is all he believes. Maybe you are capable of as much skepticism for corporate PR as you have for the established science.

We know computer climate models represent trends, but not specific temperatures for specific days. I hope at least this much is understood.

Has the scientific community proven without a shadow of doubt that atmospheric CO2 levels drive average earth temps vs. average earth temps driving atmospheric CO2 levels?

Yes to both.

Climate models have to be tested to find out if they work. We can’t wait for 30 years to see if a model is any good or not; models are tested against the past, against what we know happened. If a model can correctly predict trends from a starting point somewhere in the past, we could expect it to predict with reasonable certainty what might happen in the future.

So all models are first tested in a process called Hindcasting. The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes. If they get the past right, there is no reason to think their predictions would be wrong. Testing models against the existing instrumental record suggested CO2 must cause global warming, because the models could not simulate what had already happened unless the extra CO2 was added to the model. All other known forcings are adequate in explaining temperature variations prior to the rise in temperature over the last thirty years, while none of them are capable of explaining the rise in the past thirty years. CO2 does explain that rise, and explains it completely without any need for additional, as yet unknown forcings.


Earth temps driving atmospheric CO2 levels is part of the feedback loop. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming.

Has the scientific community been able to demonstrate the relative importance of CO2 as a GHG vs. the other atmospheric GHG's (since CO2 represents a very small fraction of atmospheric GHG's)?

Yes.

The vast majority of emissions are carbon dioxide (5.5 Billion tons per year)followed by methane and nitrous oxide. Lesser amounts of CFC-12, HCFC-22.

Of all the greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide is present at the highest concentration by far. Based on 1990 concentrations, carbon dioxide is said to be responsible for almost 60% of the total greenhouse effect when efficiency and concentration are considered. Its concentration is increasing in the atmosphere due in large part to the extensive burning of coal and other fossil fuels for energy production. Another cause of CO2 increase is the destruction of large areas of trees that leads to a reduction in use of carbon dioxide for photosynthesis.

And your CO2 fraction is incorrect.

 
At 4:49 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Has the scientific community been able to definitively explain variations in ice core CO2 data/results from various locations/studies?

Please specify which variations you mean. Different elevations, depth of core sample, or other factors may apply, wouldn’t they?

Do you understand the challenges and level of "judgment" and "estimation" that occurs when building models for age correlation with core data?

I’d be happy to hear your basis for this claim and your analysis.

How has the scientific community demonstrated that the assumptions in their models/correlations for estimating atmospheric CO2 based on ancient core samples are accurate?

Is there evidence that CO2 can’t be measured accurately? Please share your information.

Maybe this will help:

How reliable are CO2 measurements?

Now if you don’t mind, would you explain why we shouldn’t be concerned about record CO2 levels in the atmosphere? Or shall we pretend or believe that it isn’t true? And then if you please, show us evidence of the global conspiracy of evil climate scientists.

And please spare us the Limbaugh/Beck/FOX(R) rant about. East Anglia

A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming.

 
At 11:21 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

Skeptical Science as source. All I needed to know. Explains a lot. Thanks.

 
At 10:58 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Skeptical Science as source. All I needed to know. Explains a lot. Thanks.

Not the only source, but who cares, right? All you needed to know for some simple explanations. If you want more depth the science is published. The consensus is there for you to ignore as you cling to your wild false belief in your global conspiracy of evil climate scientists.

So you'll embrace your false information as part of all you needed to know anyway? (since CO2 represents a very small fraction of atmospheric GHG's)

Good for you... and Rush. You know better, and you don't need evidence, just the GOP and corporate PR.

Just like 70% of the same true believer Americans also believed Saddam was involved with 9-11.

Trust them.

Keep the faith, and by all means dutifully disregard my irrelevant question:

Now if you don’t mind, would you explain why we shouldn’t be concerned about record CO2 levels in the atmosphere? Or shall we pretend or believe that it isn’t true? And then if you please, show us evidence of the global conspiracy of evil climate scientists.

Let the GOP and corporate PR be your guides to truth and wisdom.

Your faith will be rewarded, I'm sure.

One more hippie liberal climate conspiracy dupe for you to ignore would be the Pentagon:

“We will pay for this one way or another,” Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, a retired Marine and the former head of the Central Command, wrote recently in a report he prepared as a member of a military advisory board on energy and climate at CNA, a private group that does research for the Navy. “We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we’ll have to take an economic hit of some kind.

“Or we will pay the price later in military terms,” he warned. “And that will involve human lives.”

 
At 4:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Still waiting for the tests using the scientific method to support the claim that man is causing global warming/climate change and it is fact.

This is not about the evil Koch Brothers and multi national corporations making "excessive" profits as they destroy the world that they live on like the rest of us do. After all it's not like the GW naysayers have a secret spaceship ready to take them away from earth if climate change has made it inhabitable. They live here too.

It's not about Rush or FOX or Bush the Tea Party. It's not about the poor, women, children and minority's suffering more that the "rich". It's not about what the Pentagon says about the cost, while not speaking out in support of our fracking and the Keystone pipeline as ways to meet our nations energy needs and independence. Energy sources that the Pentagon can much more cheaply and easily defend vs our current energy sources from the Middle East. Energy that produces a lot less pollution than how we are getting our current energy supply.

It's not at all political, unless you make it so. Which is what has been done.

It's about the lack science that has been used in an attempt to prove the theory of man caused GW. It is that simple.

 
At 4:43 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

So how are you going to correct the Pentagon's acceptance of climate change?

Really, they are your gods, you'd better straighten them out.

Your crazy conspiracy of evil climate scientists won't cut it.

They live here too.

Oh, really? Did they have to drink the water they contaminated in West Virginia? No.

I guess since I "live here" then I'm free to dump toxic crap into the air and water too? Right? That's all it takes to destroy the planet with impunity. "I live here"?

No wonder sane people think your cult is nuts.

Now one more time:

Would you explain why we shouldn’t be concerned about record CO2 levels in the atmosphere? Or shall we pretend or believe that it isn’t true? And then if you please, show us evidence of the global conspiracy of evil climate scientists.

If you cannot, or will not, then why should anybody listen to your oily PR.

What kind of cult denies scientific consensus in order to embrace corporate/GOP propaganda?

The RRBC (Radical Right Bubble Cult) of course.

Either bring the facts, or go back to your bubble.

 
At 4:54 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Still waiting for the tests using the scientific method to support the claim that man is causing global warming/climate change and it is fact.

Two points. You're not waiting, and you have your head up your ass buried in denial. Humans are pouring billions of tons of CO2 into the air. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is scientifically proven.

You are denying the evidence that is there.

A cult cannot separate its beliefs from fact.

How old is the Earth according to many in your cult?

Wanna know? Beliefs tell them six thousand years.

So it must be true, right?

LOL!

And these are the true believer, authoritarian idiots who want to run the world...back into the dark ages and neo-feudalism.






 
At 6:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And the proof that CO2 is causing global warming is?
Does the earth produce CO2?
And the proof that there is global warming?

What caused the end of ice age?
Was it
a. global warming
b. Koch Brothers
c. man caused increase in CO2

If it was global warming, then what caused GW to happen?

How many years of reporting of the weather do we have to know that the earth is warming up and has never done so before? And that the warming is due to the actions of man?

"We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we’ll have to take an economic hit of some kind." Just because this was said by a retired Marine General doesn't mean his statement is scientifically proven to be true. And by the way, I offered a way to reduce the emissions by not having to go to the Middle East to protect and to transport our energy sources. How about the Keystone pipeline, it produces ZERO CO2 emissions to transport energy? If reduction of CO2 is the key, why not support it?

Why do you revert to grade school bullying and name calling when ever you are challenged? Or made to think about your belief? Do you think doing so will dissuade one from your being requirement to use the scientific method to support your claims? It smacks of a intellectually limited mind. What does the your comment about the age of the earth have to do with anything being discussed, other than to attempt to cast those you disagree with as stupid because they require you to show them the science to support your belief in man caused climate change/global warming? Will you hold your breath and stomp your foot next time you don't get your way?

 
At 8:48 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Chuckie spews an illogical distraction as usual.

Just because this was said by a retired Marine General doesn't mean his statement is scientifically proven to be true.

It means The Pentagon considers Climate Change as something real. We wonder how Chuckie would educate them on their error. For some reason he won’t say…. LOL!!!

Why won’t he tell us why we shouldn’t be concerned about greenhouse gases and other pollution?

What does the your comment about the age of the earth have to do with anything being discussed

A rational person would understand it illustrates the denial of science by many of the same con-servatives who deny the science of greenhouse gases and climate change.

This is what proof of climate change looks like.

And here at weather.com

13 of 14 Hottest Years on Record All Occurred in 21st Century

We wonder how Chuckie would educate them on their error. For some reason he won’t say…. LOL!!!

And it’s undeniable (to sane people) that ocean temperatures are rising too.

Scientific American says so.

This June, (2009) the world's oceans reached 17 degrees Celsius, their highest average temperature since record keeping for these data began in the 19th century.

Chuckie disagrees with Scientific American. Not scientific enough I guess.

We wonder how Chuckie would educate them on their error. For some reason he won’t say…. LOL!!!

It is real and happening now. Period.

And the proof that CO2 is causing global warming is?

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
CO2 levels are at the highest in over half a million years.
Rising CO2 levels are due to humans burning fossil fuels.

Data for Global Carbon Emissions
Carbon Emissions per Year

9.7 billion metric tonnes per year 2012
9.47 billion metric tonnes per year 2011
9.19 billion metric tonnes per year 2010
8.74 billion metric tonnes per year 2009
8.77 billion of metric tonnes per year 2008
8.57 billion metric tonnes per year 2007
8.37 billion metric tonnes per year 2006

Why won’t Chuckie explain to us why this is of no concern? For some reason he won’t say…. LOL!!!

Perhaps it is because he’ surrendered all power of reason to his cult’s radical anti-science, anti-democracy, ideology.

And he’s a loser with nothing to contribute. All he can do is spew his cult beliefs.

The more evidence I present, the more Chicken Chuckie runs from the truth.

Bwwwaaaaack!

 
At 2:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So the weather is hot, was it hot when the ice age ended? What caused the earth to warm up when the ice age ended? Prove that man is causing the warm weather you report. I suspect in Eastern Michigan where you live Dave, this past winter was NOT the warmest on record. Was that due to the Koch Brothers? I read a report that this has been the coldest weather since the 1930's. Gee, could it be there are cycles of weather that are not man caused? Nahh, got to believe global warming as it is the major tool for attacking corporations and increasing mankind dependance on BIG govt. Plus it will make Al Gore really rich. More transfer of wealth.

"When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.

When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous “hockey stick” graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology."

Did you read that Dave, the word ADJUSTING was used, and why? To "downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data." That's why.

Look, just recreate using the scientific method which you seem to ignore or don't understand the conditions in a controlled lab that recreates the conditions that support global warming being caused by man. And keep up the personal attacks, it only reinforces the image of you being a school yard bully.

Now about the Keystone Pipeline.

 
At 3:09 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A WARNING in the official NSW government handbook for learner drivers, stating that climate change could cause dangerous road conditions due to heatwaves, storms, flooding and bushfires, is set to be removed.

The NSW Road Users’ Handbook, produced by Roads and Maritime Services, tells motorists that changes to climate “due to greenhouse gas emissions” are expected to cause “unpredictable weather events” and driving should be avoided in extreme conditions.

But after The Daily Telegraph brought the climate change reference to the attention of the state government, roads minister Duncan Gay signalled that the “political” reference would be cut when the next edition of the handbook was printed. Mr Gay blamed the previous Labor government for the climate change warning being included in a chapter on road safety.

“(The handbook) was produced during the term of the previous government when making political statements was more important than actually addressing real issues affecting motorists,” Mr Gay said.

He added it would “be reviewed for the next edition”, which will be produced before the end of the year.

 
At 11:10 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Chuckie, talking about regional weather means nothing in the climate change issue. Weather is NOT climate. And it was record snow,(precipitation) not record low temps. How about the record drought in the West?

I bet you ignored the links too. Willful ignorance and a belief in a cult of evil climate scientists is your indefensible position.

Facts are facts. You present none. You only deny facts.

Who the hell is Goddard and what are his qualifications? Is "Goddard" even his real name? What "Science" can we believe from someone hiding behind a pseudonym?

Why don't you show us research that supports his allegations?

There is none. He's just a frickin' blogger, no more an expert on climate than I am.

You demand proof. I showed you evidence. Even National Geographic photos, which is far more physical evidence than you can show. In fact, you've show no evidence to support your beliefs.

None. Just empty claims by Right Wing media. You may as well go quote Rush. His ilk are the climate experts in your bubble cult.

My case was you are no different than your fellow cult members who deny the Earth is older than six thousand years.

Your faith is in corporate PR and Right wing propaganda. Period.

Just admit it to yourself, if you can.

 
At 3:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know what Dave, you are so classless, you could be a Marxist utopia.

 
At 4:35 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

And that is the final lame anti-science argument from the "Bubble Class".

 
At 6:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dave, Oh MY Gosh, we must do something now, before the effects of drilling for oil and fracking destroy our planet! This has to be cause by something the Koch Brothers, Tea Party BIG Oil or Tea Party did. This has never happened before in all of recorded history therefore it must be caused by something man is doing now. Computer models show if this change is not stopped their wont be a GPS on our planet that will work.
Think of the impact this will have on minorities, the poor, women, and children. Rich white adult men will not be effected therefore its their fault if this happens.

CBS Tampa – We’re accustomed to thinking of the North Pole as a fixed point, but new data shows that is not the case.

High resolution images from the European Space Agency’s 3 Swarm satellites has given scientists a unique look at the magnetic field that protects Earth from cosmic rays.

Measurements taken over the past 6 months show the field is weakening, most dramatically over the Western Hemisphere.

But it’s not the case over the Indian Ocean, where the field is gaining strength.

The data also shows the planet’s magnetic north pole is shifting southwards over Siberia.

The magnetic field is generated from a variety of sources, including the Earth’s core, mantle, crust, oceans, ionosphere and magnetosphere.

Scientists will continue to examine the data in the hopes of gaining new insight into many natural phenomenon.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home