Comments on: Wheel of Fortune #Fail UPDATED TWICE

By: dean

dean — Fri, 23 May 2014 16:27:17 +0000

and please don’t pull out that bogus 97% figure – scientists look for evidence, not consensus

The point of that figure is that the consensus formed because of the overwhelming evidence. The only reason to push the number aside is because you blithely, without good reason, choose to ignore the evidence.
It is interesting how the only people who bring up gore’s name and imply that he is some sort of “hero” are the ones who are the denialists.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Fri, 23 May 2014 15:32:48 +0000

Al Gore is not a climate scientist. Winters have been very warm, last year’s was one of the warmest on record. The people whose lives were wrecked by Superstorm Sandy probably think you are a jerk for minimizing their pain, thanks for that. Also, TC activity is increased and expected to increase.

I’ll remove that link, no linking to denialist sites here.

I noticed your funny posts but was too busy to laugh or respond. Not really your job to tell me what to do, sorry.

By: David Van

David Van — Fri, 23 May 2014 15:11:51 +0000

Nice try at misdirection. Speaking of which: I am hurt by your apparent lack of interest in the “funnies” I posted above – a la J. Welch replying to Joe McCarthy, “Have you no sense of humor, sir?!”

Did not even a chuckle escape your lips whilst reading them? Are you not curious as to their source?

By: David Van

David Van — Fri, 23 May 2014 15:10:12 +0000

Where is the melted/vanished polar ice cap that “climate scientist” Al Gore predicted? Where are the warmer winters and absence of snow in Britain? The increase in hurricane activity we were told would happen? (BTW, you are aware that Sandy was a Cat 1 hurricane at most when it hit, aren’t you? Not to mention that was a WEATHER event.)

Better yet, where are the accurate climate models?

LINK REMOVED, SUBSTITUTED WITH THIS
http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2014/05/tedx-talk-should-we-trust-climate-models/

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Fri, 23 May 2014 14:57:52 +0000

David, you mist think you are talking with children here.

By: David Van

David Van — Fri, 23 May 2014 14:48:15 +0000

Sorry Greg, that’s not the context I was referring to (obviously). It’s actually your premise that’s a no go – he’s not writing in opposition to science, because there are several scientists who don’t think humans are mainly responsible for climate change/climate catastrophe/global warming/climate weirding, or whatever it’s being called this week (and please don’t pull out that bogus 97% figure – scientists look for evidence, not consensus).

Actually it’s folks like you who are the science denialists. No one denies climate change – it’s been happening for over 4 billion years. The question is whether global warming is happening at an accelerated and significant rate due to human activity. And if that’s true then there should be evidence of it – but where’s the warming?

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Fri, 23 May 2014 12:17:36 +0000

In reply to David Van. Sorry, David, that's a no go. The context has been discussed at length. The context is seven plus years of writing in opposition to science, and finally, being called on it. Your context card, it is trumped, yes?

By: David Van

David Van — Fri, 23 May 2014 02:14:55 +0000

We’re constantly being lectured by some on The Left about “context” – how important it is to be aware of the context in which a statement is made (just FYI, most of us realized this around age 10, but I digress …).

Well, a la Edward G. Robinson’s character in Moses, “Where’s your nuance NOOOWWW ?!”

By: David Van

David Van — Fri, 23 May 2014 02:08:47 +0000

“Please sir, may I have another?” you ask … well, ok: “The world would be such a wonderful place without human beings. Just animals breathing clean air & eating each other.”

By: David Van

David Van — Fri, 23 May 2014 02:07:53 +0000

Then there’s this: “Even though I told him it was settled folklore, my young nephew remains a Tooth Fairy denier. (Those kids today!)”