The Rush Limbaugh Thread

[Paradoxium]

I looked over the article references. Looks like dailytech exaggerated something.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.co...es-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/

The website DailyTech has an article citing this blog entry as a reference, and their story got picked up by the Drudge report, resulting in a wide distribution. In the DailyTech article there is a paragraph:

“Anthony Watts compiled the results of all the sources. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it’s the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.”

I wish to state for the record, that this statement is not mine: “–a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years”

There has been no “erasure”. This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, it is large, it is unexpected, but it does not “erase” anything. I suggested a correction to DailyTech and they have graciously complied.

 

[The Senator]

Regardless of the terminology, something is going on which is drastically changing the temperature on Earth, which in turn is threatening various aspects of our environment. When the Northwest Passage-- which has been a continuous sheet of ice for hundreds of years-- magically melts over the course of a year, I think that's proof enough that something's going on. When once abundant species-- from Polar Bears in the Arctic, to King Penguins in the Antarctic-- are dying off rapidly, I think that's proof enough that something's going on. I don't see how this phenomenon can be declared a hoax when there's solid ****ing evidence which indicates that something's altering our environment. To hear someone say, "hey, the temperature of the Earth dropped one degree," and use that as a reason to completely debunk global warming without looking at the plant and wildlife species which are dying, without looking at the amount of ice which is rapidly deteriorating at both extremes of the earth... that's really pig-headed.

This is an issue which shouldn't be liberal or conservative, but ignorant Republican slugs like Rush Pillpop and James Inhoffe have made it into one.

 

[SentinelMind]

The issue here is that politicians and lobbyists who want to regulate energy industries and lifestyles of Americans are dependent on depicting a doomday climatic scenario to the American public. While its true that the earth has been warming up for several years , many of these models produced by these government-funded scientists have been debunked and exaggerated, been piss poor at forecasting future events. The question isn't whether man is interacting with the environment, that is a given. it's whether man's impact on the environment is SOOO significant that it warrants huge bureacratic and centralized regulation on our way of life. When so many variables are unknown and undetermined about climate fluctuation, the burden on proof is on the regulators to show why policy X needs to be implemented, that our YYY use of these resources is solely responsible for creating Z in our environment, and nothing else. Americans have a right to be cynical of these models that are being used to create doomsday scenarios. It's not a coincidence we've gone from propaganda "global cooling" to 70s to "global warming in 90s" to "climate change" now....we don't know the truth, we can't predict...we have some theories, but they're not ironclad enough and we shouldn't put the cart before the horse.

 

[The Senator]

The issue here is that politicians and lobbyists who want to regulate energy industries and lifestyles of Americans are dependent on depicting a doomday climatic scenario to the American public. While its true that the earth has been warming up for several years , many of these models produced by these government-funded scientists have been debunked and exaggerated, been piss poor at forecasting future events. The question isn't whether man is interacting with the environment, that is a given. it's whether man's impact on the environment is SOOO significant that it warrants huge bureacratic and centralized regulation on our way of life. When so many variables are unknown and undetermined about climate fluctuation, the burden on proof is on the regulators to show why policy X needs to be implemented, that our YYY use of these resources is solely responsible for creating Z in our environment, and nothing else. Americans have a right to be cynical of these models that are being used to create doomsday scenarios. It's not a coincidence we've gone from propaganda "global cooling" to 70s to "global warming in 90s" to "climate change" now....we don't know the truth, we can't predict...we have some theories, but they're not ironclad enough and we shouldn't put the cart before the horse

Most top scientists agree that this isn't going to result in a climactic doomsday scenario. This is a long, drawn out process which will take a good century to reach its peak. But the issue isn't solely that the earth is going to heat up and water levels are going to increase a few feet. As the temperature of the earth rises, the ice caps melt. As the ice caps melt, the life which was once sustained on those ice caps start to vanish. As that life starts to vanish, life which relied on that life starts to vanish as well. And as all these elements begin to disappear, vast ecosystems which relied on certain animal or plant species as a way to control the environment will be radically altered. Even though some evidence suggests the earth cooled off, the damage has already begun: Polar bears, penguins, fish and plant species across the world have started to die off in large numbers. Eventually, as the cycle of life and elements and all the scientific jargon repeats itself and extends northwards and southwards away from the poles, the human race will be impacted by it, whether the loss of a species affects us aesthetically, or if it affects us outright by diminishing a vital food supply, such as fish. A good percentage of the fish population which we eat, by the way, is expected to disappear by the mid 2050s, due to rising temperatures and polutants which have been dispersed in the oceans and lakes we get our fish from. Considering fish is one of those abundant sources of food, I find that quite scary.

But honestly... why should people care if the government mandates that a car company figures out a way to have cars which get 50 miles to the gallon? Isn't that a piss-poor argument against regulating emissions and corporations? Cars in Britain and France get between 30 and 40 miles per gallon. The Mini Cooper, which is widely available here, gets upwards of thirty-five miles per gallon. Why shouldn't American automakers be forced to develop a vehicle which utilizes every drop of gas and increases productivity, instead of wasting it?

And besides that... why should Americans be so concerned if we tell a corporation they can't dump their toxic waste into a nearby lake? Why should they care if we tell General Motors they need to figure out how to not burn dangerous compounds, which produces acid rain in neighboring states/ regions in the U.S., or else they'll face a fine? Seriously. Even if you want to look past global warming, localized issues such as river and lake pollution and acid rain represent a huge environmental problem we should take seriously. There's hardcore evidence there which suggests that these phenomenons kill wildlife and food supplies more directly than global warming does. Yet companies shouldn't be fined for it because it may piss of the American people? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

We have an agency called the EPA which already deals with these issues. It's large and rather extensive. It's not a cabinet position, but it should be merged with the Interior department to investigate and regulate how we approach the environment. And seriously, it's long overdue. We have a responsibility to leave this planet to our children in as good as shape as we inherited it.

 

[Marx]

Most top scientists agree that this isn't going to result in a climactic doomsday scenario. This is a long, drawn out process which will take a good century to reach its peak. But the issue isn't solely that the earth is going to heat up and water levels are going to increase a few feet. As the temperature of the earth rises, the ice caps melt. As the ice caps melt, the life which was once sustained on those ice caps start to vanish. As that life starts to vanish, life which relied on that life starts to vanish as well. And as all these elements begin to disappear, vast ecosystems which relied on certain animal or plant species as a way to control the environment will be radically altered. Even though some evidence suggests the earth cooled off, the damage has already begun: Polar bears, penguins, fish and plant species across the world have started to die off in large numbers. Eventually, as the cycle of life and elements and all the scientific jargon repeats itself and extends northwards and southwards away from the poles, the human race will be impacted by it, whether the loss of a species affects us aesthetically, or if it affects us outright by diminishing a vital food supply, such as fish. A good percentage of the fish population which we eat, by the way, is expected to disappear by the mid 2050s, due to rising temperatures and polutants which have been dispersed in the oceans and lakes we get our fish from. Considering fish is one of those abundant sources of food, I find that quite scary.

But honestly... why should people care if the government mandates that a car company figures out a way to have cars which get 50 miles to the gallon? Isn't that a piss-poor argument against regulating emissions and corporations? Cars in Britain and France get between 30 and 40 miles per gallon. The Mini Cooper, which is widely available here, gets upwards of thirty-five miles per gallon. Why shouldn't American automakers be forced to develop a vehicle which utilizes every drop of gas and increases productivity, instead of wasting it?

And besides that... why should Americans be so concerned if we tell a corporation they can't dump their toxic waste into a nearby lake? Why should they care if we tell General Motors they need to figure out how to not burn dangerous compounds, which produces acid rain in neighboring states/ regions in the U.S., or else they'll face a fine? Seriously. Even if you want to look past global warming, localized issues such as river and lake pollution and acid rain represent a huge environmental problem we should take seriously. There's hardcore evidence there which suggests that these phenomenons kill wildlife and food supplies more directly than global warming does. Yet companies shouldn't be fined for it because it may piss of the American people? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

We have an agency called the EPA which already deals with these issues. It's large and rather extensive. It's not a cabinet position, but it should be merged with the Interior department to investigate and regulate how we approach the environment. And seriously, it's long overdue. We have a responsibility to leave this planet to our children in as good as shape as we inherited it.

I couldn't have said it any better

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

When the ocean levels stop rising,then i will belive it. Until then,it's people denying what's happening.

 

[rdh007]

why should people care if the government mandates that a car company figures out a way to have cars which get 50 miles to the gallon? Isn't that a piss-poor argument against regulating emissions and corporations? Why shouldn't American automakers be forced to develop a vehicle which utilizes every drop of gas and increases productivity, instead of wasting it?

why should Americans be so concerned if we tell a corporation they can't dump their toxic waste into a nearby lake? Why should they care if we tell General Motors they need to figure out how to not burn dangerous compounds, which produces acid rain in neighboring states/ regions in the U.S., or else they'll face a fine? Seriously.

Because we've been lead to believe that we'd have to pay more money for those cars? Of course, if we paid normal folks any money, that wouldn't be an issue. Because we also live in a world that rewards CEO's and not workers? [huckabee]Because oil will never run out if we all pray hard enough?[/huckabee]

 

[Marx]

Because we've been lead to believe that we'd have to pay more money for those cars? Because we also live in a world that rewards CEO's and not workers? [huckabee]Because oil will never run out if we all pray hard enough?[/huckabee]

He actually said that? Wait, no...I'm not really that surprised. Nevermind.

 

[rdh007]

No. Sorry. I'm just extrapolating that from his disbelief in dinosaurs. Hey, who made the oil if it ain't old stuff that got squashed?

 

[Marx]

No. Sorry. I'm just extrapolating that from his disbelief in dinosaurs. Hey, who made the oil if it ain't old stuff that got squashed?

Gotcha! Huckabee really bothers me...but THAT'S an entirely different thread.

 

[The Senator]

Because we've been lead to believe that we'd have to pay more money for those cars? Of course, if we paid normal folks any money, that wouldn't be an issue. Because we also live in a world that rewards CEO's and not workers? [huckabee]Because oil will never run out if we all pray hard enough?[/huckabee]

If we're talking about price, let's look at some figures on three basic models:

Hybrid Cars by Base Price

Honda Civic Hybrid: $22,600
Saturn Aura Green Line: $22,140
Toyota Prius: $20,950

Those models are only a few thousand dollars more expensive than traditional sedans. They require less fuel and reduce the strain in the wallet at the gas pump. Meanwhile, a gas-guzzling pickup such as the Dodge Ram gets 13 miles per gallon city/ 19 miles per gallon highway, and it costs more to purchase and more to maintain. I don't see why the cost argument is any rationale for us to refrain from raising fuel standards or working towards increasing the availability of hybrid models. And while companies are working to ensure more hybrid models will be available (GM just made the Chevy Tahoe and GMC Yukon available as hybrids), the fuel economy still isn't where it could be. If we could sacrifice size, substitute heavy steel for lighter metals, and offer these models with long-lasting hybrid technology, we could get anywhere between 25 and 40 miles per gallon on vehicles as big as a Ram or a Hummer H3. I don't see why there isn't an incentive not to do so.

 

[rdh007]

It's the only rationale I can figure out. Then again, I couldn't figure out why people with no money voted for a guy who wanted to give tax breaks to the wealthiest among us.

What if someone developed a car that ran on water and recycled it back into the air and Detroit didn't manage to cover it up/stop it before it starts, etc? How much would everyone here pay?

 

[Zen]

If we're talking about price, let's look at some figures on three basic models:

Hybrid Cars by Base Price

Honda Civic Hybrid: $22,600
Saturn Aura Green Line: $22,140
Toyota Prius: $20,950

Those models are only a few thousand dollars more expensive than traditional sedans. They require less fuel and reduce the strain in the wallet at the gas pump. Meanwhile, a gas-guzzling pickup such as the Dodge Ram gets 13 miles per gallon city/ 19 miles per gallon highway, and it costs more to purchase and more to maintain. I don't see why the cost argument is any rationale for us to refrain from raising fuel standards or working towards increasing the availability of hybrid models. And while companies are working to ensure more hybrid models will be available (GM just made the Chevy Tahoe and GMC Yukon available as hybrids), the fuel economy still isn't where it could be. If we could sacrifice size, substitute heavy steel for lighter metals, and offer these models with long-lasting hybrid technology, we could get anywhere between 25 and 40 miles per gallon on vehicles as big as a Ram or a Hummer H3. I don't see why there isn't an incentive not to do so.

i think the money incentive is finally starting to roll down the mountain.

gas guzzling boats are a sign of affluence and everyone is desperately trying to hold on to them as long as possible, as if getting a hybrid is some acknowledgment of failure.

my own mother was rather depressed when she traded in her explorer for a more reasonable corolla. i tried to convince her the first time how bad of a choice the explorer was for her situation... when the second time rolled around she still refused to listen to me suggest that she get a hybrid... but now she really wishes she had with the way gas is going.

With southpark episodes bilkin the hybrid image and SUV's being the trend standard for the new millenia, people are trying hard not to let go...

but reality beats them down eventually.

Soon... the trend will finally be conservation, and gas mileage. When i look at peoples responses to seeing hummers on the street i used to think they were a bit jealous, but when it really comes down to it... i think people by in large are just disgusted with the waste and shameless display of affluence. thats a good thing.

 

[SuperFerret]

When the ocean levels stop rising,then i will belive it. Until then,it's people denying what's happening.

I asked this in the last Global Warming thread and got no answer; how fast are the oceans rising?

 

[Zen]

I asked this in the last Global Warming thread and got no answer; how fast are the oceans rising?

earliest article i could find on it...

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/melting-ice-rising-seas-easy-how-fast-hard/

if you google it theres alot of stuff, try to stay with things only a year old

 

[Raiden]

Most top scientists agree that this isn't going to result in a climactic doomsday scenario. This is a long, drawn out process which will take a good century to reach its peak. But the issue isn't solely that the earth is going to heat up and water levels are going to increase a few feet. As the temperature of the earth rises, the ice caps melt. As the ice caps melt, the life which was once sustained on those ice caps start to vanish. As that life starts to vanish, life which relied on that life starts to vanish as well. And as all these elements begin to disappear, vast ecosystems which relied on certain animal or plant species as a way to control the environment will be radically altered. Even though some evidence suggests the earth cooled off, the damage has already begun: Polar bears, penguins, fish and plant species across the world have started to die off in large numbers. Eventually, as the cycle of life and elements and all the scientific jargon repeats itself and extends northwards and southwards away from the poles, the human race will be impacted by it, whether the loss of a species affects us aesthetically, or if it affects us outright by diminishing a vital food supply, such as fish. A good percentage of the fish population which we eat, by the way, is expected to disappear by the mid 2050s, due to rising temperatures and polutants which have been dispersed in the oceans and lakes we get our fish from. Considering fish is one of those abundant sources of food, I find that quite scary.

But honestly... why should people care if the government mandates that a car company figures out a way to have cars which get 50 miles to the gallon? Isn't that a piss-poor argument against regulating emissions and corporations? Cars in Britain and France get between 30 and 40 miles per gallon. The Mini Cooper, which is widely available here, gets upwards of thirty-five miles per gallon. Why shouldn't American automakers be forced to develop a vehicle which utilizes every drop of gas and increases productivity, instead of wasting it?

And besides that... why should Americans be so concerned if we tell a corporation they can't dump their toxic waste into a nearby lake? Why should they care if we tell General Motors they need to figure out how to not burn dangerous compounds, which produces acid rain in neighboring states/ regions in the U.S., or else they'll face a fine? Seriously. Even if you want to look past global warming, localized issues such as river and lake pollution and acid rain represent a huge environmental problem we should take seriously. There's hardcore evidence there which suggests that these phenomenons kill wildlife and food supplies more directly than global warming does. Yet companies shouldn't be fined for it because it may piss of the American people? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

We have an agency called the EPA which already deals with these issues. It's large and rather extensive. It's not a cabinet position, but it should be merged with the Interior department to investigate and regulate how we approach the environment. And seriously, it's long overdue. We have a responsibility to leave this planet to our children in as good as shape as we inherited it.

Probably one of the best post I've ever read at Hype.

 

[Zen]

The issue here is that politicians and lobbyists who want to regulate energy industries and lifestyles of Americans are dependent on depicting a doomday climatic scenario to the American public. While its true that the earth has been warming up for several years , many of these models produced by these government-funded scientists have been debunked and exaggerated, been piss poor at forecasting future events. The question isn't whether man is interacting with the environment, that is a given. it's whether man's impact on the environment is SOOO significant that it warrants huge bureacratic and centralized regulation on our way of life. When so many variables are unknown and undetermined about climate fluctuation, the burden on proof is on the regulators to show why policy X needs to be implemented, that our YYY use of these resources is solely responsible for creating Z in our environment, and nothing else. Americans have a right to be cynical of these models that are being used to create doomsday scenarios. It's not a coincidence we've gone from propaganda "global cooling" to 70s to "global warming in 90s" to "climate change" now....we don't know the truth, we can't predict...we have some theories, but they're not ironclad enough and we shouldn't put the cart before the horse.

[snipped from the huckabee thread]

Poor choice of words let me wake the dragon here...

*yawn, stretch...whathaveyou*

there was a backlash of scientists who railed against people comparing the global cooling theory of the 70's to the global warming theory of the 70's 80's 90's and the new millenia

by citing how many scientists, how many papers published... ratio of scientists who were proponents vs ratio of scientists against the idea...

not that GLOBAL COOLING itself was the debate... but weather or not it was even a fricken issue among the scientific community of the time... that is the *hotly* contested debate im talking about. sorry for the misunderstanding

^^re-read that little bit at the bottom of the graphic

There was no scientific consensus on global cooling in the 70s. Nor was there even a consensus reported in the popular press. The majority of papers published during that time dealt with global warming.

heres a couple sources for ya...

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/



im not debating whether or not global warming is happening the way scientists say it is, i am personally still doing alot more research, AS SHOULD EVERYONE before i feel confident enough to try to drive this crap down your throat... im just not there yet, and i've read it all... Climate is an incredibly complex system of systems... but so far i see NOTHING that says Global Warming is categorically *not* happening.

i need a little more proof to say doomsday is coming, but i don't need much more...

also a fluctuation in one year is to be expected, there are no clear trendlines in climate from year to year... only across several, so having a blizzard or a cold year is not a good way to start an argument. Showing a cooling trend over a few years, or multiple successions of blizzards is a good way to start. this is what scientists are doing with global warming...

you gotta fight fire with fire... not with a cold year.

[/snipped from the Huckabee thread...]

the global cooling line is invalid.

 

[Genesis 1.0]

Bypassing the rhteoric and jabs, what does this really and truly mean for the planet? According to the world's leading minds on the subject, this one year completely wipes out a century of warming, so what does that in fact mean for the ecosystems already affected by warming, as pointed out by J Man? And if this trend does indeed continue as they expect it to, what will that entail in turn?

And why hasn't this been given any coverage at all?

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Bypassing the rhteoric and jabs, what does this really and truly mean for the planet? According to the world's leading minds on the subject, this one year completely wipes out a century of warming, so what does that in fact mean for the ecosystems already affected by warming, as pointed out by J Man? And if this trend does indeed continue as they expect it to, what will that entail in turn?

And why hasn't this been given any coverage at all?

uh...no it doesn't....

I looked over the article references. Looks like dailytech exaggerated something.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.co...es-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/

The website DailyTech has an article citing this blog entry as a reference, and their story got picked up by the Drudge report, resulting in a wide distribution. In the DailyTech article there is a paragraph:

“Anthony Watts compiled the results of all the sources. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it’s the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.”

I wish to state for the record, that this statement is not mine: “–a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years”

There has been no “erasure”. This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, it is large, it is unexpected, but it does not “erase” anything. I suggested a correction to DailyTech and they have graciously complied.

maybe that's why?

 

[Kelly]

I spend an enormous amount of time on the subject of Global Warming in my classes.......because as an educator I think it is an extremely important debate in the 21st Century.

And though I do believe that alot of what Al Gore put out in "An Inconvenient Truth", was over blown, and though I do believe that it was his exploratory look at running for president again.....hence the amount of personal mumbo jumbo in it......(edited out in my class....lol) the topic of Global Warming is one that is and SHOULD BE in the forefront, and alot the reason it is in the forefront now is because of Al Gore, so for that I thank him........it is a debate that is needed. As for Rush, who the **** cares what the guy has to say about much of anything, ESPECIALLY Global Warming.......

 

[Paradoxium]

I hear the pollutants created by the nickel for hybrid cars is enormous, going as far as not only nullifying environmental "savings" of a hybrid car - rather doing MORE damage. Second, the entirety of processing ethanol ends up being more environmentally damaging than normal fuel. My rub with a lot of the environmentalists is a lot of their solutions cost ton of [tax] money, have a high dose of ambiguity (especially when the calculus show MORE damage), and offer little substantive results. Its easier to point out problems, than it is to SOLVE problems in a substantive way.

As I pointed out the whole carbon credit thing is stupid, its akin to buying fat credits for cheating on a exercise and diet plan. You are still polluting (ala Al Gore and Live Earth). Why not use that kind of money on R&D, improving current infrastructures, filters and energy efficiency? More businesses would buy into the idea of saving money on being energy efficient than say placating to tree huggers' "carbon credit".

I still don't think man-made global warming has the type of impact people paint it out to be compared to the sun. The solar icecaps are melting on mars - the sun must be doing something. But hey like I said, even if my two cents don't jive with the "majority" I still practice being energy efficient, cause I am frugal (not cheap big difference!).

 

[The Senator]

I do not endorse the use of ethanol in the least bit. Secondly, there is very little nickel in the batteries used by hybrid cars. Hybrid cars tend to use lithium-ion batteries, which do represent an environmental danger if they are not recycled. These batteries can be recycled, and I believe there is a pretty big tax incentive to do so. Furthermore, a new type of environmentally-friendly battery-- a lithium-phosphate battery-- is in the prototype phase and would be more beneficial to the environment if it was improperly disposed of.

As for your other complaints... I would argue that one of the best ways to improve infrastructure is to find clean, energy-efficient ways to do so. The construction equipment used to repair roads and bridges produces a significant amount of carbon monoxide and nitrogen sulfate into the air and surrounding environment.

 

[That'ssuper!]

The thing I have with this is that humans have not been 100% proven to be the direct cause to global warming. A few new carbon particles does make an impact, but there is also the possibility that we could be shifiting into a changed orbit at the same time. Afterall, this is what causes natural cycles of ice ages. How don't we know that this is what is just happening? We've only been measuring temperature for 200 years for goodness sake!

 

[Addendum]

Back in my younger days, I was in scouting. On the first camping trip I went on, I asked one of the older scouts why everyone in the troop was walking the campsite to clean up after we loaded up everything we brought. He told me "because we're leaving it better than we found it".

Even if mankind isn't directly responsible for "global warming", what is the harm if our species has the mindset of "leave it better than we found it"?

 

[Marx]

Back in my younger days, I was in scouting. On the first camping trip I went on, I asked one of the older scouts why everyone in the troop was walking the campsite to clean up after we loaded up everything we brought. He told me "because we're leaving it better than we found it".

Even if mankind isn't directly responsible for "global warming", what is the harm if our species has the mindset of "leave it better than we found it"?

Because that still would imply some kind of actual work to be done on the part of mankind. We all know how people don't like to do things unless it's necessary.