« Obama Raises $7 Million Since Super Tuesday | Main | Huck Gets Dobson Endorsement »

Global Dumbing ?

This shit pisses me off.

This piece is inspired in part by PolJunk commenter Nikki and partly by the morons at LibertyPundit.com.

To give you an idea of what kind of brain power is poised to select, presumably, the Republican candidate for the presidency of the United States, I present a couple of Global Warming deniers in all their glory. Specifically, I want to highlight some attitudes that appear to prevail among the deniers.

Let's start with Nikki. In the comment thread of a Politics Junky piece entitled, "Barack Obama on Global Warming and Oil Independence", posted by Jake Brown in April of 2006 (!), our friend Nikki wrote, "Who gives a shit? Bring on the Global Warming. Whatever. If a less expensive form of fuel comes into effective use, then that would be great. That should be a priority with or without 'Global Warming.'"

Advertisement

To which I replied, "Who gives a shit? Are you serious? Whatever, la-de-da...
There's a hell of a lot more at stake than fuel costs, but your home-school curriculum probably didn't cover that."

To which Nikki replied, and this is important, "Sorry, Jude. I didn't eat up the crap my professors and media tried to throw down my throat. Maybe you should try using your brain instead of being a carbon copy Global Warming junkie."

Apparently, Nikki attended a college or university of some sort, but decided that she knew more about Global Warming than her professors did. No doubt, her professors told her some things that she didn't want to hear. Never mind that the point of going to school is to learn from people who actually know more than you do about certain topics. Nikki's casual dismissal of her professors is disturbingly consistent with other voices on the Right.

Specifically, I offer the February 7, 2008 posting at LibertyPundit.com as an example of the Right's inability to engage thinking people in a discussion about Global Warming. In this particular post, some Rightard named Brian laments that he had to shovel his driveway more than once in a 24-hour period. According to Brian, this is proof positive that Global Warming is a hoax. Never mind that there is a difference between WEATHER and CLIMATE . LibertyPundit allowed no more than eight (8) comments on this topic when it gutlessly declared that, "As much as I love slapping you libtards from Salon.com around, I'm closing the comments on this one. I don't have the time right now to deal with you guys trying to lecture me about how Algore is a Saint — a SAINT, I tells ya' — who only has our best interests at heart."

For the record, a 60-degree day in Chicago in January no more proves Global Warming than a 60-degree day in August in Chicago disproves Global Warming. Thus the difference between weather and climate. Assuming we still believe in things such as thermometers and satellite images , the effects of Global Warming are very real.

Brian at LiberyPundit apparently doesn't understand that Global Warming might, in fact, create more snow than usual in some regions. If the overall global air temperature is higher and the overall water temperature is higher, then there will be more evaporation. Increased evaporation means that when vapor-saturated air meets with cold air masses moving down form the Arctic, there will be more snow.

Brian never mentioned what university he received his degree in climatology from. Then again, if his attitudes mirror Nikki's at all, he probably doesn't feel the need to be educated before forming his opinion.

Comments

Awwww...did I upset you by saying you global warming nuts were full of crap? hahahaha

Nice post Jude. Darling Nikki's commentary on global warming and Brian's insightful contribution to the conversation leave me ever so thankful for natural selection. I only wish it worked faster.

Brian,

I was hoping you would comment.

Any asshole can point his finger at someone else and say, "You're full of crap." It takes an adult to say why someone is full of crap. Apparently, it's a task you're not equipped to perform.

If you honestly think Global Warming is a crock of shit, please tell us why. Educate us, share your infinite wisdom.

So, I present to you a challenge: Please explain how it is that the thousands of tons of pollutants and greenhouse gasses that humans the world over spew into the atmosphere every day have absolutely zero effect on the environment and/or climate.

Oh, and Brian, unlike you, we will leave the comments on this post open to everyone for a long, long time. Also, unlike you, I welcome thoughtful and challenging discussion.

I hope to hear from you soom.

Consider yourself educated.

http://www.libertypundit.com/2008/02/13/more-global-warming-on-display-in-minnesota/

And that's just the tip of the proverbial melting iceberg, so to speak.

Hello, PrivatePigg,

I was hoping to hear back from Brian, but apparently he is too busy to accept my challenge: Please explain how it is that the thousands of tons of pollutants and greenhouse gasses that humans the world over spew into the atmosphere every day have absolutely zero effect on the environment and/or climate.

I invite you and all of your readers to school my readers, since you all apparently know much more than the vast majority of the world’s scientific community. For the sake of the future of mankind, please share your wisdom.

Your post at LibertyPundit doesn’t begin to address how human activity (the introduction of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere) has nothing to do with Global Warming. It only provides a glimpse of past temperature fluctuations.

Your post, entitled, “Global Warming on Display in Minnesota” on February 13, 2008, perfectly illustrates one of my fundamental problems with Global Warming (GW) deniers. Specifically, you can’t seem to differentiate between Climate and Weather. Your piece immediately trotted out the fact that the temperature dipped to -40F in International Falls, Minnesota as evidence that GW is false. So what? Singular weather events prove nothing about GW, pro or con.

Now, I will give you credit for acknowledging that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old, at least per your “cute little graph.” Two things about your graph:

1) Congratulations! You figured out that the Earth’s average temperature has fluctuated over the eons. Only and idiot (and there are plenty) would deny that. However, you cannot logically present a record of past performance as proof that the driving forces behind today’s rising temperatures are simply a part of an established cycle. That would be like saying that a certain mutual fund has yielded a 20 percent return for the last eight quarters, therefore, it is guaranteed to deliver a 20 percent yield in the next quarter.

2) You said, “Please note than humans have been around roughly 200,000 years (and we’ve only been burning fossil fuels for the past 150 or so), so you can’t blame any of the previous warming periods on them.” Most anthropologists think humans can be traced back a good 4 million years, but you’re right – we can’t blame any of the previous warming periods on them. If we’ve been burning fossil fuels for the past 150 years or so, and this is the period that we begin to see dramatic rises in CO2 and temperature, then it follows that perhaps this 150-year period and the changes humankind has introduced to the environment during it might have something to do with GW.

You then deftly presented a graph provided by the Environmental Protection Agency (that would be an EPA stacked with science-denying faith-based Bush appointees). All the graph really does is verify that temperatures and CO2 levels in the air are rising. Today. It neither proves nor disproves whether or not GW is the result of human activity.

You chose to define “Ice Age” as “having polar ice caps.” Per the American Heritage Science Dictionary, ice age is defined as:

1) Any of several cold periods during which glaciers covered much of the Earth.
2) The most recent glacial period, which occurred during the Pleistocene Epoch and ended about 10,000 years ago. During the Pleistocene Ice Age, great sheets of ice up to two miles thick covered most of Greenland, Canada, and the northern United States as well as northern Europe and Russia.

There’s a big difference between, “having polar ice caps,” as you suggest, and, “glaciers covering much of the Earth.” Perhaps ice ages weren’t part of your home-school curriculum.

Later, you state, “It is simply irresponsible to state unequivocally that ‘the rise in CO2 levels is the absolute cause of global warming.’” Please disprove this with verifiable data. We’re counting on you. By the way, would it not be equally irresponsible to state unequivocally, as you do, that the rise in CO2 has nothing to do with the phenomenon of rising global temperatures that we see today?

Allow me to introduce a few points:

Per the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
: “Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point.” Did you understand that last sentence?

Or as an alternative to my challenge at the beginning of my post, please disprove this (per the (NOAA) : “While gases such as carbon dioxide occur naturally in the atmosphere, through our interference with the carbon cycle (through burning forest lands, or mining and burning coal), we artificially move carbon from solid storage to its gaseous state, thereby increasing atmospheric concentrations.”

I eagerly await your enlightened response.

Oh, one other thing: Brian, or whoever it was that decided to shut down the comments section after being subjected to opposing viewpoints to the, “Old Man Winter is Kicking Our Ass” post at LibertyPundit.com, is a pussy. Please, in the name of every animal that has balls, keep your comments section open. Let your readers decide who is full of shit and who is not.

I closed down the comments because you people on the left can't have a debate without resorting to vulgar remarks. I had a TON of comments coming through that said "F-you" and stuff like that, and it's our policy that those kinds of comments won't see the light of day (and, since you just left one like it, it's been deleted, too). That kind of language may be fine for your site, but not mine.

As I have a real life outside of my blog, I just closed down the comments because I had to leave for work, and I didn't want any of that crap sneaking past the filters and making it onto the main site while I was gone.

If you want to debate this, fine. But I'm not going to get down in the mud with you twerps, and every debate I have with your kind ends up with you guys saying "oh, yeah? You're a Nazi!" (or something like that) when we hit you with some serious facts.

As for my not coming over here and commenting/debating with you, I have a hard enough time commenting on my own blog. I rarely comment on someone else's site because I simply don't have the time. If you want to debate this, you are free to come to our site and do so, just keep it clean and stay on-topic.

Well, I suppose that if you set standards for discourse that are stringent enough, you stand a good chance of eliminating opposing viewpoints.

If you read the website policies, it says quite clearly what kind of words I will allow. Basically, if they can say it on prime-time television, I'm ok with it. Otherwise, no.

I don't care if you leave comments or debate with us, that's what we blog for, as long as you stick to the rules and don't cross the line.

BTW, the post you replied to, that's Private Pigg's, not mine. I'll let him debate with you if he so chooses (it's my birthday this weekend, and we've got friends coming to town). I'll catch up with you guys later when I have the time. =)

I'll assume that you and PrivatePigg are of like minds, so I'm hoping to hear from either of you. Your readers' comments are welcome too.

Oh, and Happy Birthday to you.

Post a comment

Get GLONO merch!