moonbattery.gif


« Blago Compares His Arrest to Pearl Harbor | Main | Harry Reid: Tax System Is Voluntary »


January 23, 2009

Global Warming Ranked Dead Last as Policy Priority

Al Gore & Co. had better start yelling even louder. Despite recent assurances that the planet is doomed if totalitarian measures aren't employed to suppress harmless CO2 emissions within the next 4 years, the global warming farce has been ranked dead last in a list of the public's priorities, according to a new poll by the Pew Research Center.

The Goracle and his environmentalist Kool-Aid brigade can take heart that global warming is considered a more serious concern than the threat of disco coming back. But as our economy inevitably worsens with each extravagant bailout and "stimulus package," the luxury of worrying about imaginary problems will become ever more scarce — not that this will stop the government from making the economic situation radically worse with greedy carbon taxes.

2009-priorities.gif

On tips from mega and Antara.

Posted by Van Helsing at January 23, 2009 9:05 AM

Comments

The latest idiocy concerning global warming returns to the fact that the Wilson Ice shelf looks like it might break off in Antartica. This is a little piece of ice (about the size of northern Ireland) that is sticking out on the Western Peninsula. It would represent about the same effect on the ocean levels that a drunk peeing off the wharf in San Francisco would. (Maybe less since it is mostly floating). The ice represents somewhere around 0.01% of the mass of ice in Antartica and is probably melting due to ocean currents or to volcanic activity. It sure is not any indication of global warming. Yet Reuters and others have reported on this old news as though it were the end of the world.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MISLEADING_REPORTS_ABOUT_ANTARCTICA.pdf

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=F1F2F75F-802A-23AD-4701-A92B4EBBCCBF

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/ice_shelf_in_antartica_collapses_media_blames_global_warming/

Posted by: SnowSnake at January 23, 2009 10:08 AM

In the previous post, I typed Wilson. It should be Wilkins Ice Shelf. Sorry.

Posted by: SnowSnake at January 23, 2009 10:39 AM

I love when people discuss science with literally no idea what they're talking about. Don't get me wrong: I've heard a lot of bunk from those on both sides.

But I've read here that C02 doesn't trap heat and that local temperatures can be used to as evidence without global context - clearly things that no one debates (except non-scientists).

I wouldn't mind you guys saying that you're skeptical, but how can you judge one way or another with 0 training and 0 knowledge of how any of this works? How do you know the solution to a problem that you don't understand at the most basic level? How can you sift through data and studies that you cannot interpret?

It's silly.

Posted by: pan at January 23, 2009 11:00 AM

"(Maybe less since it is mostly floating)"

OMG.....

Posted by: pan at January 23, 2009 11:05 AM

Okay pan.

As you may have noticed, I sourced the basis of what I said. You did not. Which one of us appears to not know what they are talking about? I suspect that you do not even have the training to read the sources I quoted.

How do you compare the absorption or infrared by methane and water vapor with the absorption of CO2? What percent of the atmosphere is water vapor compared with CO2? What is the relative absorption of each? What percent of the atmospheric CO2 is Anthropogenic and what percent is caused by nature? How do you explain the last 10 years of cooling with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? How do you explain the 33,000 scientists most of them PhD level scientists who do debate the global warming hype and have signed statements to that effect? How do you explain the open laughter at the mention of Al Gore at recent scientific symposiums?

What is your training that you can judge that we have 0 training. I would think it a safe bet that I have several more degrees in hard science than you have. I also think it a safe bet that I have decades more experience earning a paycheck as a scientist than you have.

Posted by: SnowSnake at January 23, 2009 11:17 AM

My "source" for you guys not being scientists is your own writings.

I'm not sure how the answere to any of those very pedestrian questions counter AGW. Do you want to put on a 5th grade science class here or somehting?

I am a neuroscientist, so I have a lot of problems ejudicating the data as well. But I do know that you need a lot of training in whatever field you're in, and amateurs with a lot more answers than questions in any field are usually FOS...

BTW - just about every society in the discipline backs AGW. They don't exist. And the scientific community doesn't give a shit about Al Gore. It's about data and interpretation.

And is there any particular paper that you've pulled apart and disagree with? And please, be specific...

Posted by: pan at January 23, 2009 11:30 AM

Pan
"Maybe less since it is mostly floating."

Yes. Shelf ice floats. The weight of the ice is already on the water. If it melts, it does not contribute to the level of water. Try it. Put some water in a glass. Add some ice cubes. Let it melt. Does the glass over flow? Ice is a little less dense than water--that is why it floats. If it sank to bottom of the ocean, there wouldn't be life on this planet as we know it. The little difference in density is a good thing.

For ice to make a difference when it melts in ocean levels it has to be land based. This is the case with the tremendous mass of ice on the land area of Antartica and Greenland.

This last statement of yours is elegant proof of what I stated about your training and experience. You have formally proved that you are indeed a visiting troll. Please go play with the other children, dear. The grownups aren't interested.

Posted by: SnowSnake at January 23, 2009 11:32 AM

I do love the simplistic rebuttal level as well - like geophysicists haven't factored in simple facts like the amount of WV or something like that.

You guys desperately want to believe that instead of spending 10 years in school you can debunk this work with facts from wikipedia that are literally at the 5th grade level. It's so absured....

Posted by: pan at January 23, 2009 11:35 AM

" 0 training and 0 knowledge of how any of this works?"

That's what I said.

Oh, sorry, I got confused.

For a second there I thought you were talking about the 0ne!

Posted by: Trace at January 23, 2009 11:37 AM

Al Gore really has nothing to do with this one way or another. I know you guys don't like to hear this, but it isn't an issue that can be settled by politicos: it take work and training.

Posted by: pan at January 23, 2009 11:40 AM

Pan

Do not be confused. I rebut you! I am responding to you. It is your laughing at a statement concerning shelf ice I was explaining. It is your insults of lack of training on the part of others that brought into question your understanding of the science of global warming. It was an attempt to get down to a level that you might possibly understand that led to the simple 5th grade examples. So far, you have given nothing but an inflated boast as to your own intellect but not one bit of evidence that you even have the power of reason much less any relevant training that would allow you to judge the hard science capability of others.

Posted by: SnowSnake at January 23, 2009 11:50 AM

Pan

By the way, if you really are a neuroscientist, here's a question for you. When I did some neurosurgery on the sciatic nerves of rats and sewed a nerve shunt into the nerve with 10 double ought absorbable sutures (neural sheath) and then sewed the critter up an let it heal and later wanted to test the nerve by observing fast axonal transport down the spinal cord and nerve distally to the lesion by injecting radioactive amino acid (C14 label)(stereotactic injection) into the spinal cord while the animal was in a spinal rack, what amino acid would I have used?

Posted by: SnowSnake at January 23, 2009 12:11 PM

"...but it isn't an issue that can be settled by politicos..."

PAN,
We have been saying that for YEARS! Where were you?

You wrote:
"My "source" for you guys not being scientists is your own writings."
Are we to assume that you are saying that "global warming" is REAL because WE are NOT SCIENTISTS? That is what you seem to be saying.

I has been proved that CO2 has risen hundreds of years AFTER the tempature has gone up. IF you are a scientist, what would be your conclusion?

No, WE did not do studies and experiments for years, but OTHERS that we have quoted are and have done so. It seems to upset you that we have posted articals and statements from REAL scientists who have reveiled that "global warming" (Or "climate change", if you prefer) is a RACKET.

Posted by: KHarn at January 23, 2009 1:01 PM

pan is a troll; the moniker is a dead giveaway.

A neuroscientist who can't spell "absured" or "ejudicating"? ... yeah, right.
More likely, pan is currently employed as streetsweeper, cleaning up the mess left by the Obamabots at the coronation of Princess Obama; or perhaps, as coordinator of "rimming" stations at the celebrations.

Posted by: Mike_W at January 23, 2009 2:30 PM

That must be a misprint. Shouldn't "aborting as many babies as possible with tax money" be at the top? He already signed a fricken executive order that let's foreign aid go towards aborting babies.

Posted by: Archduke of Phunk at January 23, 2009 2:34 PM

Obama is a freakin' monster, Archduke.
At least two of the Obamessiah's Executive orders so far have served the enemies of the U.S.A.: one by freeing its enemies, ie. closing Guantanamo Bay; and another by financing and legitimizing the murder of its unborn, thus helping in the Islamic jihad murder of infidels and weakening the U.S.A.

In partial birth, late term abortions, scissors are inserted into the child's brain to kill him or her, and Obama is on record as saying that any child surviving botched abortion procedures should be left to die in a bucket.

He's a monster.

Posted by: Mike_W at January 23, 2009 3:00 PM

Too bad for AL GORE and the jerks at GREENPEACE but GLOBAL WARMING is not the #1 threat to life on earth no matter what you may hear from the lie a day liberal news rags I mean no bird would ever want the NYTs on the bottom of his cage

Posted by: Spurwing Plover at January 23, 2009 3:16 PM

Is Pan Dino?

Posted by: Pauly at January 23, 2009 5:31 PM

"Spurwing Plover at January 23, 2009 3:16 PM"

From the answers on the list, I would say that the poll was multiple-choice and it didn't matter if a responder wrote something not on the list. For instance, one of the answers is "The Military". That can be construed by polititions as anything from uniforms to gays serving openly.

I once answered a verble political poll and I refused to choose from the list. the pollster insisted that I chose one of THEIR answers for a question, INSISTING that the lady write down MY answer.

Only two more questions came after that, even though I could see that there were a lot more on her paper.

Posted by: KHarn at January 23, 2009 7:09 PM

Pan, I don't want to "ejudicate" this discussion, but here's the bottom line. The amount of hubris required to believe that human beings are capable of influencing the overall course of planetary history is, simply, not present in the conservative mind. We look at global warming the same way we looked at the so-called crises involving global cooling, ozone layer depletion, rain forests, etc. Those are just the sad imaginings of people with a deep-seated need to have a gigantic, nearly-insurmountable problem to worry about. And of course, a need not only to identify a huge problem, but to solve the huge problem. Conservatives don't need faux problems to solve; we have the very real problem of fending you people off as you try to take control of everything and confiscate our wealth. We find all of the world-is-about-to-end-unless-we-change-our-very-existence fads, including AGW, to be fatiguing, manipulative, and stupid.

Posted by: mega at January 23, 2009 7:37 PM

Hey, how come gay marriage isn't on that list?

;-)

Posted by: Henry at January 23, 2009 9:26 PM

I also don't see "legalizing pot" on the list. I have to say i'm disappointed in the Big O. /sarcasm/

Posted by: Archduke of Phunk at January 24, 2009 4:16 AM

This is all well and good but people I am really pissed!!!! It it now O + 6 and I woke up this morning and had to make my own Coffee, Yesterday I pulled in for Gas and the clown came to the window and wanted Money....I explained the "O" would take care of everything he did not buy in to my argument and demanded money, How dare him. I am a loyal progressive, and I have been wronged. I was suppose to be Ruptured.

Posted by: Midnight at January 24, 2009 6:56 AM

Pauly, Pan's a new one. They crop up like weeds.

Posted by: Van Helsing at January 24, 2009 10:02 AM

There is some good news! It is good to see that President Obama is taking the war on terror, sacrifice of the military, and ensuring America stays strong seriously.
I mean look right there between "Helping the Poor" and "Tax Cuts" the Military is a priority!

If you don't think China, or Russia isn't going to take advantage of this putz while he is in Office - I have a bridge to sell you.

Posted by: xantl at January 24, 2009 8:53 PM