Piece by piece refutation, including my pdf.
If it seems like "cherry picking" its because this is an orchard of cherries. He could not have looked at the reality of the data
You are obviously no kind of scientist since you can't even be bothered to find a peer-reviewed article to back your claims.
The only "study" you cited was from the CSCCC's Indur Glokany. The CSCCC's primary funding source is the Heartland Institute which is a cash funnel for Exxon-Mobil propaganda.
Which oil company sponsors your blog?
Where -- exactly -- in your link does it show peer-reviewed studies that refute anything the author has stated?
Dear Joe, I can not for the life of me understand why you are in such denial. What is in it for you?
I've been watching the Republican Party plug their ears and hum in the face of overwhelming data, and making themselves increasingly irrelevant to the real world while they do so. I think the top levels of party leadership must be catching on to this; I predict that Bob Ryan's excellent, insightful, and thoughtful article is at the leading edge of a flood of similar articles by conservatives who are aiming to get re-linked to reality. Bravo! We need everyone on board for this, it's the fight of our lives...and our childrens' and grandchildrens' lives, even more so!
As(I like to call those of us, who are) a 'real republican,' not some arrogant fool, posing as one, I thank Paul Douglas for his ability to accept reality over dogma. I think there are, still, many of us who have been willing to rethink some of the popular notions, such as, " God gave us this planet to use, as we see fit, so He will provide another when we have destroyed this one." I don't think so! I have seen the changes, in my lifetime. I have seen highly populated areas, make their own weather. Have seen ground water, so contaminated that you could die from ingesting a cup of it. Know that, already, in some areas(to the South of us)there has been loss of many species of both plant and critter. That seems to matter little to those who, often can't, or don't bother, to properly
care for their livestock, property, the ground water or air.
But, If we treated our own bodies, the way we have, too often, treated this planet, none of us would(or could afford)
the treatments needed to keep us alive, as long as I have been here, much less the tiny tick of time, modern humans
have been present. There really is much we can do and it
can be done while making money. So it would be nice, if those who are unable to use(or even find)their brain, to get on board, for a change. Allowing us to divert more energy into finding innovative solutions, instead of having to deal with their idiotic behavior. Would be nice!
"get with it, Joe, you are such a fuddy fuddy," is not the way to refute the points Mr. Bastardi makes, the way to convince me his points are without merit.
And "the temps are 35 to 45 degrees warmer than normal in March,it's 85 degrees in March, just wait and see what July brings... Ok, yes let's wait and see. If I see temps in DC 35 to 45 degrees above normal in July, ok maybe you might get my attention. Like if I see temps spiking to 125 to 135 degrees... But if you are going to make statements like that to scare me, don't think I will forget them between March and July...
The temperatures might be 30 degrees below normal in July, and that's still evidence of global warming, or, as we have had to rename it for the stupid, "climate change."
You see, we can't say "global warming" or the science-challenged TeaTards cite below-normal temperatures anywhere on the planet as proof that the 99.9%+ of climatological scientists are wrong. They don't understand that the temperature of the Earth and atmosphere rising results in weather extremes -- more storms, more hurricanes, and unprecedented shifts in the jet stream that can raise, or lower, the temperature on swaths the size of the U.S.
As a nation, we need to step up our science education and stop wasting valuable time arguing with idiots who want their clildren taught creationism (AKA Intelligent Design), "young Earth" biblical crap, and corporate-sponsored notions that there's some kind of debate in the scientific community about anthropogenic climate change.
I'm just astounded that Fred resorts to & fosters the very problems of negativism, name calling & negation that hinder this discussion!
(Warning! The radical idea about to be presented has been partially acted on in lesser forms within a narrow demographic. If it already exists, PLEASE give links!)
Lets have a REAL debate! Choose two universities of renown, fund two teams of research - one pro the other con, to investigate, collect, sift through, validate & correlate the existing data. Then true to the scientific approach, generate findings, observations & hypothesis, INCLUDING the rational and associated data supporting the position. Now for the fun part. Exchange the team's findings for "peer" review. And for more fun, have these two teams then present in a national forum with the requirement that information must be understandable at the 9th grade level. Oh ... and all material gathered and generated in this effort must be available to the nation online. NOW in the finest scientific tradition you have all the information needed for an informed discussion - not Maxwell mudslinging.
LCon, Fred's comments are pretty mild really. I don't know what you're getting so fired up about given what the right wingers' leaders use for language on the air. It would be worthwhile for you to dig through the reports that scientists have painstakingly gathered data for and put out to the public rather than right-wing pundits putting mean-spirited slants on the air without basis in reality