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

[CrusaderFrank]

True hackery is substituting computer model expectations for real observation

Right. Except no one did that.

Did you happen to notice the chart you posted? You know, the one that shows no Global Warming, manmade or otherwise since the 1930s

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

That's why we can't reason with the left, only make fun of them. Make wild ass claims then demand evidence to the contrary. and you better have "credible" names. And credible means agreeing with the left.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Have you ever spent an hour talking to him one on one? I have. This was before he was elected to the Senate. He walked over to me at Versailles in Miami and complimented my motorcycle. We got to talking and I bought us a colada to share. There were some McCain posters about the place and talk turned to politics; just our general views, a lot about Cuba, etc. We muct have chatted 45 minutes before he introduced himself. I kind of recognized his name and must have had a dumb look on my face when he said "Yeah. I get that a lot. I'm the Speaker of the Florida House.

So yeah. I know the man. He's no dummy and no more a panderer than any politician, certainly far less one than bareback Bahama.

(Since I have been typing this President's name on internet message boards, spell check has been indicating a misspelling. Until now I have let it slide, but today, I decided to select one of the options given in the drop down. Above bolded is what I came up with.)

 

[edthecynic]

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?

The deniers have always claimed that the data was "fiddled" with, they just left out that it is the deniers doing the fiddling!!!

All the deniers fiddling clames began when they compared all the other ground and satellite data to denier Dr Roy Spencer's data. For more than a decade Spencer's cooked data was declared as the only accurate data by deniers and all the accurate data from every other source was declared fudged because it didn't match Spencer's. Spencer and his partner in crime eventually got caught cooking the data, they used the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift, one of the most rudimentary calculations in satellite data collections so it could not have been an honest mistake for these satellite data "experts," and after the correct sign was used Spencer's data matched exactly the ground and satellite data the deniers had been claiming was cooked.

Did this stop the deniers from claiming the data good data was cooked? Hell no!
Did the deniers condemn Spencer for fudging, er....er.... fiddling with the data? Hell no!
Spencer is still considered an expert by deniers, he is Limbaugh's official climate scientist on whose opinion he bases his claim that global warming is a hoax, and all the scientists whose data was proven correct are still called "fiddlers" even though the "fiddled" data now matched Spencer's data, which clearly shows global warming, almost exactly.

 

[Sarah G]

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.

Nobody gets as detailed as Obama especially in an impromptu meeting of any kind. He takes questions, he researchs the material and can discuss on any given day. He's smart.

You're just not listening to anyone but Rush, Palin, Rubio, etc..

 

[Sarah G]

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.

Have you ever spent an hour talking to him one on one? I have. This was before he was elected to the Senate. He walked over to me at Versailles in Miami and complimented my motorcycle. We got to talking and I bought us a colada to share. There were some McCain posters about the place and talk turned to politics; just our general views, a lot about Cuba, etc. We muct have chatted 45 minutes before he introduced himself. I kind of recognized his name and must have had a dumb look on my face when he said "Yeah. I get that a lot. I'm the Speaker of the Florida House.

So yeah. I know the man. He's no dummy and no more a panderer than any politician, certainly far less one than bareback Bahama.

(Since I have been typing this President's name on internet message boards, spell check has been indicating a misspelling. Until now I have let it slide, but today, I decided to select one of the options given in the drop down. Above bolded is what I came up with.)

I would need proof of that. Let's stick to the experiences we've already had with him. Loved his response to the sotu, btw. What a clown.

Your disrespect for this president is really a reflection on you and not him, btw.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

True hackery is substituting computer model expectations for real observation

Right. Except no one did that.

Did you happen to notice the chart you posted? You know, the one that shows no Global Warming, manmade or otherwise since the 1930s

You mean the one that only goes up to 1972?

LOL!!! What a fucking moron.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

There's a radio talk show host named Todd Schnitt that has a list of links to 6 or 700 articles about shoddy science, fabricated data and massaged computer models. I used to refer to it often, but it appears that those pages are restricted to "premium members" these days.

There are thousands of articles written by respected men of science that should indicate to anyone who hasn't shoved his head up his ass that the science is far from settled.
Then there's the question of just what is the ideal temperature of the planet. Who the hell are we to pick an arbitrary date and say global temperature has risen 0.6 degrees C from this point. Why not pick another point and claim global temperature has gone down 1.3 degrees?

 

[edthecynic]

True hackery is substituting computer model expectations for real observation

Right. Except no one did that.

Did you happen to notice the chart you posted? You know, the one that shows no Global Warming, manmade or otherwise since the 1930s

You do know that the chart you cite only went up to the 1970s, don't you?

What the chart was used to show is that there is no cooling any more, just flat periods between warming cycles. Something has eliminated the natural cooling cycles when the sun and other causes used to coincide to create a cooling cycle between warming cycles. There has been no cooling cycle, like the one from 1880 to 1910, for the past 100 years. We now have a warming cycle followed by a flat cycle which in turn is followed by a new warming cycle that picks up from about the same temperature where the last warming cycle left off. We are now in another flat cycle, like the one from the 1930s to the 1970s only flatter, that will most likely will be followed by another warming cycle that will pick up where the last warming cycle left off.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

That's why we can't reason with the left, only make fun of them. Make wild ass claims then demand evidence to the contrary. and you better have "credible" names. And credible means agreeing with the left.

In this context, credible really just means peer reviewed, published scientific literature. Considering there's so very little of it for the denailists to use, you should all be very familiar with the few studies that fall into that category.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Right. Except no one did that.

Did you happen to notice the chart you posted? You know, the one that shows no Global Warming, manmade or otherwise since the 1930s

You mean the one that only goes up to 1972?

LOL!!! What a fucking moron.

So your Theory is that it's the CO2 created after 1972 that responsible for the "Warming"?

Do you even know what the Theory is?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

That's why we can't reason with the left, only make fun of them. Make wild ass claims then demand evidence to the contrary. and you better have "credible" names. And credible means agreeing with the left.

In this context, credible really just means peer reviewed, published scientific literature. Considering there's so very little of it for the denailists to use, you should all be very familiar with the few studies that fall into that category.

^ Mating call of the Climactic Jihadist

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

There's a radio talk show host named Todd Schnitt that has a list of links to 6 or 700 articles about shoddy science, fabricated data and massaged computer models. I used to refer to it often, but it appears that those pages are restricted to "premium members" these days.

k

There are thousands of articles written by respected men of science that should indicate to anyone who hasn't shoved his head up his ass that the science is far from settled.

That may be true, but almost all of these articles are not subject to peer review, and most of them are written by the same half a dozen or so people.

Then there's the question of just what is the ideal temperature of the planet.
Who the hell are we to pick an arbitrary date and say global temperature has risen 0.6 degrees C from this point. Why not pick another point and claim global temperature has gone down 1.3 degrees?

I agree! Why not? Go ahead an tell us the last time global temperatures were 1.3 degrees Centigrade higher than they are now. I'd love to know!

 

[ClosedCaption]

Right. Except no one did that.

Did you happen to notice the chart you posted? You know, the one that shows no Global Warming, manmade or otherwise since the 1930s

You mean the one that only goes up to 1972?

LOL!!! What a fucking moron.

lmao

 

[Rambunctious]

I can name a source it's called common sense! I refuse to believe that the compound that I exhale and plants feed on is harmful to the earth and nothing else in nature rivals that dangerous compound. Not even the sun or volcano's or oceans and wind currents. I'm sorry you either have to be profiting from this hoax in some way or you're just a gullible fool to believe this is 1. even happening 2. is a crises 3. can be fixed by government dictate.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

That's why we can't reason with the left, only make fun of them. Make wild ass claims then demand evidence to the contrary. and you better have "credible" names. And credible means agreeing with the left.

In this context, credible really just means peer reviewed, published scientific literature. Considering there's so very little of it for the denailists to use, you should all be very familiar with the few studies that fall into that category.

^ Mating call of the Climactic Jihadist

Other than the fact scientists are coming to conclusions you don't like, why do you oppose peer review?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Did you happen to notice the chart you posted? You know, the one that shows no Global Warming, manmade or otherwise since the 1930s

You mean the one that only goes up to 1972?

LOL!!! What a fucking moron.

lmao

What's funny?

Your chart is a Denier?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In this context, credible really just means peer reviewed, published scientific literature. Considering there's so very little of it for the denailists to use, you should all be very familiar with the few studies that fall into that category.

^ Mating call of the Climactic Jihadist

Other than the fact scientists are coming to conclusions you don't like, why do you oppose peer review?

I oppose scientific fraud.

So tell me why AGW wasn't working from 1930-1972, your theory, the one you're ignorant of, states the opposite

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I can name a source it's called common sense!

It turns out much of what common sense tells us is just plain wrong.
The purpose of science is to get us past common sense.

I refuse to believe that the compound that I exhale and plants feed on is harmful to the earth and nothing else in nature rivals that dangerous compound.

It doesn't really matter what you believe.

Not even the sun or volcano's or oceans and wind currents.

You should speak in complete sentences if you want others to understand the thoughts you are trying to convey.

I'm sorry you either have to be profiting from this hoax in some way or you're just a gullible fool to believe this is 1. even happening 2. is a crises 3. can be fixed by government dictate.

I can tell you've done absolutely no research at all on the subject, and instead are relying what you just feel must be right.

 

[edthecynic]

Did you happen to notice the chart you posted? You know, the one that shows no Global Warming, manmade or otherwise since the 1930s

You mean the one that only goes up to 1972?

LOL!!! What a fucking moron.

So your Theory is that it's the CO2 created after 1972 that responsible for the "Warming"?

Do you even know what the Theory is?

No, CO2 offset the normal cooling cycle from the 1930s to 1970s. The warming that followed the 1970s is a result of the normal warming cycle accelerated by CO2.

The theory is that CO2 is modulating the normal warming and cooling cycles into a warming cycle followed by a flat cycle instead of a cooling cycle. There are still cycles from all the other things that effect global temperature but they are not strong enough to offset the warming effect of CO2 to cause a cooling cycle. So now you get accelerated warming during the natural warming cycles and flat cycles during the natural cooling cycles.

Get it???