George Will on global warming

Where in hell are you finding these?
The Hard Rock Cafe in Minsk?

 

Or could it be that we're simply the biggest carbon polluter?

No, it makes more sense if you look at it in light of Finland's historical appetite for world domination.



FB:

I Googled up some art and agitprop during Part VII of the JDV symposium on socialism in Weimar Germany.
ADD: They also seemed apt given Yawn's recent conviction that anyone to the Left of Father Coughlin is as pink as Helen Gahagan Douglas's undies..

 

Pick a post, any post...pick a thread, any thread.
And it's not an issue of right or wrong. Those of us who disagree with you on political and social issues think are doing just that -- disagreeing. When you disagree with someone, you have a tendance to go much further ... rip them personally, denigrate their intelligence, questions their motives, etc, etc. You have a complete inability to accept an opinion that runs counter to yours, and, as a result, you behave as a fourth-grader during recess who wants to play one game, but the rest of the kids want to play another.

 

Hondo, if you're trying to defend OT, it's a lost cause.

It's not a question of agreeing or disagreeing with him. The guy is clueless about almost everything.

He doesn't have a basic knowledge of simple concepts, like what constitutes a scientific theory, he posts stuff that is irrelevant and when he gives us sources, they're fraudulent.

With Tony there's not much to disagree about because his intellectual capabilities are slightly below that of a door knob.

 

Because it's absolutely impossible for you closed-mind folks to even consider that the sun could be burning hotter right now than it was 40 years ago and be the leading cause of any current cycle of global warming. Never mind that the earth is 2/3 water, and water vapor is the leading factor in CO2. Nope, to you completely open-minded folks, it's humans, who inhabit about 1.65% of the earth's actual surface.

If you think that 2/3 of the earth is having less effect than 1.65% of the earth and that the sun can't be burning hotter right now, even though it has burned hotter and cooler in cycles all through recorded history, I'd be looking in the mirror if I were you when it comes to talking about intellectual capabilities below that of a door knob.

Face it, JR, much like Fenian, your only recourse in debate is "my experts count and yours don't." The difference in why each of us believes our own experts is that I've read and heard what both mine and your experts have said, while you've only read and heard what your experts have said. You're the height of a closed mind. Sadly, there was no knowledge in there to not escape when you decided to close it.

 

Great line from tonight's SNL on Weekend Update:

"This week, in an ironic twist, while making a speech on global warming Al Gore froze to death."

 

Gee, look at this. Almost every argument mustered by our hero can be found -- and dispatched -- here.
http://www.bestofmaui.com/rush.html
What a co-inky-dink.
Really?
Please give us some cites of the pro-global-warming theorists that you have read. We'll be waiting. And the source for that info above would be nice, too.
And, yes, the preponderance of experts being on one side of an issue does count for something.

 

Great job at debunking someone (Limbaugh) that no one cited, Fenian. That's known as a strawman.

Now try debunking Lindzen with more than "He doesn't count because I don't agree with him."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

 

Wow. Will is still not owning up to the scientific proof that humans are causing Global Warming. How sad for such a truly intelligent guy.

 

[

OK, let's just go to one of Lindzen's points, because there is limited space here.
He says:
"More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words “global climate change” produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.
Well, point one -- it's Naomi Oreskes and not Nancy, but that's minor.

The point of Oreskes is that if there was real uncertainty there would be “substantive disagreement in the scientific community” that would be reflected in peer reviewed literature. There isn’t. Oreskes never claimed unanimity with the IPCC's conclusions. In addition, Lindzen is incorrect when he argues from Peiser about the "34 papers" that reject or doubt the consensus view, as became obvious when someone asked Peiser to send along the abstracts of those 34 papers. The vast majority of these papers express no doubt whatsoever about the consensus view. Only one paper, by the Association of Petroleum Geologists, cited by Peiser actually rejects the consensus view and it “does not appear to have been peer reviewed outside that Association.”
Which means that, in this passage of his op-ed at least, Lindzen didn't check his data very thoroughly.
Now you can tell me all the people whose work agrees with my opinion that you claim you've read.
Clock's ticking.

 

I was out in the woods this morning doing some rabbit hunting (and shooting a new pistol). I ran into a Game and Fish officer I know when I was leaving. We started talking about the recent hunting seasons. I asked him what he thought about global warming.

He laughed and said he thought it was some "more liberal bullshit" until he started looking at information from the wildlife biologists. He doesn't know if it's caused by humans, but he absolutely believes it is happening. I asked him what he thought about people trying to cut down on CO2 and doing other things to combat global warming. He said "Can't hurt, can it?"

 

Finland gathers its reindeer army to overthrow the American carbonist hegemony.