George Will on global warming

[old_tony]

He read it on all his favorite websites, Jay.
It must be true.
Also:
Taylor is not a “climatologist.” Taylor is a meteorologist. He does not possess a PhD or have a background in climatology.
2) He will not be fired. Taylor will not lose his job or income, which he gets paid by OSU.

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_020607_news_taylor_title.59f5d04a.html

Not exactly a right-wing website.

But the point remains: Whether or not he won't be fired or lose any income, dissent is not to be tolerated.

 

[old_tony]

Really, why do you think the left is trying so hard to shut down any debate. Now in Oregon the liberal governor is stripping and Oregon State professor of the title of "state climatologist" for simply disagreeing. Again, very telling.

Oh dear God, I've been waiting for Old_Tony to drop this turd...
From the Oregonian

MILSTEIN (1/29/07): Taylor is not among the leading Oregon scientists, including [Mark] Abbott, whom Gov. Ted Kulongoski asked to help develop a state strategy on climate change. The governor last week questioned whether Taylor can legitimately call himself state climatologist since the position is not officially authorized in state law.
"He's not the state climatologist," the governor said. "I never appointed him. I think I would know.
"He's not my weatherman."
The position of state climatologist was dissolved by the Legislature in 1989, Abbott said. Taylor runs the OSU-based Oregon Climate Service, which performs many of the same duties that the state climatologist once did, and OSU gave him the same title.

So, umm, no such postion has existed for the last 18 years.
Why does your side find honesty so frightening?

As I just told Fenian, the entire point is that your side is the one in fear -- fear of dissent. The governor fears dissent on the issue to the extent that he made a news story about stripping a title that hadn't existed for 18 years. You don't find that strange?

I thought Hillary claimed a couple years ago that dissent is American. Apparently it's only a one-way street, too.

 

[old_tony]

Ho-hum.
Well, the problem with a lot of the denial sources was this:
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html
So, suddenly, Exxon Mobil, that liberal juggernaut of crazy Greenies, went and did this:
"ExxonMobil said: "We can confirm that recently we received a letter from the Royal Society on the topic of climate change. Amongst other topics our Tomorrow's Energy and Corporate Citizenship reports explain our views openly and honestly on climate change. We would refute any suggestion that our reports are inaccurate or misleading." A spokesman added that ExxonMobil stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute this year."

ExxonMobil -- Browbeaten by the liberal thought police.

Guh-guh-guuuh.

Fixed again.

Your wit knows no bound. Sadly, that's not an improvement over your usual tripe about paste.

 

[D-Backs Hack]

The charge of "dissent is not to be tolerated" on the left is a knee-slapper from a supporter of the administration that thinks nothing of scrubbling information it doesn't agree with from government health-services Websites or pushing aside generals or attorneys that refuse to toe the party line.

Don't throw any rocks, tony. You're surrounded by glass in all directions.

And, as I'm hopeful that the third time is the charm, answer the forking questions: When your MIT source claimed that the Earth is cooler now than in the 1930s, was he right or wrong? And what does the answer to that question say about the credibility of his other environmental claims?

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Let's see.
He didn't lose the job because the job hasn;t existed in 18 years.
He's still got his job at OSU.
He just won't get to put the job that doesn't exist on his resume any more.
He's being oppressed!

 

[old_tony]

The charge of "dissent is not to be tolerated" on the left is a knee-slapper from a supporter of the administration that thinks nothing of scrubbling information it doesn't agree with from government health-services Websites or pushing aside generals or attorneys that refuse to toe the party line.

Don't throw any rocks, tony. You're surrounded by glass in all directions.

And, as I'm hopeful that the third time is the charm, answer the forking questions: When your MIT source claimed that the Earth is cooler now than in the 1930s, was he right or wrong? And what does the answer to that question say about the credibility of his other environmental claims?

Nowhere on this thread did I say Lindzen said the 1930s were warmer, but here is a chart of temperatures from the 1930s and now.

years avg min-max std
1934-1939 6.4 / 5.8-7.2 / 6
------------------------------
1988-1992 6.5 / 5.9-7.1 / 5
1993-1998 5.6 / 4.9-6.2 / 5
1999-2005 6.3 / 5.6-7.2 / 5

That's average overall temp in celsius. 6.4 from '34-'39, 6.3 from '99-'05. In what math class did you learn that 6.4 is less than 6.3, because I'd sure ask for that teacher's salary to be returned to the taxpayers.

And if that doesn't satisfy you, check out this USA Today story:

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2006-09-13-hottest-summer_x.htm

In the accompanying chart, five of the 10 hottest summers were in the 1930s, four in the 2000s and one in 1988. So, we're about as warm (or slightly cooler) than we were in the 1930s, whether you like it or not.

 

[I'll never tell]

Thank you Tony.

Doesn't this all sound a helluva lot like Y2K? Only there's not one solid date to point to when we'll all know it's a lot of over-hyped bullshirt.

 

[old_tony]

Thank you Tony.

Doesn't this all sound a helluva lot like Y2K? Only there's not one solid date to point to when we'll all know it's a lot of over-hyped bullshirt.

Exactly. But the difference is that the global warming crowd wants to completely avoid any debate. It's like trying to get a pro-capitalism debate going in Pravda. Of what are these guys so afraid?

 

[Yawn]

Tony, that ought to be quite simple:

They're afraid of the truth.

 

[Yawn]

Because he doesn't really read the literature. He reads what his favorite columnists and radio hosts write or say about the literature and parrots it back here. Prima facie: he said he was as widely read on my side of the "debate" as on his own and he still hasn't cited a single thing he's read that disagrees with what he posts here.
Right now, he's googling "Lindzen and 1930s'" to respond to you. You can hear him out there.

Just like you, Fenian. You don't bother to read anything other than your search for some left-wing site that says something bad about the scientist who's said something against your agenda. Then you regurgitate that and think you've debunked something.

Fenian with an agenda? What the....

 

[Duane Postum]

Omigod, everybody's buying into this hoax -- even McCain!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6364663.stm

 

[D-Backs Hack]

God, I feel like Bob Barker in Happy Gilmore.

"Back for more, eh?"

Nowhere on this thread did I say Lindzen said the 1930s were warmer.

Actually, you did. Twice:

*Why are global temperatures now cooler than in the 1930s?

So I'll post this list of questions again.

*Why are global temperatures now cooler than in the 1930s?

ON EDIT: I was under the impression that these came from Lindzen, because it was difficult to keep track of all of your cut and pastes. A Google search determined that the questions came from the Web page of a noted environmental authority: Charlie Sykes, a right-wing radio host in Milwaukee. My apologies, tony.

By the way, here's one of the topics on Sykes' show today: "Would it be too cynical to think that the leaders of the Democratic Party are actively pursuing an approach to Iraq that would cost more American soldier's [sic] lives and ensure that we lose in Iraq?"

Hey, with poignant insight like that, who can possibly doubt the veracity of his global-warming views?

years avg min-max std
1934-1939 6.4 / 5.8-7.2 / 6
------------------------------
1988-1992 6.5 / 5.9-7.1 / 5
1993-1998 5.6 / 4.9-6.2 / 5
1999-2005 6.3 / 5.6-7.2 / 5

That's average overall temp in celsius.

Please check your numbers before you cut and paste. My teachers taught me well enough to know that anyone claiming the Earth's average temperature is 6.3 degrees celsius is probably full of shirt.

Do you have a link to this vaunted chart, which might explain how your source compiled celsius temperatures of (on average) eight degrees less than what NASA — or any other reputable source, none that I've seen suggesting that the Earth was warmer in the 1930s — has? According to your source, the average temperature on the planet from 1999-2005 was 43 degrees Fahrenheit, which means the Earth's orbit got bumped a few million miles farther from the Sun while nobody was looking.

I previously posted a link to an average temperatures table, in celsius. My figures originated from the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Yours . . . well, can you tell us?

Oh, and we're limiting argument to the summers in the U.S. now? Classic conservative tactic, which you've displayed all over this thread: Move the goalposts, change the parameters of the debate, and try to pretend it's still the same debate. It must have taken quite a few Google searches to find evidence that supports your side, but you had to narrow the field of discussion substantially to do it.

That Yawn was among those who came on here and applauded this intellectual dishonesty is no surprise.

I can link you to stories — as I did earlier in this thread — stating that 2005 was the hottest year on record, and 2006 wasn't far behind. Guess they weren't counting U.S. summers during the 1930s.

Next from old tony: How the average temperature in Parsippany, N.J., on Aug. 6 of even-numbered years is cooler than in the 1930s, and that's proof that the 99 percent of the scientific community that believes in global warming are frauds.