Comments: Horrors! Media Matters Freaks Over Email From Fox News Executive That Calls For Accuracy in Reporting on Climate Change

I am shocked that Media Spatters would splatter yer more Soros scat

Posted by DavidL at December 15, 2010 01:36 PM

There is climatology, the study of climate, and there is "climate science," close kin to phrenology.

"Climate science" raises the alarm about melting ice in Greenland, climatology notes the phenomenon and that farms and villages are emerging from the ice.

"Climate scoence" warns about acidification of the seas as they absorb more CO2 via warming, climatologists open a cold beer and note the escaping CO2 as it warms up.

On and on...

Posted by John A at December 15, 2010 05:04 PM

Facts are very inconvenient when they conflict with a political agenda.

Posted by David at December 15, 2010 05:29 PM

The next time some lefty starts spouting off about "global warming" point them to their favorite source, Wikipedia.

In a few seconds, even the dumbest ideologue can type in something like "last ice age" or "Laurentide" glaciers to see that the "settled" science is that we are in the midst of an interglacial period and that it is more likely, than not, that we will have plenty of cold in earth's future. Just about 15,000 years ago the midwest - think Chicago - was sitting under several thousand feet of ice and humans used the land bridge along the Bearing to trek eastward as that ice age wound down.

Posted by chris at December 15, 2010 09:18 PM

Chris, the problem of climate change isn't made irrelevant by pointing out that there will be another ice age in a couple thousand years' time. Most climate scientists (y'know, even the ones on evil Soros's payroll) believe that there will be, and many more after that.
But in the meantime, people actually have to live on this planet. It's cold comfort for future generations of Floridians (or the billions of others living close to ocean coastlines) to know that an ice age is coming a couple thousand years down the road, if a good chunk of their state is underwater 50 or 100 years from now.

Posted by Andre at December 15, 2010 10:59 PM

Yes, true Andre, but the problem with AGW is that:

The raw data have been manipulated to show warming.

The statistical techniques used to analyze the data are bogus.

The satellite data for earth's radiation budget do not demonstrate the proper response if AGW were true.

Proxy data have been fabricated and manipulated to create false historical temperature curves for modeling.

Since CO2 is a poor greenhouse gas, with 1/10000 the impact of water vapor the assumption is that CO2 forces more water vapor into the air, a questionable assumption.

I could go on, but the problems are so bad I long ago threw out the AGW theory as valid.

Posted by Donutwarrior at December 16, 2010 08:59 AM