Saturday, December 29, 2007

Thanks for clearing that up.

KKKate, in yet another too precious “Settled Science” post, links to a blog debunking yet another blog’s debunking of the so-called report released by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee which shrieks “Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007”!!!1!!1!

Still with me? Good.

KKKate, and by extension, the “Editors” at the Climate Resistance blog (puh-leeeze ... was Justice League already taken?) are humping the fact that the Senate EPW report, in their narrow little minds, has completely gutted the veracity of the IPCC report on global warming with breathless claims including:

The following scientists named in this report have expressed a range of views from skepticism to outright rejection of predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. As in all science, there is no lock step single view.

Well, that convinces me. I don’t know what I was thinking buying all those weird light bulbs, taking the bus to work instead of driving, and installing a brand new, high-efficiency gas furnace. My face is red. Not.

Because you see there’s one minor issue with this definitive Senate report – it was written by the Republican minority side of the EPW headed by none other than Sen. Inhofe (R-Fucktard/Exxon), global warming denier extraordinaire. And the 400 skeptical scientists? Well, Climate Progress takes care of that claim rather nicely.

“Padded” would be an extremely generous description of this list of “prominent scientists.” Some would use the word “laughable” (though not the N.Y. Times‘ Andy Revkin, see below). For instance, since when have economists, who are pervasive on this list, become scientists, and why should we care what they think about climate science?

I’m not certain a dozen on the list would qualify as “prominent scientists,” and many of those, like Freeman Dyson — a theoretical physicist — have no expertise in climate science whatsoever. I have previously debunked his spurious and uninformed claims, although I’m not sure why one has to debunk someone who seriously pushed the idea of creating a rocket ship powered by detonating nuclear bombs! Seriously.

I realize that KKKate will now attempt to debunk the debunking of her debunking but it’s really hard to take someone seriously when their rebuttal consists of sticking their fingers in their ears and saying “La, la, la, la, la ... I can’t heeearrrr yooouuuu!”

And furthermore. With Poppa Junker "Paul" on your side, there’s no end to the fun.

Double ewwww. Tootsie? Seriously? I bet you say that to all the girls, gramps.


Unknown said...

You've nailed it, tootsie. Obviously, Climate Progress can be taken as gospel over Climate Resistance because, like, they have the word "progress" in their name, okay?

It's good to see that you are capable of "humping the fact(s)" for your side, too.

Ti-Guy said...

Fergus, did you actually read the post at Climate Progess and understand the rationale rejecting this claim that there is no concensus?

As I've said before, and have repeated millions of fucking times already, most of the "scientists" challenging AGW argue their cases so damn badly that their credibility is highly suspect...are they loopy, skeptics without a cause, attention-seekers riven with academic jealousy, or simply paid shills?

Your dumb remarks aren't helping at all, by the way. Tell me, do you guys just like annoying people, or are most of you simply worried that your petroleum industry jobs are imperiled?

Please answer that because I'd really really really like to know what this fucking relentless trolling by idiots who don't seem to understand science (or English, for that matter) is all about.

Finally, fun fact: Rob Anders worked for Inhofe. Do these people catch crazy/evil from each other? Is it something being passed around among Evangelicals?

Ti-Guy said...

I see I'm not going to get an answer. usual.

Joe said...

OK, maybe Freeman Dyson isn't qualified to comment on global warming. But where does Joseph Romm get off commenting on theoretical spaceship propulsion? Nuclear pulse propulsion is still a sound principle for an interstellar spaceship drive, and the only one that could be built with existing technology.

However much I agree with his conclusion, it undermines Romm's argument to debunk this list of 400 for their lack of relevant expertise, and then shoot off his mouth about things he knows nothing about. That's the pot calling the kettle black.

E in MD said...

OMG almost 400 plumbers and architects, economists, political scientists and dentists from third world countries don't agree with global warming! Man, Exxon must writing those $10,000 checks on a printing press now.

Global warming MUST be a fraud!

Unknown said...

Ti-guy, I did read the link (I always do). And, once again at the risk of the planet spinning off its axis, I agree with your assessment of the arguments of most of the global-warming opponents; they are routinely deplorable.

My "dumb remarks" are just in the spirit of snark here at Snark Central: I found it humourous that Lulu spent time mocking SDA for relying on a lame source and then her supposed knock-out punch relied on an equally lame source. I'm sure you'll agree that neither of the sources named are peer-reviewed journals.

"Tell me, do you guys just like annoying people, or are most of you simply worried that your petroleum industry jobs are imperiled?"

I don't speak for anyone but me. If it annoys Lulu that I have a laugh at her expense, she is taking it all too seriously: this is blogging, not rocket science, not even climate science.

I like the anonymity of this forum so I will not discuss any personal information other than to say that I have no stake in the petroleum industry and that my background affords me a very good understanding of science and the scientific method itself: you can put me in the "idiots who don't seem to understand science" category if you wish, but you would be wrong.

As I've said here before, I come here for the laughs, both with and at the writers of this blog. They can be counted on to provide plenty of both.

Oh, before I forget: I started to write this up much earlier today but a computer glitch got in the way. Sorry for the delay