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 see a flaw in her logic"
Logic isn't taught in school anymore. I'm teaching my children logic using The Fallacy Detective. It is great. They use several examples of flawed logic using statements Democrats have made. LOL!
OK, I now realize I could use some edumucation on the subject. Would you be willing to enlighten me so I don't remain a flat earth DUmmie?
...."Nuts, how about 30 lashes with a wet noodle"....
Yes, but only an "organic", whole wheat noodle. Gotta watch them pesticides!
ROTFLMAO! That's rich.
Maybe this b***h should just put a cork in the politics and tell me whether it's going to rain and/or be cold. That's all I ask from persons in her role.
This is precisely my argument against Global Warming.
They use the same "computer models" to predict global warming 20-50-100 years "down the road", but those same "computer models" can't forecast the weather more than 5 days with any accuracy!!!!
The climate is too volatile, too complex, too dynamic for ALL its components to be used and understood for daily forecasting, let alone "global warming" forecasts....
Wow!!!...you posted that on FR???....BTW....don't ever mix hash with Lowenbrau...not the crap in the states that is Millers in a green bottle...but the original Lowenbrau from Munich.....you might swear to never smoke hash again...or drink Lowenbrau....lol
Some gal in Kalifornia just died from that stuff you refer to while competing in a radio sponsored contest. That is some wicked stuff! (dihydrogen monoxide)
I remember a group called "Humble Pie" singing about Red Lebanese" on their "Smokin" album. Was the red better than the blond or was it more expensive and only rock stars could get it? (like Steve Mariott)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth
A quick "answer key" based on my quiz questions is in order, however:
1. When was a round Earth model first proposed?
By Pythagoras for simply aesthetic reasons sometime in the 6th Century BC--he was born c. 570 and died c. 507. The first person to posit a round Earth for scientific reasons was Aristotle, basing his conclusion in part on astronomical data such as the position of constellations when seen from various locales.
2. When did the spherical Earth gain wide acceptance?
By the 1st Century AD at the latest...Pliny the Elder took it for granted in his writings, and he died in 79 AD.
3. Where does the Bible say the earth is flat?
Trick question! The Bible says the Earth is suspended over nothing (Job 26: 7) and is circular (Isaiah 40:22).
4. Obviously given the answer to question 2, people of Columbus' day knew the Earth was round. So where'd we get the idea that they didn't?
From Wikipedia: "The modern misconception that people of the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat first entered the popular imagination in the nineteenth century, thanks largely to the publication of Washington Irving's fantasy The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus in 1828."
As I mentioned to someone else upthread, my wife is a former USAF weather observer, and she gets a chuckle out of the phrase "seven day forecast."
You know how dangerous that stuff is? several hundred people die each your from accidentally inhaling it, and it also reduces the effectiveness of brake systems. Apparently they're having a lot of trouble with it in New Orleans because it promotes mold growth.
What's really scary is that they use that stuff to make paper now, there's some in every home in America at some point in its liquid form, and the military stockpiles millions of gallons of it on their bases, and it's carried on every Navy ship and has been known to be dumped at sea. Worse, there are known cases of soldiers being ordered to drink a certain amount per day, and the amount they ingest and the results are monitored.
each your=each year
Wow...still not enough coffee I guess.
Same here. It was "all the rage" back in the 70's...."We are headed for another ICE AGE!!! SAVE YOURSELVES!!!"
PJ, you sound like you are about my age (48)....
Hey, Mr. S, thanks for the Biblical/history lesson.
And to think I spent 25 years in the printing industry. Where do I go to get tested?
Actually, I've found that by adding a little Crystal Light Orange or Raspberry to a pitcher full, it overcomes the bad effects and also provides a rather pleasant flavor.
I'm still trying to figure out the "global" impact of a a 1-degree-centigrade rise in temperatures.
Longer growing season=more food for 3rd world? Check!
Warmer weather reducing petroleum dependence? Check!
Less energy use providing more disposable cash? Check!
Combining more cash with later onset of winter for MORE GOLF? Big'ol emeffin CHECK!
You got that right! Problem is, with global warming, higher concentrations of dihydrogen monoxide vapors will be in the atmosphere, from sources such as cars, factories, even lakes and oceans!!!!
Dihydrogen monoxide is toxic in high concentrations, and is responsible for thousands of deaths from ingestion every year.
I agree with you, Dihydrogen Monoxide is much more dangerous than Carbon Dioxide as a greenhouse gas....
(But Dihydrogen Monoxide does make for some pretty clouds and sunsets...)
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.