O'Reilly hosts AccuWeather.com's Bastardi to claim that "the globe is actually cooling"
September 09, 2009 10:11 pm ET
From the September 9 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Huh? Why resist? Let it out!
Others won't be so.....um.... kind?
Joe "The Rat" Bastard(i) ... is my contribution!
And yes, I've gotten more mature since high school.
Then India and China spew deadly toxins in the air all day and night yet they will not curb it. We are the only country to take this crap series get off the global warming train.
Your kind believe in global warming nonsense but when the other side talks of socialized medicine you call them crazy. I am inclined to believe the socialized medicine one more because when the money runs out WHO WILL SUFFER??!!?!?!
The speech tonight how the heck can we add 40 million people, lower costs and in prove quality WITHOUT IT COSTING A ARM AND LEG???????!?!!?!?!?
Did you actually listen? He said that people who CAN pay WILL pay - that is a huge chunk of the 30 MILLION (not 40) that need to be insured.
Global Warming is a fact. Bastardi is a schlub with a Bachelor's Degree in Meteorology pretending to be an expert. Ten years is considered to be a micro-trend, and all the BS from the right cannot possibly mitigate the fact that we are now seeing parts of the polar ice cap that have not seen the light of day for centuries. That is a scientifically significant trend. Ten years is laughable.
What happens if I don't want health insurance? Do I have a choice in that regard?
If you don't "want" health insurance, my guess is that you won't make the decision NOT to go to Emergency Rooms when you get really sick, and you won't refuse service if you are brought there after a car accident. You'll just foist that (inflated) bill on the rest of us who have been paying into the system, just like you do now if you don't have insurance.
And conservatives call liberals selfish idiots who want to live on the backs of others. Please.
Um...maybe because it's true. Come on pups, try harder.
And when an uninsured person is so ill they have to go to the emergency room, they're stuck with a bill they can't pay and then they're forced into bankruptcy. And guess who ultimately pays the bill? YOU!!!
I'll ask you Rep. Weiner's question again: What do insurance companies bring to the table in regards to health care?
If that's the case then this scenario is being played out approx. 100,000 times a year. And many of those forced into bankruptcy HAD INSURANCE.
Please, try harder. You can start by attempting to answer Rep. Weiner's question:
What do insurance companies bring to the table in regards to health care?
There's simply nothing to be gained by trying to debate a Hannitized lamp post.
That makes no sense at all. There are over 600 peer reviewed scientific articles that support global warming, and none that refute it.
link
In America, we burn about a third of the total fossil fuels consumed on the entire planet - and this creates carbon dioxide emissions. We also have more coal-burning power plants than any other nation - more carbon dioxide.
In addition, we have substantially more people AND a higher number of automobiles per capita than any European nation: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_vehicles_per_capita.png
Really, if you would do your homework, instead of relying on right-wing ideologues for your information, you would be amazed how obvious this stuff is.
Here is a list of signatories to the Kyopt Protocol(183 nations): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories
We are one of a handful of countries that have NOT taken Global Warming seriously.
last year I was in phillipines, the air polution was so bad that you could not see the sun in day time, of course they are signatories to the Kyopt Protocol. I asked about the cars emission testing I was told we just take the paper work to the testing station get the certificate, and the government enjoys all the money they get to clean the air. Nobody knows what a catalytic converter was, everyody drives diesel because fuel is cheaper, and we are happy they are a part of Kyoto was a joke
We believe there is global warming because of the OVERWHELMING amount of scientific data and consensus by most if not all reputable scientists. And the only socialized health-care being talked about is the talking points being spread by wing-nuts.
And just think, if you and your right wing capitalist buddies wouldn't have blocked clean energy alternatives in the 80's the world may have been driving zero emission cars by now.
Same goes for health-care, Republicans have been blocking reform for over forty years. And instead of making changes when they had control of everything for six years, wing-nuts have been lying and terrifying Seniors in to thinking any changes would hurt them.
Republicans don't think about what's going to happen years from now they spend too much time making things up. As usual the working people and Seniors of this Country pay for the right wing ignorance.
And, in a short time, their countries will become toxic, polluted cesspools and then they will come calling to American businesses for green technology.
Why do you have innovation so much?
(1) The global warming momentum has greatly increased over the last 10 years because people felt the temperatures were, indeed, warming.
(2) If everyone tied to the global warming movement knew the truth was that temps were actually decreasing, how many would actually participate? How many would be willing to open the discussion again?
(3) The movement gained significant momentum when temps jumped significantly 4 or 5 years ago. Turned out to be a one blip in a downward trend but still received significant press.
(4) When temps cooled, the movement changed its name to climate change and then the villain was tornados and hurricanes. In fact, there was significant coverage of hurricane activity in the Atlantic and SE United States and climate change had to be the cause. The significant reduction of hurricane activity since has received zero coverage.
(5) Each side of this argument can find scientists to back their beliefs so getting a bunch of signatures seems a little ingenuine. Besides, more and more scientists are coming out against global warming (likely due to cooling temps).
(6) Maybe part of the polar ice cap melted 3-4 years ago but recent data shows the ice is actually thicker. http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/05/16/news-flash-polar-ice-caps-not-melting.php
All this has occurred over the past 10 years so it would appear this time period is very important for the "movement" and shouldn't be blown off as a micro-trend.
I know, let the name calling begin. No counter thought allowed.
The deniers of global warming / climate change keep using this word "belief" as if there's some voting or polling going on in the scientific community.
Using this word is an indication of ignorance on the part of the deniers about how science works. So debates with them on what they regard as "facts" is fruitless.
(Same argument goes for creationists.)
The empirical evidence points toward anthropogenic global warming. On this, there is overwhelming consensus among the world's scientists.
This consensus was not voted on at some secret meeting. It is based on rock-solid, independent measurements.
To deny anthropogenic global warming in the face of withering data that supports it, is just plain ignorance, or stupidity.
No one owes the ignorant or stupid proof of anthropogenic global warming. I'm satisfied the great minds have a grasp of the situation.
The ignorant and stupid can just go to their corners and quit bothering the real scientists. They're too busy to deal with your "beliefs".
It doesn't deal only with beliefs, but in case of subject here, it is at the core.
Materialism as world ideology and thus as existence of "known" phenomenon has no true objectivity to it, and is based on reasoning that "begs the question." When able to get over this hurdle, you will realize what some (so called) scientists are actually doing via philosophy. If you feel you can provide objective proof for materialistic universe, please, I'll be waiting.
The person you responded to used the word "belief" exactly once and in an appropriate way. You disagree with it, which actually supports the point they were making.
The evidence for global warming is not rock solid as you claim. And you resort to ad hom in order to feel like your point is (well) made. It is not. In an actual free exchange of ideas, you wouldn't be so threatened (thus resorting to ad hom) by notion that says both our collective approach and our vast consensus around global climate change may be not entirely accurate.
But this is what (psuedo version) of science has devolved to. Another world dogma that resorts to ad hom arguments to make points rather than dealing with ideas and having respect for all in the room. No one (I've heard) is denying there is consensus around global warming, but many are challenging the dogma based on evidence. And that does get downplayed and ridiculed not at the level of ideas, but at the level of personal attack and rude commentary. Thus dirtying the waters of what science once was. And could still be if the dogmatists and fanatics of the world will lighten up.
But to me, the use of the word "movement" in the preceding post implied a belief-system, which is not science.
If anyone is going to debate anthropogenic global warming, do it on the basis of empirical data, applying the scientific method.
Otherwise, such "debates" waste everyone's time.
Of course, HillBilly knows better because he can see the truth so much more clearly in his New York City studio than people actually on the frontlines.
Bastardi - BS in Meterology.
v.s.
Rest of scientific community worldwide
Who will win? Stay tuned!
Here's what the rest of the scientific community says about the realities of global warming:
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Here's a link to an interesting talk by Dr. Dennis Hartman about how this global warming thing is happening. It's a bit long, but very informative. If you really want to understand how this is studied, I recommend you watch this.
http://www.uwtv.org/asx/uw_sf_climate_1300k.asx
Bastardi is just plain wrong on this. If he had something to add of value to this issue, he should write a peer-reviewed paper. Presenting "facts" on FOX is no scientific argument.
I am a scientist and I don't believe in global warming. There was a consensus on the “ether” as well but now that is out of favor. I find when I attend science seminars, the global warming retinue preaches like this is slam dunk, a religion. It is not. Oh peer reviewed? By the a bunch of believers... (refer Einstein and the early acceptance of his theories) Let's also talk about Dr. Spencer, Dr Patricks or Dr Liezen(SP?) at MIT. Doubters or in the camp of anti-anthropogenic/ not chicken little types. So spare me the conservative dogma mantra junk.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5225
He doesn't seem to disagree with global warming, but he does disagree with its impact to humans. So, I'm not sure why you think he's somehow disagreeing with anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming. Unless I missed something.
While it is true that many isolated specifics of climatology are not fully understood, and stated as much in the links I cited, things like the interaction of albedos (reflectivity by clouds and the earth's surface) to weather phenomenon are.
On the days following 9-11, flights were stopped, contrails disappeared for awhile, and there was a measurable change in average temperature. A link between human activity and global weather was seen.
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/fgz/science/contrail.php?wfo=fgz
Yes, there are scientists out there who disagree with anthropogenic global warming. And specifics of how it is caused may still be debated. But overall, the consensus, based on empirical evidence, is that anthropogenic global warming is real.
As stated before, anyone with evidence to the contrary, by all means, publish a peer-reviewed paper.
I cited Dr. Patrick Michaels, not Dr. Patricks. I can't find Dr. Patricks. So, if there is a link to Dr. Patricks, please cite it.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200605190003
Here's a link to Spenser's site:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
Interesting chart he has on his own site, under the "Latest Global Temp. Anomaly (August'09: +0.23 deg. C)" link. If I squint, or even closes my eyes, I don't see a shift in temperature.
He seems to be hung up on the effects of CO2 emissions on climate. CO2 is only one of many human-caused factors in global warming.
Dr. Spenser's view on global warming is an anomaly among scientists. That happens all the time. It doesn't make him the lone expert in a sea of scientists with wrong conclusions.
He discredits himself, and his basic understanding of the scientific method.
He's a creationist, completely ignoring the facts of evolutionary science. And worse, he advocates teaching the creation story as science in school. He's a schmuck!
http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/roy-spencer-on-intelligent-design/