And one more for to make it three for Thursday....
Check out this recent post from Politifact.
Comedian Victoria Jackson, a Saturday Night Live alum and tea party supporter, recently penned a column titled, "The 3 scariest things about Obama." Jackson is a regular WorldNetDaily columnist and is slated to attend the WND Tea Party at Sea cruise of Alaska later this summer.
To quote the piece, the three scary things are "private army (like Hitler), socialist (like Hitler), media control (like Hitler)."
She continues: "A clause hidden in the Obamacare bill, which is now law, gives Obama the right to form a private army. Why isn't anyone freaking out?"
My first reaction was...they have Tea Party at Sea cruises now? I suppose it fits given the demographic.
I think I'll pass on the totally insano comment about private armies in lieu of what really struck me. Apparently, if you are a D lister these days, a surefire way to get back on top is to become a right winger. Dennis Miller....Janine Turner...and now Victoria Jackson. I can't say as I blame them with the built in audience but it really makes me crack up. They don't really stand for anything anymore. They just play the hits. Here is a sample set list:
La-la-la-lamestream media
They's A Comin'!
From My Cold Dead Hands
Barack, The Magic Negro
RINOS In The Rearview
Hopey Changey Stuff (A Medley)
Missing Bush (The Good Years)
Uncertainty (All Obama's fault)
Encores:
Houston, We Have A Spending Problem
Don't Retreat, Reload (Never Surrender)
12 comments:
How 'bout making it four articles today, and admitting that we were right about the AGW hoax?
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
…
Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer… reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.
…
…real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.
The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.
In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.
When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.
What did that tennis student of Mark's say again? Oh yes, all they are about is proving people wrong. Well, you've convinced me, anonymous. All of that research is wrong and Al Gore is a loser. And he's wrong. All liberals are wrong.
Er, Mark - you lost your credibility on complaining about people making ridiculous Nazi analogies when you.. did that exact thing. You should get back to convincing everyone that you have kritikal thot.
When an article about global warming uses loaded terms like "alarmist models" I think the motivations of the authors are pretty obvious.
Ground-based observations are showing the real effects of climate change right here and now. The polar ice cap is receding faster than ever. Average temperatures in Alaska and Greenland are rising much faster than the rest of the world. The average night-time low temperature is going up, which makes heat waves like the ones we've experienced recently much worse because there's never a respite from the heat. Drought is endemic in north-east Africa, the American Southwest. Australia has been suffering from a vicious drought, which persists even though there have been periods of excessive rain.
As climate skeptics keep telling us, one paper in a journal means squat. Authors make mistakes all the time, or have hidden agendas. Given the amount of money coal and oil companies are shoveling into climate skeptics' coffers, how can I trust one-off "scientific" study that buttresses the skeptics' claims? How do I know energy companies haven't bought those articles' results, exactly the same way that drug companies buy study results that say their drugs work wonders, and then we find out years later that they really aren't any better than placebos, or that they cause heart attacks?
What matters is the aggregate of evidence, taken over many years, from many different sources. And that evidence, from hundreds of peer-reviewed journals, mostly from land-based observations, indicates that temperatures are actually increasing faster than the "alarmist models" indicated they would.
Yeah, those D-listers jumping into political commentary is so fucking lame. The ironically named "Joy" Behar, the foul-mouthed and unfunny Kathy Griffin, the paranoid and conspiracy-peddling Jeannine Garofalo (whose own dog uses her like the fire hydrant she is), and the king of them all: Al Franken, who proves that any damned clown can be elected to the Senate, no matter how lame he is. At least with enough vote fraud.
@7:43
Nicely put. Not saying I agree with you, just saying.
When an article about global warming uses loaded terms like "alarmist models" I think the motivations of the authors are pretty obvious.
The same can be said of the articles using such obvious fearmongering as saying _____ will cease to exist by _____ date. That doesn't seem to stop the left, or the UN, from accepting it as unbiased science.
What matters is the aggregate of evidence, taken over many years, from many different sources.
Quite true. But,
And that evidence, from hundreds of peer-reviewed journals, mostly from land-based observations, indicates that temperatures are actually increasing faster than the "alarmist models" indicated they would.
When the peer review process admits articles by students and people with no expertise whatsoever in science, much less climate science, as "peer reviewed science", the peer review process no longer means squat. If it means anything at all after that, it is only evidence of a political agenda.
As has been pointed out many times before, the weakness of ground based observations is that the nature of local conditions change. If the spot that temp readings were taken from over time was forest 30 years ago, but is an asphalt parking lot outside a mini-mall now, the fact that average temps there rose over time means precisely dick. This is what makes the raw data, that AGW proponents fight against releasing, significant.
As has been pointed out many times before, the weakness of ground based observations is that the nature of local conditions change.
Which is why satellite measurements is considered more reliable. Except that the satellites are totally contradicting the AGW hoax, so I guess that means satellites need to be ignored.
BTW, the phrasing in the article indicates the biases of the author of that article, not biases in the study results.
P.S. Anonymous is getting overused now. Time to go unique. (Anonymous 5:53 PM)
Correction: Which is why satellite measurements are considered more reliable.
(Where's an edit button when you need one?)
Hey Mark? Got any, you know, like, evidence that Victoria Jackson or Janine Turner were ever not loathsome "right-wingers"?
I'm not impressed by Jackson's beliefs, but I don't think much of yours, either.
Now how about them drowning poley bears?
What matters is the aggregate of evidence, taken over many years, from many different sources.
Exactly. The reason "many different sources" matters is because if your math, your modeling and your hypotheses are correct, you should be able to take the aggregate of temp readings from a thousand distinct data points in the Sahara, and temp readings from satellite data of the Sahara, and get precisely the same result. If you don't get the same result, either
1. You have bad data.
2. You have a bad mathematical model.
3. Your hypothesis is incorrect, or
4. Any combination of the above.
The problem I have with AGW proponents is their insistence that we must put the cart before the horse and take serious action, before we can even verify the hypothesis, the math or the data.
An example:
http://news.yahoo.com/50-states-see-record-highs-july-173203227.html
"The city of Morehead, Minn., had the dubious distinction as the hottest place on Earth for a day, said meteorologist Heidi Cullen of Climate Central, in an interview on National Public Radio. On July 19, the heat index there — a measure of humidity and temperature that indicates how hot the weather feels — was 134 F (56.7 C). (The National Weather Service later said this reading could be an anomaly due to the local weather station's location in a very wet field, and not representative of the entire town.)"
That's the point about ground based observations. In order to verify their validity, you have to make sure that factors like "the local weather station's location in a very wet field" don't apply, or account for the effect it has on the particular reading.
Multiply by several thousand individual data points.
Post a Comment