For your Friday evening entertainment pleasure, last week Sen James Inhofe's (R-Ok.) former communications director Marc Morano debated Climate Progress's Joe Romm on matters relating to the global warming myth.
UPDATE at end of post: Romm hysterically responds to NewsBusters.
Presented courtesy of Roll Call TV (debate begins at minute 3:45, part two below the fold):
As an aside, viewers should count the number of times Romm claimed Morano just makes stuff up. This seems particularly important given Romm's statement regarding wind power producing more jobs than coal mining.
Such an idea was floated in January by Fortune magazine's eco-blog Green Wombat in an article entitled “Wind jobs outstrip the coal industry.” According to the Christian Science Monitor, this claim was hooey:
Blogger Todd Woody cites new report from the American Wind Energy Association that about 85,000 people are now employed by the wind power industry, up from 50,000 a year ago. Mr. Woody then says that "the coal industry employs about 81,000 workers," citing a 2007 report from the Department of Energy.
Woody calls this comparison "a talking point in the green jobs debate."
The story was republished on the Huffington Post, cited by Mother Jones magazine, and has been bouncing around the green blogosphere for the past few days.
Now, in fairness, Romm only mentioned coal "mining." However, even this analogy is flawed:
But it's a bogus comparison. According to the wind energy report, those 85,000 jobs in wind power are as "varied as turbine component manufacturing, construction and installation of wind turbines, wind turbine operations and maintenance, legal and marketing services, and more." The 81,000 coal jobs counted by the Department of Energy are only miners. Their figure excludes those who haul the coal around the country, as well as those who work in coal power plants.
Today's jobs report out of the Labor Department found 84,600 folks now working in the coal mining industry. As such, if you back out the wind power folks involved in "turbine component manufacturing, construction and installation of wind turbines, wind turbine operations and maintenance, legal and marketing services, and more," those just involved in coal mining would FAR outnumber those specifically in the wind power industry.
However, as SourceWatch notes:
There are approximately 174,000 blue-collar, full-time, permanent jobs related to coal in the U.S.: mining (83,000), transportation (31,000), and power plant employment (60,000).
But, if you really want to compare apples to apples, the Monitor pointed out:
[C]omparing that to the number of wind power jobs is a bit spurious. If we're going to count those who build wind turbines, shouldn't we also count those who build the coal plants? The same should go for the lawyers and marketing people, too.
A 1995 factbook by the Department of Energy cites 1994 study conducted for the National Coal Association, which said that the coal industry's workforce, which at the time was said to be 136,000, was indirectly responsible for another 1.4 million jobs.
Fascinating, as was the Monitor's conclusion:
While it's encouraging that wind industry jobs grew by 70 percent last year, it's probably a good thing that, all else being equal, they don't currently employ more people than the coal industry does. After all, according to the US Department of Energy's Renewable Energy Data Book [PDF], wind provides only about 2 percent of America's electricity. Coal provides half. If it really took that many people to provide so little wind energy, it would never become competitive with fossil fuels.
As the Fonz would say, exactamundo.
With this in mind, it's clear that Romm is the one making stuff up...but those on this side of the debate have known that for years.
That said, doesn't this demonstrate why the climate alarmists, with very few exceptions, don't want to debate this issue?
After all, if their entire strategy is to just keep repeating "You're making stuff up" without ever supporting this claim, you can understand why these folks rarely engage their opposition.
Think about it: if that's all you had to defend your position that the naturally occurring and essential to life gas carbon dioxide was destroying the planet, wouldn't you hide from the public with your hands over your ears nonsensically repeating "The debate is over?"
*****Update: Want to see the level of Romm's delusion and how separated from reality he is? This was posted at Climate Progress Friday:
JohninOregon Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Hey, Joe, you're being dissed over at NewsBusters by Noel Sheppard, one of the most disgusting members of the denier pack:
http://newsbusters.org/ blogs/ noel-sheppard/ 2009/ 04/ 03/ global-warming-debate-morano-vs-climateprogresss-romm
Go get ‘em.
[JR: I'm not sure it is worth the effort. Note that Newsbusters pretty much admits that what I was said was true -- since, of course it was.]
Hey Joe: Why don't you identify exactly WHERE I said anything you uttered on Wednesday was true?
Astounding. Absolutely astounding.
As an aside, folks should remember that we once had a poster here named JohninOregon who regularly got his butt kicked all over the floor any time he entered a debate concerning AGW. Now we know where he got his poorly-founded ideas on this issue.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Well one thing is clear...
April 3, 2009 - 18:38 ET by c5thenGlobal Warming = making stuff up.
The issue can't survive the facts any other way.
Hey, I got the wrong "CHANGE"!
www.loyaltoliberty.com
I wish Morano would have
April 3, 2009 - 18:59 ET by Ryan Mc.I wish Morano would have responded no you didn't interupt me but I didn't call you names requiring you to interupt.
I also wish that he would have made the point that if these energy sources were so great the government wouldn't need to "encourage" or "invest" in it. The very fact that the socialist had to argue for government intervention proves that the energy he advocates is ineffective.
The Sun is NOT RESPONSIBLE, what is wrong with these KOOKS
April 3, 2009 - 18:54 ET by upcountrywaterTypical of the AGW gang make up some fake "fact" then spew it all over.
Try some real data like: April 2 ,2009 it was -3 in ND , it also snowed in OR on the ocean.
The thing about real science is that it is always changing..
One needs to stay on top of the data.
P.R.I.N.T. Money 30 sec YT
sorry
April 3, 2009 - 18:57 ET by ort777Sorry, but at some point just calling deniers "liars" isn't going to make us believe them. When the sand starts to shift under the luny greenies, all they can do is resort to namecalling. No one does it better than Al Gore and I see his cohorts are doing a fine job of the same.
No surprise with that EcoNut
April 3, 2009 - 19:04 ET by well99Oh this was interesting about what was said about Redford.Another do as I say not as I do Liberal.
http://www.thecherrycreeknews.com/content/view/3732/2/
U.S. coal mining directly employs nearly 120,000 people
April 3, 2009 - 19:28 ET by PopularTechU.S. coal mining directly employs nearly 120,000 people. (NMA)
Once you add in the coal power plant workers that number goes much higher. Keep in mind we are also comparing government subsidized jobs vs REAL private sector jobs.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
You could add 1 more if the government would allow any
April 4, 2009 - 18:33 ET by Cape Conservativeof the approved, on-the-books new coal-fired plants to begin construction!!!
Oh, dear, I forgot...my son is a white male construction worker! According to all cabinet announcements, QUALIFIED white males in the construction industry will NOT be receiving any stimulus $$$$ - they must TRAIN minorities for the positions! When I heard one of the admin statements recently that they didn't have electricians available to work on the desert solar system, I wanted to scream!
Heaven help us - the inmates are running the asylum!!!! Doesn't Rahm remind you of Nurse Ratchet?
It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue. ~ Sam Adams
This Idiot Puts Al Gore To Shame
April 3, 2009 - 19:36 ET by dboNo sooner than when Romm stated that Marano was on the fringe of the debate he said something to the effect that the overwhelming scientific evidence suggests that the United States will see 10 to 15 degree temperature rise by the end of the century. Does it get any more obscenely stupid than this?
Spokane broke the all time
April 3, 2009 - 19:47 ET by bigtimerSpokane broke the all time record this year with 93.6 feet of snow...and it has snowed more since I saw this report a few days back now...my area is to the North I know we have had more here...
This is never ending with these nut-cases with their destructive agenda for power over all of us world-wide. ...as they grease their pockets at our expense...in oh so many ways.
I despise them..I despise the member in congress that are going to cram all of this down our throats before it is over (cap and trade)....maybe in the conference committee from the so-called Budget bill that past last night within the next two to three weeks when they come back into session.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
bt - I, too, despise them all!! At least the EU seems to
April 4, 2009 - 18:37 ET by Cape Conservativebe coming to its senses re: global warming...Al Gore should be drawn & quartered by his idiotic ramblings. Had I been the recipient of the Nobel Prize, I would have returned it after that snake oil salesman received one!
It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue. ~ Sam Adams
Who was the moderator?
April 3, 2009 - 20:12 ET by DaMavI follow events fairly intensely on the internet & almost never watch TV. Other than the minor lapse of using "mitigate" instead of "mediate" at the beginning of the program I thought the moderator did a darn good job of letting these two go at it. No smarmy comments favoring either side, at least in the first clip. That in itself is impressive given the tendency of most in the media to treat AGW doubters as if they have six digits and horns on their head.
Romm lies about Sea-Level Rise
April 3, 2009 - 20:12 ET by PopularTechInteresting how Romm flat out lied about the sea-level rise being 5 feet when even his beloved IPCC estimates a rise of only 7-23 inches.
- "Computer Models" project a sea level rise of only 7-23 inches (0.18-0.59m) in the next 100 years. (IPCC)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
There is one scientist
April 3, 2009 - 20:15 ET by NL207There is one scientist connected to the IPCC who disagrees with the 4th Assessment Report and predicts the sea level rise will be as much as 2 meters over the next century. The next most pessimistic member of that group says 1 meter. Romm quotes the extremist and ignores the others as any good Alarmist would do.
Ad Hom Master
April 3, 2009 - 20:53 ET by dboThrowing childish hissy fits and slanderous lies seem to be the only things that Joe Romm can really do well.
Marc Sheppard at AT debunks
April 5, 2009 - 09:41 ET by dboMarc Sheppard at AT debunks "Ad Hom Romm's" mythical fantasyland statistics.
Romm....
April 3, 2009 - 21:08 ET by HillbillyKingwas just pissed that Morano only ranked him 3rd as the most prolific climate alarmist siren. ;-)
I'm mildly surprised Romm didn't claim that continental drift is the result of global warming.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
It's a never ending battle.
April 3, 2009 - 23:47 ET by pbthinkerAt least the moderator of this debate didn't pretend to know anything about the subject. In our nightly newscasts, we have people pretending to know something about global warming (I thought we were still calling it climate change). As Morano said, the warming and drying up of the Southwest is based on flawed computer modeling (thanks Doctor Hansen et al.) which is also where Al Gore and his crew get their flawed statistics from.
The politicians smell the money and they're going to push through legislation to get it. I'm sure the Democrats want to slip this into a bill, in the middle of the night, rather than have it debated in from of the citizenry.
I'm waiting for one major network, just one, to shift from being convinced that man is responsible for global warming to the other side. I just doubt any of them have the knowledge base or the guts to take such a step. I'd be willing to bet that most of them believe that, even if the environmentalists are wrong, we'd still be better off not emitting any CO2. Perhaps they could all stop breathing and emitting CO2 for a starter. This is all such a joke.
Election 2008-God's way of showing us that elections count.
Cafe standards - Big Fat Fail.
April 4, 2009 - 02:06 ET by JWFAmericans get better gas mileage due to Cafe standards forced on them.
Affluent Americans, all else being equal, now drive MORE, that is longer distances now that they can afford to with all the money they are saving with better gas mileage.
Net savings on oil consumption - zero.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Climate "alarmists" "don't want to debate the issue"?
April 4, 2009 - 04:55 ET by Morgan Wick"That said, doesn't this demonstrate why the climate alarmists, with very few exceptions, don't want to debate this issue?
After all, if their entire strategy is to just keep repeating "You're making stuff up" without ever supporting this claim, you can understand why these folks rarely engage their opposition.
Think about it: if that's all you had to defend your position that the naturally occurring and essential to life gas carbon dioxide was destroying the planet, wouldn't you hide from the public with your hands over your ears nonsensically repeating "The debate is over?""
WHAT?!?
I've found plenty of sites addressing the complaints made by climate change skeptics - this contains a pretty sizable list.
What I have NOT found are any sites addressing THOSE claims. All the skeptic sites I found - at least, the ones that succinctly put everything in one place - only either introduce the claims the sites in the link above debunk, or "debunk" only the original claims that climate change exists and in so doing introduce the claims the sites in the link above debunk. I even asked here at Newsbusters for sites that would debunk the skeptic-debunkers and only got disorganized blogs and sites that fit into my description of the skeptic sites.
Sounds to me like it's the climate SKEPTICS that don't want to debate the issue - and I say that as someone who hopes to facilitate just such a debate. (Note: I haven't watched the video.)
After all, if their entire strategy is to just keep repeating "You're making stuff up" without ever supporting this claim with anything reliable, you can understand why these folks rarely engage their opposition.
Think about it: if that's all you had to defend your position that the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide that's been produced at dramatically accelerated rates since the Industrial Revolution wasn't destroying the planet, especially if the "alarmists" suspected you were in hock to the companies producing it all, wouldn't you hide from the public with your hands over your ears nonsensically repeating "it's all a hoax/conspiracy?" :D
There you go again. Making
April 4, 2009 - 05:29 ET by Jack BauerThere you go again. Making stuff up.
Great points, Morgan. We do
April 4, 2009 - 05:46 ET by Roger the ShrubberGreat points, Morgan. We do not hear any champions of Global Warming telling us "the debate is over".
You definitely have it all figured out.
I've already debunked everything about AGW
April 4, 2009 - 06:19 ET by PopularTechThe Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
A word of neutral advice:
April 5, 2009 - 03:02 ET by Morgan WickYour little page is going to be completely ineffectual on anyone, at least in any way likely to be substantial. It'd take forever to get through it all, and very little of it is summarized.
A Word of Advice - Start Read
April 5, 2009 - 20:54 ET by PopularTechYou are whining and complaining that this information does not exist, well it is all there. You want a laymen's view read one of the guides:
A Global Warming Primer (PDF) (National Center for Policy Analysis)
A Skeptic’s Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism (PDF) (US Senate Environment & Public Works Committee)
A Skeptical Layman's Guide to Anthropogenic Global Warming (PDF) (Climate Skeptic)
A Skeptic's Guide to An Inconvenient Truth (PDF) (Marlo Lewis Jr. Ph.D.)
The Skeptics Handbook (PDF) (Joanne Nova, Ph.D. Meteorology)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Over 10,000 Sources is little?
April 5, 2009 - 21:42 ET by PopularTechROFLMAO!
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
That's not what I meant.
April 6, 2009 - 02:42 ET by Morgan WickThe problem, in fact, is that 10,000 sources is overkill. No one's going to be able to get through them all, so no one is going to try.
I've actually taken into account your site's information on Benny Peiser's paper. But if you want me to take in anything else, you'll need to tell me about it directly. (I linked to three skeptic and three "alarmist" sites yesterday; you can omit anything already on those sites.)
Make up your mind.
April 6, 2009 - 09:29 ET by JWFYou want accurate detailed information, PopTech provides it.
We are not here to EDUCATE you. Do your own research and come to the same conclusion any intelligent informed person will make.
Enough of the whining about too much, not enough, not concise, not linky enough, not holding my hand enough.
We are not here to babysit you and hold your hand. DKos is 3 doors down if you want that. Here, here is a flashlight, now leave my porch.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Is the U.S. Temperature Record Reliable?
April 6, 2009 - 17:59 ET by PopularTechIs the U.S. Temperature Record Reliable? (PDF) (SurfaceStations)
You can start with this.
I don't think 10,000 sources is overkill, I would have more if I had more time. I was told none of this information existed, so much for that myth.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Morgan
April 4, 2009 - 09:21 ET by Noel SheppardUm, College Student with a Big Brain,
Do you have a large enough brain to discern the difference between writing contrary articles and actually having a debate? Are you aware that numerous climate realists have challenged Al Gore and James Hansen to debate this matter and they continue to refuse?
In reality, Morgan, what's on display in your post is your "lack of social skills, and a hot temper" and NOT any identication of superior cranial capacity. ns
There's a grain of truth here...
April 5, 2009 - 03:03 ET by Morgan WickI probably need to change that "about me" space to something more nuanced. (The problem is that I'm on Blogger, where most of your "about" space is reproduced on the sidebar, where something longer isn't really appropriate.) The "hot temper" thing isn't really all that true, my original post aside; 99% of the time I'm perfectly okay to get along with. It's just that the remaining 1%, when I do fly off the handle, I really fly off the handle - but that's almost entirely in real life, not so much on the Internet.
I think I have a high IQ, but I certainly don't know everything. That isn't stopping me from trying, though.
I admit my idea of a "debate" is certainly not yours, in terms of what I'm working towards right now, as it would be conducted entirely by me; I chose to present "articles" because that's what I'm interested in, doing research. You may think that makes it biased, but I'm actually genuinely concerned about not creating needless hysteria, looking like I'm presenting the skeptical side (notice I'm not using the less neutral term "denier") with a strawman, or above all, being WRONG. I'm making a good faith effort to incorporate skeptical perspectives from here and here and here (and I learned a good bit on skeptical perspectives from the response sites!).
The problem I'm having with this research is that the online debate seems to go something like this:
"Alarmist": Global warming exists and we need to take care of it.
Skeptic: No we don't, it's the sun/water vapor/otherwise natural/etc.
"Alarmist": You're wrong because of x.
From the skeptic's perspective, they already posted their rebuttal, to the original idea that global warming exists. In fact, they only posted their opening argument. Which means only the alarmist has posted the rebuttal. If the skeptic posted the real rebuttal, to the alarmists' rebuttal argument, one of two things will happen: you can go bouncing back and forth pulling off the entire debate, or the skeptic will have the last word and come off looking better.
Imagine there's an initiative on the ballot in a hypothetical state where the pro and con sides take turns issuing their voter's pamphlet statements and rebuttals, and can use all previously issued statements. In the voter's pamphlet, the "pro" side simply lists the reasons why the initiative is needed and what will happen if we don't pass it. The "con" side debunks those reasons. The "pro" side gets a rebuttal, where they talk about why the "con" side's debunkings are bull. The "con" side thinks they already put out their rebuttal, so they don't put out their actual rebuttal responding to the "pro" side's rebuttal.
(I'm not claiming liberals are immune to this - I imagine a debate on another topic, were I to do the research on it, would go like this:
PTC: There's too much sex and violence on TV.
Makers of sex and violence: There really isn't/it's okay because the First Amendment protects it/there's no evidence it actually leadss to deviant behavior/it's the same as in the past/etc.
PTC: You're wrong because the First Amendment doesn't protect obscenity/there is such evidence/it's not the same as in the past/etc.)
If the "alarmist" side doesn't want to debate the skeptical side, perhaps that's because they know in the lack of an actual debate, they win the war of the Internet articles. Perhaps the "alarmist" side should be criticized for their hiding and lack of responsiveness, but skeptics haven't acquitted themselves very well in going to Plan B, where they could potentially force a role reversal.
There you go again. Making
April 5, 2009 - 05:07 ET by Jack BauerThere you go again. Making stuff up.
???
April 5, 2009 - 09:31 ET by dboFrom the skeptic's perspective, they already posted their rebuttal, to
the original idea that global warming exists. In fact, they only posted
their opening argument. Which means only the alarmist has posted the
rebuttal.
I'm not sure if he is just making this stuff up or just deftly naive. Either way, it's such a ludicrous comment it's not really worthy of further reply.
dbo - they really believe this
April 5, 2009 - 22:24 ET by PopularTechIt is some sort of cognitive dissonance with the left. I believe it is from smoking too much pot.
This is why I do what I do.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Sybil lives???
April 5, 2009 - 22:30 ET by botghe's debating himself???
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
Well...
April 6, 2009 - 02:43 ET by Morgan Wickif you want to, you can join and debate me.
Liberal Delusions about How You Win A Debate - Censorship
April 5, 2009 - 22:22 ET by PopularTechI am still trying to determine why liberals believe that only the person who replies to every single post everywhere no matter how wrong is right. Skeptics have TRIED to respond on these sites and have been censored, so they created their own sites, which you obviously ignore.
So if you censor your opposition and therefore give the appearance of no one questioning your position, you win? ROFLMAO!
Having the last word does not make you right. Where the hell did you learn this?
I compiled over 10,000 sources debunking all of this.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
I didn't say having the last word made you right.
April 6, 2009 - 02:44 ET by Morgan WickBut a lot of people certainly believe so, implicitly and explicitly. Winning the debate is not the same as being right. Winning a robust debate probably makes you right, but what's out there isn't a robust debate.
Skeptics have responded to the idea that global warming exists, and I've listed sites that I have encountered doing just that. But I've been hard pressed to find responses to the responses to their responses, if that makes any sense.
Don't get me wrong, some of the sites I've encountered have been useful for this purpose and I've found some arguments the "alarmist" response sites haven't covered.
No that doesn't make sense
April 6, 2009 - 17:18 ET by PopularTechThere a dozen so called "how to talk to a skeptic" sites like that, each one is different. I am not about to address each site directly, instead I have addressed each issue directly. It is up to you to apply this information vs what they say. If you need help doing this just ask.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Morgan Wick, I checked your only LINK, and it stinks.
April 4, 2009 - 13:24 ET by upcountrywaterI have a problem with your side of AGW, never mention the gorilla in the room, THE SUN
I was shocked to find a link in it that had some information on the SUN, so i clicked on it, and guess what IT'S A DUD!
The sun CONTROLS the weather, climate, on earth.
The sooner you, study this the better.
Science is brutal.
It will be colder next year.
P.R.I.N.T. Money 30 sec YT
Never mentions the sun, eh?
April 5, 2009 - 03:04 ET by Morgan WickObviously you never read this or this or this. Or are they all "duds"? You may think they're not sufficient arguments to be convincing, but at least the people backing global warming are trying to address them.
Speaking of Never Mentioning the Sun
April 5, 2009 - 09:20 ET by dboObviously you have never read this.
I could go forever
April 5, 2009 - 09:23 ET by dbo...or this.
Look WICK, your links are OLD, AND VERY OLD..
April 5, 2009 - 21:20 ET by upcountrywaterCheck your own link,and you will find.... NOTHING
this is NEW SCIENCE, as in TODAY
This is why a sunspot free sun is leading to cooler weather
Lots of data in this talk.
P.R.I.N.T. Money 30 sec YT
Obviously you have never read this...
April 5, 2009 - 21:53 ET by PopularTechUnstoppable Solar Cycles (Video) (10min)
The Cosmic Climate Connection (Video) (1min)
The persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing (PDF) (The Danish National Space Center)
100,000-Year Climate Pattern Linked To Sun's Magnetic Cycles (Dartmouth College)
Breathing Cycles in Earth's Upper Atmosphere Linked to Solar Wind Disturbances (University of Colorado at Boulder)
Changes In Sun’s Intensity Tied To Recurrent Droughts In Maya Region (University of Florida)
Cosmic Rays detected deep underground reveal secrets of the upper atmosphere (National Centre for Atmospheric Science)
Cosmic Rays Linked To Global Warming (University of New York)
Evidence For Sun-climate Link Reported By UMaine Scientists (University of Maine)
Flares From Sun's Far Side May Affect Space Weather Of Inner Planets (Swedish Institute of Space Physics)
Greater Solar Activity May Bring United States More Gray Days (NASA)
Holes In Sun's Corona Linked To Atmospheric Temperature Changes On Earth (Long Island University)
NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records (NASA)
NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate (NASA)
New Analysis Shows Earth's Lower Stratosphere In Synch With Solar Cycle (National Center for Atmospheric Research)
New Experiment To Investigate Effect Of Galactic Cosmic Rays On Clouds And Climate (CERN)
Northern Climate, Ecosystems Driven By Cycles Of Changing Sunlight (University Of Illinois)
Regional Variation In Warming From Sun During Solar Cycle Shown By Satellite (University of Colorado)
Scientists Determine Biological And Ecosystem Changes In Polar Regions Linked To Solar Variability (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory)
Sun's Direct Role In Global Warming May Be Underestimated, Duke Physicists Report (Duke University)
Sun's Magnetic Field May Impact Weather And Climate: Sun Cycle Can Predict Rainfall Fluctuations (University of New England, Australia)
Sun's Past Strength Took Toll On Tropical Glaciers, Worsens Today's Outlook (University of Alberta, Canada)
Surface Warming And The Solar Cycle (University of Washington)
The Sun's Chilly Impact On Earth (NASA)
The Sun Is More Active Now Than Over The Last 8000 Years (Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Why Will Al Gore not Debate Anyone?
April 4, 2009 - 18:48 ET by PopularTechMorgan, your claims are unfounded when the evidence is clear Al Gore is the one who refuses to debate anyone:
Bjørn Lomborg Challenges Al Gore to a Debate (The Wall Street Journal)
Chris Horner Challenges Al Gore to a Debate (The Heartland Institute)
Czech President Klaus ready to debate Gore on climate change (The Earth Times)
Dennis T. Avery Challenges Al Gore to a Debate (The Heartland Institute)
Lord Christopher Monckton Challenges Al Gore to a Debate (Center for Science and Public Policy)
Ivy League Professor Bets Al Gore $10,000 He’s Wrong About Global Warming (NewsBusters)
Why Won’t Al Gore Debate? (The Heartland Institute)
Steve Milloy Challenges Al Gore to a Debate (The Heartland Institute)
Will Al Gore Melt? If not, why did he chicken out on an interview? (The Wall Street Journal)
Sign the Petition: Al Gore, Debate Global Warming (8000+ Signatures)
Could it be because he is wrong?
Al Gore 'Debates' Global Warming (Video) (9min)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Al Gore is a pretentious blowhard.
April 5, 2009 - 03:04 ET by Morgan WickIf you want a fair debate, you should have your smartest scientist(s) against their smartest scientist(s). Gore isn't even a scientist, and he makes an easy target to mock. Debating him means you're basically setting him up as a strawman, a lens through which the "alarmist" side looks bad, and I bet he knows that. (I couldn't help but wonder if that was done in this video with Joe Romm, who sounded so pretentious and stuck-up.)
(An alternate hypothesis that "alarmists" might propose: Gore, James Hansen, and others don't want to debate some of these people as a courtesy to them, because they feel the debate-proposers would look like lunatics when presented with the real science! Alternately, the skeptics are bluffing, trying to provoke a rejection that can then be used to make Gore and Co. look bad. I'm not saying that's the case, I'm saying that would be the "alarmist" interpretation.)
Been There, Done That
April 5, 2009 - 09:15 ET by dboIf you want a fair debate, you should have your smartest scientist(s) against their smartest scientist(s).
Been there, done that. Alarmists lost. Climate realists keep offering, alarmist keep running scared. You need all your fingers and toes to count the number of times Hansen has turned down debate.
ROFLMAO! Joe Romm has a Ph.D. in Physics
April 5, 2009 - 22:06 ET by PopularTech(I couldn't help but wonder if that was done in this video with Joe Romm, who sounded so pretentious and stuck-up.)
Joe Romm has a Ph.D. in Physics.
Marc Morano is communications director for the Republicans on the U.S. SenateCommittee on Environment and Public Works.
The reason Romm looks like a joke is because the Alarmist positions are a joke.
All you have are excuses Morgan, their are plenty of scientists willing to debate the science.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
"The reason Romm looks like a joke...
April 6, 2009 - 02:44 ET by Morgan Wick...is because the Alarmist positions are a joke."
If they turn out to be in my analysis, I'll gladly hop on the skeptics' bandwagon. Well, maybe not gladly, but I'll at least mutter "I suppose you're right."
And I wasn't referring to either side's positions, but to how they carried themselves.
FACT - Romm Lied about Sea-Level Rising 5 Feet
April 6, 2009 - 06:49 ET by PopularTech...even from an alarmist position:
- "Computer Models" project a sea level rise of only 7-23 inches (0.18-0.59m) in the next 100 years. (IPCC)
We are not even STARTING from an alarmist position, we are going full Al Gore Hysterical.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Joe Romm - Global Warming Causes Bridges to Collapse
April 5, 2009 - 23:11 ET by PopularTechThis is all you need to know about the hysterical Joe Romm:
Ex-Clinton Official Ties Minneapolis Bridge Collapse to Global Warming (NewsBusters)
Poor Form—Comments on the Minneapolis Bridge Collapse (Science & Public Policy Institute)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
All right! I got your debate, right here!
April 7, 2009 - 13:57 ET by Morgan WickAll right, you want a chance to prove the "alarmist" positions are a "joke"? You want a chance to prove global warming theory is so obviously and greatly flawed? You want a chance to win a convert, maybe several? Here's your chance, because I've set up my self-debate:
http://morganwick.freehostia.com/webcomic/
If you want to start at the beginning, go here: http://morganwick.freehostia.com/webcomic/index.php?stripnum=443
Yes, it's a comic strip, one with terrible art at that. You can diss the medium of debate if you want to, and you can even ask "Is this a joke?" But though individual strips may be funny, I'm deadly serious about this project. I want to make sure I have ALL the facts in front of me so I can make a decision with confidence it's the right one, and others can do so too.
Here's how it's going to work. Each day, I'm going to post a strip containing an exchange of arguments. If you want to argue with or otherwise object to the pro-global warming points presented in each day's strip, you can go here and leave a comment, or e-mail me at mwmailsea at yahoo dot com, to present new evidence I might not have considered, and I'll consider it and incorporate it into the strip. I am no longer checking this thread or my NewsBusters private messages; the only way to set the record straight with me is via my blog or my e-mail.
Now again, you can say the medium of debate is a joke. You can say this isn't a real debate. You can even say I'm delusional and not worth the effort to convert. But if you use that as an excuse not to contribute at all? You're effectively running scared. You're showing you don't want to really defend your positions when the heat is on. If you're thinking I'm biased, even better, because that means it really is a debate and you're debating me. I'm no scientist and honestly the side I favor (in any debate) is pretty much whichever side's information I'm looking at at the time, so I should be fairly easy to pound into submission. But I'm not giving up the debate until I'm wholly convinced of one side or the other, or of where the grey area is and what it means. "Alarmist" arguments are shown to be completely ridiculous when faced with the real, anti-global-warming evidence, right? If you're really that confident, you can take me on. But you better not neglect any argument not covered by the three skeptical sites I linked to in this thread, because no matter how ridiculous, someone will believe it - a lot of people don't think for even a second when confronted with something that sounds good, especially if they don't have the knowledge to judge it bull - so it is ALWAYS worth the effort to refute. And if you just run away rather than refute my "ridiculous" and "delusional" arguments, you're effectively letting me and possibly others remain global warming "alarmists" - and remain potential thorns in your side.
ROFLMAO - Morgan You are Running Scared
April 7, 2009 - 21:55 ET by PopularTech"I am no longer checking this thread or my NewsBusters private messages;"
Yes Liberalism is a mental disorder.
I already sent you the responses you requested via NB PMs and here, if you don't want to check them that is your problem. I see you ignored them on your comic strip, typical.
Yes your comic strip debate is a joke. If you want to have the debate, have it here, no one is stopping you. You repeating the same things we already refuted is typical liberal propaganda. For the record your Bush nonsense has been refuted:
Speculation Elimination: Did the Bush administration really censor science? (National Review Online)
- Science vs. Expert Opinion: Did the Bush Administration Really Censor Science? (PDF) (Center for Science and Public Policy)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Let Al Gore have that one.
April 10, 2009 - 03:38 ET by JWFMr. PopularTech,
Can we just let Al Gore have Mr. Wick? The man is clearly off his rocker.
I would like to respond to the responses the are responding to the teleresponses over the telephone. But I got a slow link, so sorry.
Oh, and I won't be responding to my NewsBusters account either. So don't bother responding to any of my responses.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
an Eternal Champion after many exhausting trials and tribulations in the endless war between Law and Chaos
Thank God for CARBON
April 4, 2009 - 06:00 ET by Jack BauerThank God for CARBON DIOXIDE.
This colorless, odorless gas (known as Dry Ice in its solid form) is essential for life on earth.
That is why, of course, the vast abundance of this essential atmospheric gas (96%) is produced naturally by Mother Earth -- or Gaia, as some ecoloons insist on calling her.
Even though in itself, CO2 is an infinitesimal part per million of the atmosphere, is it vital for the growth of all plants and vegetation, and for sustaining life on earth for all species.
Simply put, the more Carbon Dioxide, the lusher and healthier the vegetation.
I love it, enviromentalists
April 4, 2009 - 07:07 ET by eaglewingz08I love it, enviromentalists like Robert Redford are RACIST.
That made my day. Throwing back in libtard faces, libspeak like 'disproportionate impact' (they love that term) to upend liberal anti energy policies is priceless. What is even more important is that it is true. The liberals are racist and cruel and merciless and stooopid.
Repost until Jack Bauer tells me to stop
April 4, 2009 - 07:19 ET by JWFThe wife's relatives in the Philippines burn charcoaled coconut husks for cooking fuel.
The carbon trapped in the husks are released in the air as carbon dioxide.
Our coconut trees absorb the carbon dioxide and make new coconuts.
The coconut husks are charcoaled and burned and release carbon dioxide.
Our coconut trees absorb......infinitum
It is called the carbon cycle. Besides the fuel, we get tasty tasty coconut meat in the bargain.
LONG LIVE THE CARBON CYCLE!
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
JWF -- okay buddy, you can
April 4, 2009 - 07:29 ET by Jack BauerJWF -- okay buddy, you can stop.
My new mantra is...
I AM A CARBON BASED LIFE FORM -- Screw you ecoloon.
I think I should start CARBON DIOXIDE DAY -- anyone agree? Anyone suggest what day that should be
Hatemonger!
April 4, 2009 - 07:38 ET by Roger the ShrubberHatemonger!
True. And you forgot
April 4, 2009 - 07:52 ET by Jack BauerTrue.
And you forgot CARBONMONGER too.
How about January
April 4, 2009 - 18:54 ET by Free StinkerHow about January 19?
That's the birthday of James Watt, creator of the Watt Steam Engine.
Free S... 19 January it
April 5, 2009 - 04:43 ET by Jack BauerFree S... 19 January it is!
That's a GREAT DAY. It also allows us to point out that WATER VAPOR is the actual "greenhouse" gas, if anything.
It'll also be COLD that day, so a winter date is also good from a PR viewpoint.
The essence of this debate seems to be that "cap and trade"...
April 4, 2009 - 09:09 ET by ThalpyThe essence of this debate seems to be that "cap and trade" would be the vehicle to fund social justice. Both of these pipe dreams are just that, pipe dreams. With regard to CO2, the science simply isn't there to warrant the imposition of these restrictive governmental policies. Cap and trade is, however, a masterful ruse to implement governmental control. With regard to social justice, intellectuals will no doubt go to their death believing that man is perfectible and that heredity plays an insignificant role in what we are. Trying to make us all equal seems to be a daunting task, yet the true believers remain dauntless.
Crap and Steal
April 4, 2009 - 12:33 ET by rightwingidiotRegardless of how one feels about the effects of a rise in CO2 (and I, for one, do not think that it has anything to do with temperature nor is there any man-caused global warming), the Crap and Steal program has nothing to do with limiting CO2.
As Thalpy states, it is nothing but another excercise in monetary control (read: tax) of our lives. The only result is more money leaving our pockets and going into someone elses.
A complete sham and Obeyme knows it.
I have a massive headache. The only cure, Impeachment of Obeyme - RWI
For me, the Global Warming debate is over...
April 4, 2009 - 16:06 ET by Georgia GirlIt snowed in Georgia this year, for several days -- a rarity.
Obama: "Cap & Trade Will Cause Electricity Rates to Skyrocket"
April 4, 2009 - 18:50 ET by PopularTechObama has made it quite clear what he intends to do...
Obama: "Cap & Trade Will Cause Electricity Rates to Skyrocket" (Video) (3min)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
PT
April 5, 2009 - 21:34 ET by well99Well Obama and Al Gore and the rest dont care they have plenty of money.I really cant understand the thinking behind this.They are just hurting people and they either dont care or their stupid.Maybe both.
It is all about socialist control over energy production
April 5, 2009 - 22:14 ET by PopularTechOnce socialists control energy production they can take down capitalism and usher in their delusional "utopia".
Global Warming: Socialism’s Trojan Horse (LewRockwell)
Czech Republic President Václav Klaus: Global Warming and Communism (Video) (10min)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Pt
April 6, 2009 - 18:16 ET by well99Yup and they are trying their damn best to take this country over now.People better wake up.
It just doesn't matter
April 5, 2009 - 00:00 ET by gordonIt doesn't matter whether there is anthroprogenic climate change or not. What matters is how much money the Obama administration can grab from the taxpayers to fund their baloney programs. If it was raining soup, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi would be first in line with their buckets. Liberalism is nothing but aimless contrarianism in the raw pursuit of power.
Er... who cares what industry employs more people, anyway?
April 9, 2009 - 04:44 ET by tim_gallantLet's face it - it's not hard to throw "government money" (read: taxpayer's hard-earned $$$) and create useless jobs. The real issue is: for all the money thrown at wind-power, how much energy does it actually generate over against the other alternatives?
http://www.changeint...