Look, it's time that Global Warming Denier and Evolution Denier joined the ranks of Holocaust Denier in the great pantheon of Pinheaded Deniery. Why the fuck do we have scientists in this country if massive swaths of the citizens whom they serve simply ignore their peer-reviewed and globally consensual views because their research makes Baby Jesus have diarrhea?

I'm so sick to death of these pinheads who DAILY reap the benefits of The Science in their boner pills and fat-burning drugs and then cherry-pick the research that runs counter to their politics. Just get the fuck out of here if you don't want to play with adults.

Since when did George Will become an expert on climate change?

@ The Elvis ***** APPLAUSE *****

The Mr. Silly Ratfaced Git is a George Wills denier. George Wills is an imaginary creature. He exists only the the jω axis.

Not to be confused with the Rush Limbaugh, which is a toon character.

m4rk0 -

Conservatives are 'experts' on anything that threatens to gore any of their sacred oxen.

George Will is a forefront proponent of unfettered corporatism. The government shall not obstruct their effort to kill us all in their Holy Quest for profit.

IMNSHO, George Will is a dangerous demagogue. He may even believe his misinformed ideology, but I doubt it.

What Elvis said only more of it!

Really, Republicans continually pull things out of their ass (it's easy because their heads are already there) and just say it, therefore it becomes fact!

Just like the non-existent CBO report that so many ditto-heads repeated ad nauseam!

I stumbled across some publickin' earlier today in a comment on some blog still shouting the Obama's not a citizen loonie shit!

I stumbled across some publickin' earlier today in a comment on some blog still shouting the Obama's not a citizen loonie shit!

Yeah, go to Google (if you have their auto-completion gizmo turned on), and type "Obama" in there. The FIRST intuitive "Is This What You're Looking For?" link comes up as "Obama Birth Certificate."

As these auto-completes are predicated on user behavior, it's obvious the Wingnuts are pissing their short pants.

For a good way to fairly compare what both sides are saying, go here:

http://www.climatedebatedaily.com/

There are some pretty significant names writing these articles for both sides, such as Brookings Institution supporting Global climate change, and the CATO Institute being skeptical about it.

Caution: Some of these scientists on both sides are some serious players in the international scientific community. Knowing how little most of us know about our climate, and what affects it, I wouldn't call anyone at the Brookings Inst. an idiot. Conversely, knowing how little most of us know about the climate and what affects it, I wouldn't call anyone at the CATO Inst. an idiot either.

My point is, there really does seem to be some serious questioning made by serious, well-written scientists, none of whom anyone here has enough knowledge to ignore or write off as a whack job. Sure, there are some rhetorical "scientists" out there, but if you want good, sound arguments from both sides, that site above is the best I've found.

I wouldn't call anyone at the CATO Inst. an idiot either.

Nor would I. I'd call them Smart People With a Political Agenda. CATO is a deeply, deeply Libertarian organization with a Kill Government attitude woven through their entire methodology, so any "research" coming out of those people is going to be deeply tainted with Libertarian Juice.

Do you really expect a Think Tank funded by Phillip Morris, ExxonMobil, General Motors, Wal-Mart and the American Fucking Petroleum Institute to publish an unbiased study on Global Warming?

Holy fuckballs.

I guess the issue is, Can they lie faster than we can rebutt them with the truth? We may be able to close the gap within our lifetimes.

PPP,

I'm gonna go ahead and call the "scientists" at CATO idiots. I dont know much of anything about them, still I seem to recall their tendency to be full of shit. Go look at their front page- they have an article debunking Krugmans theory on income equality.

I'm not climatologist, but I am a student of environmental science and I've taken several classes on the topic in recent years. And I will assure you, anyone who is still insisting that humans may not be causing any climate change, or that it may not even be a problem, is full of shit! These people however can easily secure research funds from conservative groups (and formerly from the Bush Admin.) in order to spread said shit around.

CATO even earned an honorary mention in this video that I stumbled upon over at Laffy & Paddy's place:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHDVCZp83pY&eurl=http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/&feature=player_embedded

CATO sucks! I can say that based solely on their continual lies about Social Security!

CATO stands for Corporatist Assholes on Turbocharged Overdrive.

These folks are the best heavyweights of the AGW and global climate change deniers.

Admitting that global climate change is real will cause implementation of inconvenient policies that their high paying clients do not want, so they cherry pick, and ignore, and recollate to support the position that they desire. They are very good at lying believably. That's why they get paid the big bucks. Cigarettes are good for ya don't cha know.

Man made global change is happening now. There is no debate. The only debates left are how fast, how much, what the fuck are we going to do to reverse it, and can we reverse it. The rest is bullshit.

This debate is a counterproductive exercise in corporatist propaganda.

I prefer to base my belief in Global Warming on the purely scientific data of whether or not it snows on Christmas here in Denver.

What the hell has happened to Randi Rhodes?

Lying, Incompetent or Both?

The Reich Wing Gameshow plays on.

[Rave on, Elvis my man!]

Nano -

Do not confuse weather with climate. We had record breaking cold temperatures in the Tampa region recently that were very bad for citrus and other crops. While this was a colder than normal event for most of the central US, this is predicted as a side effect of the the climate changes that are taking place. There is no denying that ice is disappearing. Todd will have to go much farther north to race his snowmobile in the not too distant future.

I don't know whats up with Randi. If you find out, please tell us.

I know Git. I was referring to Sean Hannity's one-time stupid assertion that because we'd had snow on Christmas for the first time in the last so many years, there was no such thing as global warming.

I think Randi is in some sort of contract dispute with Nova M, but nobody is talking specifics at all. No word at all on what the problem might be, but she released a statement saying she's looking to move the show.

I like Nancy Skinner, who's in Randi's time slot for now.

I've been piecing together all of the Randi Rhodes hoopla today.

Here's where I'm at.

but if you want good, sound arguments from both sides, that site above is the best I've found.

But PPP, if there are such good, sound arguments against global climate change, why do the deniers have to constantly make up shit like Will just got busted for today?

Elvis,

There's more than just CATO at the site I listed. Did you check any of the other writers out?

I understand your disdain for CATO because there seems to be a Libertarian bent, but the same can said for the claimers of anthropogenic climate warming. This entire issue has been politicized to the point where people don't know who to believe. It's no accident that nearly every Democrat believes mankind has caused global warming, while every Republican believes the opposite. You cannot possibly claim, with any credibility, that every Democrat has studied the issue enough (resulting in them being an expert in the science)to KNOW that anthropogenic global warming is in fact the truth.

Elvis, you're a smart guy. Are you telling me you know enough about the science behind the theory to decide who is telling the truth? I'm a smart guy, yet I willingly admit I don't know enough.

But claiming that everyone who disagrees with anthropogenic climate change has an agenda is a statement for which you cannot possibly have enough evidence, not unless you can scientifically talk down every opponent.

Elvis, many people are lemmings, and will follow or believe whatever chatter their political party spells out. But most people, and I am guessing that includes everyone here, do not know nearly enough to make their OWN decision about what is going on with climate change. Not unless there's a climatologist writing for Bob, or as a regular commenter here.

Sillygit,

Having no agenda on the issue myself, I respectfully disagree with you. Money drives nearly everything on this planet, so to paint one side with that brush, and claim sainthood for the other is willful ignorance.

If real climate policy is enacted, mark my words; the next financial bubble to burst and take everyone with it will be green. I say this as respectfully as I can; you dream if you believe the proponents of anthropogenic climate change do not have a greed-induced financial agenda.

Where money is involved, science is always secondary on both sides of any issue.

Uh, it's not a Fail at all if they aren't forced to retract this misinformation, is it...

(2 days later, and sadly still, no correction)

PPP, I've gotten into arguments with people on the denial side of the issue over that very point. They always insisted that the oil companies and the people who are funded by them have nothing but the purest motive, but any information from an actual climatologist who supported the idea of global climate change was summarily dismissed as being part of an "agenda".

No reply to my earlier question though?