When examination of the science is too much work for show preparation and taking a position that falls in line with like-minded ideologues is part of your shtick, you can always resort to ad hominem attacks if needed.
In a May 19 segment on his "Hardball" program about global warming, MSNBC's Chris Matthews interviewed Reps. Jim Moran, D-Va., and Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., who had opposing views on the issue. However, Matthews attacked Rohrabacher, a global warming skeptic, as someone ignorant of science.
"Congressman Rohrabacher, are you a Luddite, a troglodyte? Are you a part of ‘The Planet of the Apes' that doesn't want science? Where would you place yourself in this argument?" Matthews asked.
Rohrabacher stated his position and cited a Rasmussen poll that Matthews dismissed as a "Republican poll."
"I would place myself in the - in the position of being someone who's willing to speak the truth while the rest of the - while the rest of the people are being fed a bunch of baloney," Rohrabacher said. "Let me just note this to you, Chris - the poll you quoted was wrong. That's an old poll. The Rasmussen - the latest Rasmussen poll shows that a vast majority of the American people do not believe that the climate is changing due to human activity."
Later in the segment, Matthews used the global warming debate to probe a so-called
"cultural divide" between the two political parties and portrayed Republicans as faith-based and unscientific.
"Is there a cultural divide between the two parties that goes beyond this issue, where one party is more traditional in its values and it relies more on faith than on science?" Matthews asked Rohrabacher. "For example, we've had people on this program - I'm sure they're all over the country - who don't believe in evolution. They don't believe in biology the way it's taught."
Rohrabacher didn't take the bait and called Matthews out for his portrayal of the GOP.
"Chris, that's a good way to shut down the argument. Case closed," Rohrabacher said.
Despite Matthews' unwillingness to accept any contrary point-of-view on the global warming debate as "science," there are hundreds of scientists that question the premise of man-caused global warming trotted out as "consensus" by the news media. A report released by the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee Dec. 22, 2008 listed more than 650 prominent scientists questioning the hype surrounding global warming alarmism.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
→ Cro Magnon, of course
May 20, 2009 - 09:25 ET by Cool ArrowAnd you, Chris, are Homo Erectus (standing man).
What did you think I meant?
"I was fighting a war in Iraq!" - Nancy Lugosi
Insult and Marginalize
May 20, 2009 - 09:28 ET by allanfDemocrats insult and marginalize those that don't agree with them. Rathter than calmly discuss issues they seek to convey to the weak minded that their opponents are worthy of derision and by extension you will be too if you don't agree with them.
Disgraceful.
Matthews is the missing link...
May 20, 2009 - 12:19 ET by AMR1960Haven't you seen the latest news? Matthews is the long sought after 'Missing-Link'
Homo-tricklethrillus
_____________________
Long Live...THE REPUBLIC !
Save the planet, Chris:
May 20, 2009 - 09:26 ET by HockeyKidSave the planet, Chris: stop breathing.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Rohrbacher is a junk
May 20, 2009 - 09:31 ET by fitzfongRohrbacher is a junk science skeptic. Period. Chrissy Matthews is a socialist drone.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
Ignorant
May 20, 2009 - 09:57 ET by iveseenitallIgnorant Matthews--the pot calling the kettle black. Yes, there is a "cultural divide" in our nation. As evinced by the sarcastic, closed -minded Matthews, neighbor has been turned against neighbor. Honest debate and classical arguments which seek the truth are gone in this nation, due largely to the left-wing hypocrites in the media. For example, Matthews began this "debate" with the classic tactic of name-calling. Respect for your opponents point of view? Nah. After watching the spitting loudmouth Chrissy boy, you are left with nothing but rage and a sick feeling in your stomach. "Journalism" is dead in America.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
The new priesthood
May 20, 2009 - 11:07 ET by KC MulvilleWhen (and where) I grew up, no one questioned the priest or nuns. When Sister Bridget Mary whicked us around with yardsticks, we took it and kept out mouth shut, because we knew our parents would side with the nun before us. (Yes, this is not a caricature: I was from an old-fashioned Catholic neighborhood. I was taught by the Sisters of Mercy, which is a misnomer because they had none. LOL! - Truth is, the mercies were excellent.)
Every attitude on display by Matthews is exactly the same. You do not question the "scientists." They are the new secular clergy. If a scientist says it's so, how dare anyone question it? Matthews obviously has his yardstick out.
The black cassock has been replaced by a white lab coat.
Mathews doesn't even know
May 20, 2009 - 09:39 ET by NL207Mathews doesn't even know what a Luddite is. The anti-industrial Eco-Marxists he is endorsing share the platform of the Luddites. It is THEY who oppose industrialization, not the gentleman from California.
NL207
May 20, 2009 - 10:31 ET by NorthCoasterExactly right. The original Luddites in Britain, opposed industrialization. The real parallel group for the Luddites is the AGW proponents who believe that our current level of industrialization needs to be reduced by restricting CO2 output.
NL207
May 20, 2009 - 10:44 ET by mandrakeI believe your analogy is incorrect. The British Luddites were opposed to new technologies becaused they would replace the old. The AGW movement wants to embrace 'new' technology so it can do away with the old oil based model.
Power-saw to the people - Dexter
The technologies endorsed
May 20, 2009 - 12:21 ET by NL207The technologies endorsed by the Luddites were water and wind power coupled with animal and human labor.
The technology opposed by the Luddites was principally the steam engine, fired by wood and coal at that time, and the machines it powered.
So which is it these Eco-Marxists support?
NL207
May 20, 2009 - 13:53 ET by NorthCoasterBingo! A winner!
Water, wind, animal and human labor!
Luddites = Eco-Marxists = Al Gore = IPCC
See, we knew Chrissy didn't have a clue. All he has to do is open his mouth and talk to prove that it is so.
NL207
May 20, 2009 - 14:35 ET by mandrakeSometimes I think the only way to communicate with you is to whack you over the head with an empty bottle of scotch. The modern AGW movement embraces new technologies such as hydrogen engines and solar power.
Whoops..I've done it again :)
→ Mandrake
May 20, 2009 - 14:53 ET by Cool ArrowIt's semantics, I know. And I'm only throwing in some levity brevity, but is an empty bottle of scotch the same as an empty scotch bottle?
"I was fighting a war in Iraq!" - Nancy Lugosi
At least he had the courtesy
May 20, 2009 - 14:58 ET by NL207At least he had the courtesy to drink it first.
→ Goes without saying NL207
May 20, 2009 - 15:02 ET by Cool ArrowAnything less would be alcohol abuse.
"I was fighting a war in Iraq!" - Nancy Lugosi
Mostly you get your ass
May 20, 2009 - 14:56 ET by NL207Mostly you get your ass shot off trying.
None of these "technologies" the enviro wackos support are actually both technically and economically feasible. Not one.
Hydrogen engines are no better than half as energy efficient as ICE. Most estimates place them at 25% as efficient. The reason: The cost of making, transporting and handling hydrogen fuel.
Large scale Solar Power is a hoax. Photovoltaic cells cost way too much per Kw. Many areas, because of their prevailing climate conditions and latitude cannot generate enough power from even the most efficient photovaltaic cells PROJECTED to justify their cost.
Wind you say? Large scale wind power is a fantasy, even in places like Denmark where the winds in the Skaggerak are impressive.
Only 3 conclusions are possible about the positions of the Eco- Marxists: They are misinformed, delusional or dishonest, just as the Luddites were. Take your pick.
→ Hydrogen is great
May 20, 2009 - 15:04 ET by Cool ArrowIf nuclear power is used to generate it. This is the ultimate evidence the Greenies are not honest in their debate.
"I was fighting a war in Iraq!" - Nancy Lugosi
Water hydrolysis is still
May 20, 2009 - 15:07 ET by NL207Water hydrolysis is still energy intensive. The energy value of the hydrogen fuel produced is roughly 1/2 of the value of the electricity used to produce it. It is an economically losing proposition.
→ Tru dat NL207
May 20, 2009 - 15:19 ET by Cool ArrowI don't know how far out 342,000 tons of Uranium would take us, but I suspect it reaches into the hundreds of years.
Who knows? Maybe we could get to cold fusion before we run out? Maybe even some source of which we yet do not know.
"I was fighting a war in Iraq!" - Nancy Lugosi
"Maybe we could get to cold
May 20, 2009 - 15:38 ET by NL207"Maybe we could get to cold fusion before we run out?"
I'd prefer a cold beer.
→ Corona with lime?
May 20, 2009 - 15:41 ET by Cool ArrowThere are some things I love about Mexico.
A plate of Tex-Mex enchiladas and cole slaw would also be nice. I'd swear we have the best Tex-Mex in the world right here in San Angelo, Tx.
"I was fighting a war in Iraq!" - Nancy Lugosi
Texas is a great place and
May 20, 2009 - 16:03 ET by NL207Texas is a great place and I had a great time while I was in Texas, but I need to teach you about beer.
There is no such thing as beer made in Mexico. There are only bierliche beverages made in Mexico.
Nearly all real beer comes from Deutschland. Some real beer comes from the Czech Republic and a wee bit is made in Ireland. An excellent choice of beer for Texas weather might be Erdinger Hefeweissen in 500 ml bottles. I suspect it would go well with enchiladas, which people in Texas make well.
→ Been there, Done that
May 20, 2009 - 16:07 ET by Cool ArrowBut I didn't know if you'd be truly appreciative of popping the cap off a Parkbrau or a BBK Pils.
18 months in Kaiserslautern fighting the war against excessive beer and wine consumption.
"I was fighting a war in Iraq!" - Nancy Lugosi
I visit Germany reasonably
May 20, 2009 - 16:44 ET by NL207I visit Germany reasonably frequently and have on occasion relieved keg overpressure conditions there.
Relieved keg over pressure?
May 20, 2009 - 19:42 ET by KC MulvilleSorry, I'm stealing that one.
We in San Antonio would beg to differ
May 20, 2009 - 17:41 ET by RESTLESS 1We know a thing or two about Tex-Mex as well.
And a nice, cold Corona dressed does sound good.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Re hydrolysis
May 20, 2009 - 16:50 ET by slickwillie2001Any time you take low quality fuels and convert to high quality more portable fuels you expect a negative energy balance, that's why energy balance is a red herring. If you look at the energy content of X quantity of crude oil and compare it to all the fuels that come from that quantity of crude oil, the energy content of the raw crude oil is obviously higher. So what?
The conversion of plentiful coal into a liquid fuel similar to gasoline is criticized because of negative energy balance by the enviros. So what? You accept that energy loss because you can't run your car on coal. Kind of messy to tank up.
Efficient and cheap nuclear to produce hydrogen is the best near future we have, like within 20 years. Beyond that, fusion energy to produce hydrogen. Hydrogen is the perfect portable fuel because it burns clean.
Energy balance is an red herring wheeled out by the enviros to kill progress. You can also make hydrogen from plentiful CH4.
Even better, pure all electric battery cars charged from nuclear power. That takes much better batteries than we can make today, or perhaps ever.
What is the comparative
May 20, 2009 - 16:57 ET by NL207What is the comparative cost per joule of Hydrogen fuel to fossil fuel?
It's about 4:1. Only an idiot or individual to whom cost is no object would use hydrogen fuel in preference to fossil fuel. Which one of these are you?
→ Thanks
May 20, 2009 - 17:05 ET by Cool ArrowI was talking about using nuclear power to producehydrogen.
Was not aware of any science that converts anything to fossil fuel.
"I was fighting a war in Iraq!" - Nancy Lugosi
Apparently, there is a
May 20, 2009 - 18:06 ET by NL207Apparently, there is a process, largely unknown to Liberals, called "drilling" that may be combined with another process called "refining", which together lead to the production of affordable fossil fuels.
→ Not a red herring
May 20, 2009 - 17:01 ET by Cool ArrowI understand there is a law of thermodynamics that precludes the production of more fuel from the burning of the original.
But given that we do not now have a nuclear car, the use of nuclear fuel could provide hydrogen until such time as we have an oil substitute. (If we even need an oil substitute)
I'm not arguing the efficiency of hydrolysis, I'm arguing the net gain of mining uranium, enriching it, and using it to power vehicles.
If you can state unequivocally there is no such net gain, I stand corrected. But I don't think so.
"I was fighting a war in Iraq!" - Nancy Lugosi
Under the current economics
May 20, 2009 - 20:37 ET by NL207Under the current economics of oil, or even any forseeable economics of oil, hydrogen is a non-starter for cost reasons.
I do not have issue with the fact that hydrogen could be produced from nuclear generated electricity. I merely observe that any producer of electricity would be foolish to divert their output into hydrogen production when they could realize 2 to 4 times the income from simply selling the electricity elsewhere.
→ No doubt, NL207
May 20, 2009 - 20:43 ET by Cool ArrowIf a producer could get the permits to build a new Nuclear plant, the obvious direction of that power is to households and industry.
"I was fighting a war in Iraq!" - Nancy Lugosi
The truth is like ...
May 20, 2009 - 09:44 ET by 10ksnookerKrypton to liberals.
Rational thought and liberalism are orthogonal and can never meet.
The only reason this scam works is the dismal education of the masses. Who would think the substance that enables carbon life forms to exist, would be labeled a pollutant and harmful to man.
How do you rational think in those terms.
They have replaced truth
May 20, 2009 - 11:34 ET by mattmThey have replaced truth with what they claim is "science" - only it's science as they see it...in other words, it's really a religion. They get to keep propagating their religion because they basically own the schools and the media.
The only way conservatives are ever going to begin to change this society is to take the schools and the media back for the people. It's going to take grassroots action - the Party is not going to do it because all they care about is votes.
Dear Mr. Matthews, I am
May 20, 2009 - 10:01 ET by Roger the ShrubberDear Mr. Matthews,
I am deeply offended that you compared us to the lesser species. It is a typical comment from a denizen of the Forbidden Zone.
Ursus, my riding crop!
Sincerely,
Councillor Zaius
Ape City
don't you think mathews
May 20, 2009 - 10:01 ET by kangaroodon't you think mathews looks like a crazy south park cartoon
Yep
May 20, 2009 - 10:25 ET by XJ.JonIn my book, he IS a crazy SouthPark cartoon character. Nothing more. And so called "debate moderating" such as this only supports that notion.
Taxed Enough Already
Matthews Is A Bigot
May 20, 2009 - 10:06 ET by Blue Collar ToddWould he dare ask a Democrat if they were from the planet of the apes? They will be coming after home schooled kids soon with this mentality.
And then you beg for civility ...
May 20, 2009 - 10:11 ET by metaphorsbwithuGE(E) ... I wonder who pays his salary?
Liberals always start an "interview" or "conversation" with an opponent with the idea they are right and the other person wrong ... regardless of what facts they might bring.
Their purpose is not to have a dialogue but to destroy and discredit the other side's argument ... by any means necessary.
When they know they can't refute the data, they ignore them and resort to personal attacks.
It's a universal liberal law written in stone, like sneaking up behind and pushing you down, and then begging for civility when you get up.
metaphorsbwithu
It's a universal liberal
May 20, 2009 - 10:23 ET by motherbeltIt's a universal liberal law written in stone, like sneaking up behind
and pushing you down, and then begging for civility when you get up.
Of course! If you get up and push back, you are "perpetuating the cycle of violence!"
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
'Circular thinking' in the truest sense!
May 20, 2009 - 10:55 ET by metaphorsbwithuVery good, motherbelt! Of course liberals always go around in circles.
metaphorsbwithu
In case anyone hasn't
May 20, 2009 - 10:19 ET by SickofLibsIn case anyone hasn't noticed, the USA is now following precisely the premise of 'The Planet of the Apes'.
And I honestly do not mean that in a "chimp-cartoon" way.
Matthews
May 20, 2009 - 10:47 ET by jessieHjessieH This guy is something else. He lacks the ability to think for himself. He sounds like he has been under a rock for the last 10 years.
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics - GW is normal.
May 20, 2009 - 10:54 ET by Gary HallIn a 2003 (back, just after this cycle of natural warming ceased), the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astorphysics (CfA) released a study of "more than 200 [240, acutally] climate studies."
Guess what?
Jeff, I seem to remember (can't find it?) a post (surely it was NS) on NB a couple of yrs back that was a study of published climate studies, which broke down the actual consensus views on what was causing global warming (or if it was CO2) and to what extent they believed man contributed to it. Seems the final analysis there was that, while a majority of the studies concuded that man may be contributing to GW, the contribution could only be minimal at best?
It would appear that these two studies, alone - well, stand alone.
(;~> gary
Typical Alarmists Mythology
May 20, 2009 - 12:49 ET by dboGary,
the alarmists mantra that there is a scientific consensus comes largely from a flawed study by Naomi Oreskes (which she later admitted) in 2004. In an article published in Science Magazine, she claimed a search of the ISI database using the words "climate change" yielded 928 abstracts and found that every one of them supported AGW. Dr. Benny Peiser looked into the matter and found that whole study was not only bogus, but the results were completely the opposite.
dbo.. thanks for the link
May 20, 2009 - 13:23 ET by Gary HallYea, I remember that one - even though I do not believe it was the analysis I was refering to..?? Thanks for the link - a lot of good information. Saved it. (;~> gary
Benny was only one study to
May 20, 2009 - 19:11 ET by danboBenny was only one study to contradict Oreskes. There are a number of other studies that contradict her.
The bases of scientific research is to test a theory or hypothesis. If Oreskes states that every piece of scientific research supports AGW? Every time one of us finds a scientific paper that is critical of AGW that tells us her research method has problems.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
Corruption if Science!
May 20, 2009 - 11:02 ET by slickwillie2001The West faces a serious problem in the political corruption of science. The worst example of this is liberal demagoguing on 'global warming', but conservatives have done it too. Much of it starts with government selective funding of scientific research that supports their (non-scientific) theories, and blacklisting of those that don't. Attack that funding problem and we can begin the cleanup of science.
Other problem -the infiltration of scientific journals by politicians.
The alarmists are scrambling...
May 20, 2009 - 12:08 ET by AMR1960The alarmists are scrambling; running away from the expression 'Global Warming' and towards the expression 'Climate Change', yet Climate change itself is a redundancy, and contains a built-in deception. Climate has always changed, and always will. There has been no stable period of climate during the Holocene, our own climatic era, which began with the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago. During the Holocene there have been numerous sub-periods with dramatically varied climate, such as the warm Holocene Optimum (7,000 B.C. to 3,000 B.C., during which humanity began to flourish, and advance technologically), the warm Roman Optimum (200 B.C. to 400 A.D., a time of abundant crops that promoted the empire), the cold Dark Ages (400 A.D. to 900 A.D., during which the Nile River froze, major cities were abandoned, the Roman Empire fell apart, and pestilence and famine were widespread), the Medieval Warm Period (900 A.D. to 1300 A.D., during which agriculture flourished, wealth increased, and dozens of lavish examples of Gothic architecture were created), the Little Ice Age (1300 to 1850, during much of which plague, crop failures, witch burnings, food riots -- and even revolutions, including the French Revolution -- were the rule of thumb), followed by our own time of relative warmth (1850 to present, during which population has increased, technology and medical advances have been astonishing, and agriculture has flourished). Needless to say these facts don't give Chrissy Matthews any trickeling/thrill sensation
The IPCC's Fourth Assessment, like all the ones before it, is based on computer models that presume a positive feedback of atmospheric warming via increased water vapor. This mechanism has never been shown to exist, The probabilistic modeling used to predict climate changes are scenarios and only as good as the parameters & defined variables in the model. The facts about G.W. are that the phenomenon is poorly understood and contaminated by skewed data and agenda driven Collectivist policies.
_________________________
Long Live...THE REPUBLIC !
They can try to change the
May 20, 2009 - 19:03 ET by danboThey can try to change the wording. But keep reminding them and everyone else of what the theory is. That CO2 will reflect back heat (greenhouse effect) in the IR band.
That will cause increasing tempertures. Not cooling.
To say it'll cause cooling is like saying you can make ice cubes in your oven.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
ROTFL
May 20, 2009 - 12:01 ET by farstar99Yes, Tinglebell.
Do your duty, Comrade, and cease expelling your CO2!
Do it for the glorious Motherland.
Yes...
May 20, 2009 - 12:07 ET by StarAZTweety fancies himself as the canary in the coal mine. I heard the Planet of the Apes crack...these men are in Congress, as debased as that credential may be.
For Chris being a defender
May 20, 2009 - 12:10 ET by b4m4wyFor Chris being a defender of the global warming spoof, I wonder what he does to contribute to the lowering of it. Apparently, his other leg is tingling from Gore.
Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.
Ronald Reagan
GE Corruption
May 20, 2009 - 13:32 ET by slickwillie2001Matthews is an NBC/MSNBC employee and those companies are owned by GE. GE stands to make obscene profits if cap and trade and all the other 'global warming' nonsense is passed into law. The corrupt relationship between GE and the Bamster administration is the real story here.
My Answer
May 20, 2009 - 14:27 ET by Sam GrantWould have been to ask Chrissy if he was a "Chicken Little?"
Matthews: GET OUT OF THE
May 20, 2009 - 15:10 ET by RogerCfromSDMatthews: GET OUT OF THE CLOSET!
You'll feel better about yourself, and you'll stop being a contrarian ass.
A nation cannot be free without a free, unbiased media. We are not free.
Chris. Tis better to be a
May 20, 2009 - 18:56 ET by danboChris. Tis better to be a Troglodyte than an Eoanthropus dawsonii. Look him up. I assume you and your staff knows how to look up these things. Other than just spout your mouth off.
Like Eoanthropus dawsonii you and AGW are frauds.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
Mathews
May 20, 2009 - 19:53 ET by Joe CamelMathews is proof that his lineage still has not "evolved" into a man, but remains part of the primates. He should be in the zoo with the others who have not somehow "evolved" into man.