Marco Rubio Can't Name One Source for Idiotic GOP Climate Claim

[CrusaderFrank]

The AGWCult was caught red-handed -- again, cooking the books

It's time some of these fuckers went to prison alongside Bernie Madoff

k

The scandal of fiddled global warming data - Telegraph

Did you miss this?

 

[Freewill]

I challenge everyone on this thread to state, without doing a google search, where they get their information that formed their opinion on GW, CC, Climate disruption or whatever the term of the day.

I try and use the NOAA site if I can find the information, but it appears maybe they cooked the books, don't really know. What I found on their site is that the global air-sea temperatures have not really increased in the last 14 years which is not a little bit of time.

 

[blastoff]

When ALGORE stops leaving a carbon footprint the size of Montana- When so called "Scientists" stop manipulating and making up data, when the normal climatic changes turn in to something extreme- THEN and only then will I buy in to this hatched scheme that does nothing but transfer wealth and emboldens a One world all powerful regulation system.. It's the ultimate Socialist snake oil.

Snake oil causes GW? Now I have heard everything. You just started a new cult.

It's an analogy.. Snake oil was sold as a cure all when it was nothing but water basically.

True, but that was then and this is now. The lefty idiots have ratcheted it up, so we must unit and send out the call for legislation to ban assault snake oil before it's too late!

 

[GHook93]

Marco Rubio Can't Name One Source for Idiotic GOP Climate Claim

Most GOP anti-Science folks know where to find the bogus non-peer-reviewed science--how come Rubio is so clueless??

As you may have read here or elsewhere in the past few days, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, one of the Republicans testing the waters for a presidential run in 2016, has made clear he's a climate change denier.

But on Tuesday during a brief exchange at the National Press Club, a member of the audience asked through a moderator “what information, reports, studies or otherwise are you relying on to inform and reach your conclusion that human activity is not to blame for climate change?” He couldn't name a single source. So, he dodged the question and denied that he is a denier with a hokey mixture of truisms, truths, half-truths and BS.

Totally unnecessary. He could simply have referred to the peer-reviewed research of ExxonMobil, Ph.D., and Dr. David Koch and Dr. Charles Koch, climatologists.

Daily Communist, that is your source? You can guarantee that is was taken out of context! They have as much creditability as an Arab dictator!

 

[ClosedCaption]

The AGWCult was caught red-handed -- again, cooking the books

It's time some of these fuckers went to prison alongside Bernie Madoff

k

The scandal of fiddled global warming data - Telegraph

Did you miss this?

I missed the part where it says its not real and is not happening. Do you have that part? Or are you like Rubio and have to get back to us on that?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The AGWCult was caught red-handed -- again, cooking the books

It's time some of these fuckers went to prison alongside Bernie Madoff

k

The scandal of fiddled global warming data - Telegraph

Did you miss this?

These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.

Current NASA records actually show 1934 as the warmest year in U.S. history. I fail to see the scandal.

The assertion by Steve Goddard that the data is "fabricated" isn't actually supported by actual evidence. Though Goddard ought to know a thing or two about fabricating reality - that's not his real name and he's about as sloppy as they fucking get: New Lows: Sea Ice and ?Steven Goddard? credibility | Climate Denial Crock of the Week

He's a total hack and I don't really care for hacks. If you do that's fine.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I challenge everyone on this thread to state, without doing a google search, where they get their information that formed their opinion on GW, CC, Climate disruption or whatever the term of the day.

I try and use the NOAA site if I can find the information, but it appears maybe they cooked the books, don't really know.

There isn't any actual evidence any books were cooked. Its an unsupported conspiracy theory.

What I found on their site is that the global air-sea temperatures have not really increased in the last 14 years which is not a little bit of time.

If you take annual averages, you're right. That doesn't really make much sense from a statistcial point of view, as changes in climate vary on longer timescales.

It is interesting to me that the denialists want to blame the Sun - whose cycle is 11 years long - and then proceed to declare GW over based on 1 year averaged data! That's a bit inconsistent. Going by decades - 2000-2009 was the warmest on record.


Using the annual average, GW has paused for twice as long as that before.

 

[Freewill]

I challenge everyone on this thread to state, without doing a google search, where they get their information that formed their opinion on GW, CC, Climate disruption or whatever the term of the day.

I try and use the NOAA site if I can find the information, but it appears maybe they cooked the books, don't really know.

There isn't any actual evidence any books were cooked. Its an unsupported conspiracy theory.

What I found on their site is that the global air-sea temperatures have not really increased in the last 14 years which is not a little bit of time.

BTW, what happened to the famous hockey stick? Is it still up Mann's butt where it was shoved some time ago?
If you take annual averages, you're right. That doesn't really make much sense from a statistcial point of view, as changes in climate vary on longer timescales.

It is interesting to me that the denialists want to blame the Sun - whose cycle is 11 years long - and then proceed to declare GW over based on 1 year averaged data! That's a bit inconsistent. Going by decades - 2000-2009 was the warmest on record.


Using the annual average, GW has paused for twice as long as that before.

I noticed you didn't answer for yourself, just attacked.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I challenge everyone on this thread to state, without doing a google search, where they get their information that formed their opinion on GW, CC, Climate disruption or whatever the term of the day.

I try and use the NOAA site if I can find the information, but it appears maybe they cooked the books, don't really know.

There isn't any actual evidence any books were cooked. Its an unsupported conspiracy theory.

What I found on their site is that the global air-sea temperatures have not really increased in the last 14 years which is not a little bit of time.

If you take annual averages, you're right. That doesn't really make much sense from a statistcial point of view, as changes in climate vary on longer timescales.

It is interesting to me that the denialists want to blame the Sun - whose cycle is 11 years long - and then proceed to declare GW over based on 1 year averaged data! That's a bit inconsistent. Going by decades - 2000-2009 was the warmest on record.


Using the annual average, GW has paused for twice as long as that before.

I noticed you didn't answer for yourself, just attacked.

If I want just plain AGW info I go to google scholar. If I'm trying to counter a particular denialist argument, I will usually go to the blogs and follow the citations from there.

 

[rdean]

Let us see that the racist far left OP believes a far left blog site as fact.

AGW is a religion (truly an anti science community) and I do not know of any real scientist that doubts that the climate changes.

I'm curious. How do right wing non scientists decide what is or isn't "science"?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Let us see that the racist far left OP believes a far left blog site as fact.

AGW is a religion (truly an anti science community) and I do not know of any real scientist that doubts that the climate changes.

I'm curious. How do right wing non scientists decide what is or isn't "science"?

Good question that I'm afraid has no answer

"Do the Rubioooo
Do the Rubioooo
If you dont know the answer
Do the Rubioooo
Just wag your pointer finger like to and froooo
When you dont know the answer
Do the Rubiooooo"

 

[Ernie S.]

He needed to provide a source that didn't go along with the cooked temperature numbers of the warmer cult? It's up to them to prove, it isn't up to everyone else to disprove. THAT is what's stupid. Disagreement with the left isn't hate, stupidity, intolerance or uninformed. Sorry.

The Teaparty always picks their leaders with an eye toward demographics. Rubio is one of those, they thought he would bring in Hispanic votes but that didn't and won't happen. He doesn't speak for anyone except maybe the Moron vote.

I happen to know Marco Rubio. He is a brilliant, very likable guy. The fact that he couldn't off the cuff, cite one study contradicting AGWism in unsurprising. There is so much out there.

Even Freeman Dyson, though a believer in AGW has some serious problems with the "Science" and ethics employed by IPCC.

 

[Stephanie]

they think they are so cute because they lay out these "gotachas" questions and expect someone to rattle them off the top of their head

it's what they did to Palin, and it's their signature game..then they come back and call someone stupid

what did they do when Obama couldn't PROUNCE a name of his military he is CIC of and READ it as CORPSEMAN IN FRONT of the WHOLE COUNTRY in a speech he gave?

he was tired, stressed, blah blah blah excuses

 

[Sarah G]

He needed to provide a source that didn't go along with the cooked temperature numbers of the warmer cult? It's up to them to prove, it isn't up to everyone else to disprove. THAT is what's stupid. Disagreement with the left isn't hate, stupidity, intolerance or uninformed. Sorry.

The Teaparty always picks their leaders with an eye toward demographics. Rubio is one of those, they thought he would bring in Hispanic votes but that didn't and won't happen. He doesn't speak for anyone except maybe the Moron vote.

I happen to know Marco Rubio. He is a brilliant, very likable guy. The fact that he couldn't off the cuff, cite one study contradicting AGWism in unsurprising. There is so much out there.

Even Freeman Dyson, though a believer in AGW has some serious problems with the "Science" and ethics employed by IPCC.

Sorry, Ernie, he isn't brilliant, far from it. It isn't one isolated case, he's spoonfed just about everything he has to say. He's a panderer too.

 

[Iceweasel]

Sorry, Ernie, he isn't brilliant, far from it. It isn't one isolated case, he's spoonfed just about everything he has to say. He's a panderer too.

Sounds like you are confusing Obama with Rubio. When has Obama ever been asked to cite a specific source for anything anyway? Funny how that works. Bush was asked what he thought his worst failure was, no bias there. The bottom line is that the left defines intelligence as agreement with them.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

k

The scandal of fiddled global warming data - Telegraph

Did you miss this?

These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.

Current NASA records actually show 1934 as the warmest year in U.S. history. I fail to see the scandal.

The assertion by Steve Goddard that the data is "fabricated" isn't actually supported by actual evidence. Though Goddard ought to know a thing or two about fabricating reality - that's not his real name and he's about as sloppy as they fucking get: New Lows: Sea Ice and ?Steven Goddard? credibility | Climate Denial Crock of the Week

He's a total hack and I don't really care for hacks. If you do that's fine.

True hackery is substituting computer model expectations for real observation

I guess the observations are Deniers!!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

what did they do when Obama couldn't PROUNCE

I have no idea what "prounce" means. It probably means your a fucking idiot with a computer.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

He needed to provide a source that didn't go along with the cooked temperature numbers of the warmer cult? It's up to them to prove, it isn't up to everyone else to disprove. THAT is what's stupid. Disagreement with the left isn't hate, stupidity, intolerance or uninformed. Sorry.

The Teaparty always picks their leaders with an eye toward demographics. Rubio is one of those, they thought he would bring in Hispanic votes but that didn't and won't happen. He doesn't speak for anyone except maybe the Moron vote.

I happen to know Marco Rubio. He is a brilliant, very likable guy. The fact that he couldn't off the cuff, cite one study contradicting AGWism in unsurprising. There is so much out there.

Even Freeman Dyson, though a believer in AGW has some serious problems with the "Science" and ethics employed by IPCC.

There's not really much out there. There's only about half a dozen or so qualified scientists who deny AGW. He should know one of their names by name if he has done any reading at all on the subject.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

True hackery is substituting computer model expectations for real observation

Right. Except no one did that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I challenge everyone on this thread to state, without doing a google search, where they get their information that formed their opinion on GW, CC, Climate disruption or whatever the term of the day.

I try and use the NOAA site if I can find the information, but it appears maybe they cooked the books, don't really know.

There isn't any actual evidence any books were cooked. Its an unsupported conspiracy theory.

What I found on their site is that the global air-sea temperatures have not really increased in the last 14 years which is not a little bit of time.

If you take annual averages, you're right. That doesn't really make much sense from a statistcial point of view, as changes in climate vary on longer timescales.

It is interesting to me that the denialists want to blame the Sun - whose cycle is 11 years long - and then proceed to declare GW over based on 1 year averaged data! That's a bit inconsistent. Going by decades - 2000-2009 was the warmest on record.


Using the annual average, GW has paused for twice as long as that before.

That can only mean that the Chart is a DENIER!!!!!