Posted on 01/19/2007 6:23:25 AM PST by PJ-Comix
The entire Democrat party has now gone out on the limb with Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" that Global Warming is a sure thing. Nancy Pelosi has even formed a Congressional Global Warming COMMITTEE. Anyone who disagrees with this crackpot science is guilty of heresy according to the liberals. Should any weatherman dare to even question that Global Warming is imminent, they should be decertified as weather experts according to Heidi Cullen of the Weather Channel. Of course, the DUmmies completely support the decertification of any weather person who dares challenge the liberal orthodoxy on this subject as you can see in this THREAD titled, "Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics." So let us now watch the DUmmies call for the expulsion of all who do not buy into their crackpot science in Bolshevik Red while the commentary of your humble correspondent, never dreaming that his beloved Weather Channel would become an ally of the kook Left, is in the [brackets]:
Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics
[Expulsion for all those who do not BEEEEELEEEEEVE in the crackpot science of Global Warming.]
Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics
January 17, 2007
[Who would have believed that the Weather Channel would become a part of the kook Left?]
The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.
[Scientific questioning will NOT be tolerated!]
The Weather Channel’s (TWC) Heidi Cullen, who hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code," is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.
[Was Heidi Culllen one of the jurors at the Galileo trial?]
"If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns," Cullen wrote in her December 21 weblog on the Weather Channel Website.
[So what was the cause of Global Warming before there were even humans on this planet?]
"It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement," Cullen added.
[Accept my crackpot theory or you will lose your job!]
To me, it's clearly a good thing that the scientific community is starting to step up and call out the few remaining flat-earthers.
[The same "scientific community" that used to warn us about Global Cooling.]
I certainly hope so. I really hope this shuts these ignorant right-wing motherf*ckers up for good. Anyone who denies global warming should not only be stripped of their certification, but should also not be allowed to teach.
[And be forced to spend time in a re-education camp.]
cast out the non-believers then, we'll stone them in the village square.
[Cast out the non-believers for their heresy!]
For a meteorologist to deny global warming is like an M.D. denying that germs exist.
[Or a DUmmie to deny that reality exists which they do on a daily basis.]
If you think that suppression of alternate arguments advances science, then let me tell you a little story about Galileo.... Any argument that relies on suppression and name-calling seems to me to not be able to punch on its own. Prolly seems that way to a lot of other people. Let the process work. No one argues about the sun rising tomorrow, because the evidence is manifest. Soon it will be so with climate change, too.
[And this DUmmie WINS a Kewpie Doll for having a brief moment of mental clarity.]
Not believing in global warming strikes me a bit like saying one doesn't believe in witches (aka Wiccans). They exist. Get used to it.
[Witches exist and so does Global Warming. Get used to it.]
Yeah, it's the future existence of the goddamned planet we're talking about. If certain scientists refuse to understand, by willful ignorance, the data then they should be discredited. Go back to school get some learnin' just like their dumbass leaderboy, bush.
[Should they go back to school at Pepperdine College in snowbound Malibu?]
These cretins need to have their credentials pulled as well. They can continue to say whatever they like.
[I say have a credential removal ceremony in the heart of snowbound Malibu.]
But to stifle science is wrong. Let science debate and we stay out of it.
[LOUSY FREEPER TROLL!!!]
Have you seen "Inconvenient Truth"?
[Produced by that highly skilled scientist, Al Gore.]
Where the hell have you been? The debate is over.
[And now we can completely close our minds to any inconvenient truths.]
I might even go one step further, and start reviewing broadcast licenses. After a few were yanked, I suspect that upper management and senior editors might actually start to police themselves and take serial liars like John Srossel off our public airwaves.
[Let the purges begin! Any questioning of liberal "science" orthodoxy shall result in BANISHMENT!]
Stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism? What next, burning books that have an alternate theory? Sorry, this is scary and dangerous, IMO. I remember the great "Global Freeze" theories of the 1970's. What if this had been done then?
[LOUSY FREEPER TROLL!!!]
The scientific community has not reached consensus about the cause. You're blending the near-consensus on warming, with the decidedly fractured range of opinions on what's responsible for the warming. Less than a thousand years ago, the Danes had established farming communities on Greenland (ever wonder why they called it Greenland, btw?), because a centuries-long warming period had freed the Southern Greenland landmass of ice and given it a climate similar to Scotland's. Three hundred years later, those farms were buried under hundreds of meters of ice, while Europe shivered through a Little Ice Age that regularly froze the Thames solid. Human-contributed greenhouse gases were obviously not the cause of either of those shifts. I staunchly believe climate change is underway right now. Let's allow good scientific debate to sort out the causes (political thinking, like religious thinking, is about dogma, not open inquiry). Politically, we'd be wise to assume that human activity is a major factor, and work to limit greenhouse emissions. That is, and should be, a progressive objective. Meanwhile, let science work through the evidence. Anyone who thinks there is a simple answer is unfamiliar with nonlinear causality in general, and the workings of climate in particular.
[Since you are making entirely too much sense, you may expect your imminent tombstoning.]
When we start casting out "heretics" it is no longer about science it is a religion.
[It is about POLITICS.]
Amazing to me that in 2007 we are still having to fend off people who would base SCIENCE on an ancient goat herder's religion.
[Abraham came along in the middle of a Global Warming. Or was it a Global Cooling?]
I realized after posting my solution for overcoming the detrimental effects of dihydrogen monoxide, some may take it as too simplistic a solution. So allow me to share an even more potent (and pleasant) remedy to the effects of dihydrogen monoxide:
First, you must freeze at least a decent supply of dihydrogen monoxide into small cubes...
Next, a number of said cubes should be placed in a glass container, say 8 oz. or so...
Last, an amount of 'two fingers' of liquid such as provided by Elijah Craig or Knob Creek should be poured over the cubes and consumed immediately.
I can assure everyone that enjoyable results will follow if followed in moderation. Which reminds me...
Didn't someone just die from ingesting too much Dihydrogen Monoxide during a radio stunt?
Maker's Mark?
I've seriously got to start a bourbon ping list.
Yes they did, just to win a Nintendo game system....
Yeah. It would make the flora too green and lush. The flora in turn would produce more oxygen. Is anybody watching the O2 buildup in the atmosphere????
If I remember correctly, the atmosphere is approximately 21% Oxygen and 78+% Nitrogen by volume. A buildup of oxygen might cause the propagation of global fires.
Uh oh, this whole subject has caused me to have a brain fart.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1770379/posts
Talk about one's head in the sand...
I know. I'm waiting...
Makers Mark: Sure, but I only listed what I had in the cabinet. This is a serious topic and I'm not going to dwell on 'ifs'.
1. Somepeople never learn.
or...
2. They are counting on the sheeple to hear "bad hurricane season" twice in a row and not realize that in between the two they didn't hear about any bad hurricanes.
I did that too.
As for your options, my vote is for both.
I'm "feeling" another song parody. This time about Global Warming. It should be based on the tune "Heat Wave" as sung by Marilyn Monroe. You might remember it from "There's No Business Like Show Business."
Forgive my butting in but I couldn't resist..
We're having a heat wave
A tropical global heat wave...
Yeah, maybe Dr. Heidi could use it as backgound music on her blog?
Something else to work on, Pastor.
Do you have a link to any debunking of Algore's charts?
I think you just gave Charles a line for his parody. BTW, I heard there was an interesting story behind that song but I can't seem to find it. If anybody knows of the story behind that song, let me know. I think it is originally from a play.
The scenario that they are proposing requires that the CO2 cycle be unstable, that is, it will likewise "run away" when presented with a relatively small "forcing" of human produced C02.
The problem is, the overall climate, unlike their models, can't be that unstable. If it were, we simply would not be here arguing about it.
Would that be the same Bush who graduated from Yale with better grades than that intellectual giant John Kerry?
How about two plays/movies? From http://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/h/heatwave2.shtml
...they state Ethel Merman performed it in 1938 in "Alexander's Ragtime Band". In 1954 Marilyn Monroe performed it in "There's No Business Like Show Business". There's no controvery mentioned, but the lyrics are there.
Hey, hey.......got the ping!
1. If the US had the same percentage of nuclear power compared to total power as France does now (80%), we would comply with Kyoto today!But, just try getting a nuke plant built today.
2. The founder of Greenpeace now says that since the fall of the Berlin Wall, all the commie types have moved into the environmentalist movement. This has now led to the amusing expression..."Environmentalists are like watermelons, GREEN on the outside and RED on the inside!"
I don't see you on my PING List. Did you have a previous incarnation?
My wife and I watched some scientists on TV recently who were purporting to show how global warming is adversely affecting Antarctica's ice caps and will eventually flood the major cities of the world. They said the average annual temperature in Antarctica has risen 3 degrees since the 1950s and that is causing the ice caps to melt and break up. After thinking about that for a while, I began to wonder how a mere 3 degree temperature rise could have such a dramatic affect on the incredibly massive Antarctic ice cap.
Since I still have the old set of World Book encyclopedias that I had in my 1950's era high school days, I looked up the average temperatures in Antarctica at that time. According to the article, the average mid-winter temperatures ranged from minus 40 degrees F along the coasts to lower than minus 110 degrees F inland, and mid-summer temperatures on the coasts averaged slightly below freezing in daytime and 0 F at night. Add 3 degrees to get today's temperatures, and it seems to me that should still be cold enough to prevent any significant melting. And anyway summers down there only last for a few weeks, so if there is some melting on sunny days it doesn't go on for long. I would like to ask those scientists if our CO2 emissions have somehow overridden the laws of physics and lowered the melting point from 32 above zero to 32 below zero.
Oh, here's one more thing those scientist's said that didn't make sense to me. They said that ice cores brought up by drilling thousands of feet down in the ice cap show that there have been many long periods of time down through the millennia in which the ice cap was thicker or thinner than at other times. If there were times when the ice caps melted and became thinner before modern era humans began putting CO2 into the atmosphere, what caused those warmer periods? Could it just be possible that periods of shrinking ice caps followed by periods of expanding ice caps are a natural phenomenon wholly independent of anything that puny humans can or cannot do, hmmmm?
Nah, the libs can't allow that notion to get any traction, there's no way they could wrangle any political mileage out of that very likely explanation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.