You really have to see this whole transcript to appreciate just how *fucking* stupid this guy is. And I really mean it- low I.Q. type stupid.
June 27
GLENN: Okay, here's the headline. I don't have it in front of me. Do you happen to have the headline in front of you? It's like, no ice this summer on the North Pole. STU: Yes, something like that.
GLENN: Okay. And it talks about how there's just record ice melts. It's just never, ever been like this ever before. No ice this summer at the North Pole. Okay. Then if you click on through it, you will see a chart. Now, maybe I'm reading this wrong, Stu, and you're our in-house global warming expert. Maybe I'm reading this wrong but doesn't the chart show from 1970 to today the average melting of the ice, right?
STU: Yeah. And, of course, obviously it melts every year at generally the same pace. [Bullshit!]
GLENN: Okay. Then I think it was last year, was the bottom line last year? STU: Yeah, the bottom line, the yellow line would be last year.
GLENN: Okay. Last year it melted at a faster rate but it still paralleled the line but it was slightly below it. STU: Yes.
GLENN: This year it's in between the top line and the bottom line. STU: Yeah. And the top line is the average from 1970 now into 2000.
GLENN: Right. And today for some reason everybody's freaking out that it is melting faster than ever before when their own chart shows that it's not melting faster than ever before. It's melting less than it did last year. And just slightly under the average. It's incredible.
I have no idea what chart Glenn is looking at, but this one here is accurate. The truth is that the arctic ice has been declining by an average of 44,000 square Km per year (twice the size of New Jersey). Glenn can't read a chart any 8th grader should be able to read. . What he calls the "average" line from 1970 to present is a running average or trend line with an obvious almost eerily linear downwards slope. One scientist believes there is about a 50-50 chance for the first ice free north pole in recorded history. Is Glenn Beck this stupid? No. He's lying outright. He knows it. He does it purposely. He knows his audience are a bunch of dimwitted fools. He doesn't care. Then in the next segment he probably discussed his religious faith or something. Addition: Glen Beck's chart. Lol. He thinks that because this year is slightly below the moving average, that's good for his case. 
10 comments:
yea, Beck is so stupid that he has his own show on CNN with millions of viewers, and you are so smart that you have a blog featuring maybe 3 malcontents. Brilliant!
Using that logic I guess you could say that the more people who listen to you, the smarter you are. I guess that would make some of the world's most famous mass murderers sheer genius's, right?
Jerry Springer had good ratings too. And for the same exact reasons. And probably many of the same viewers.
I don't believe that Beck is dumb (he's not the brightest guy around). I think he is a liar. Flat out.
Fact: data schmata, global warming has occurred many times before humans were ever on the planet and will continue long after we are gone. The current global warming/cooling/whatever debate can be balmed on a logical confusion between causation and correlation.
Fact: Mars and Jupiter are also heating up. Many morons will claim it to be a coincedence.
Fact: the sun is acting strangely and no one knows why. Not enough records.
Fact: much global warming hysteria is based on computer model projections. Unfortunately, there are simply not enough sensors on the planet to provide data enough to make accurate forecasts, which is why our professional meteorolgists can't even make a decent 10 day forecast, never MIND a 50 year forecast!
More fun science facts!
Fact: most of the universe is [missing] and we can't explain it outside of a few theories.
Fact: no one can explain exactly how magnetism works. If you can, you will get a nobel prize in physics.
Fact: no one knows what our galaxy actually looks like; it's a guess.
Fact: no one knows where or from what direction the big bang originated. All we have for evidence of its occurance is background noise.
But gosh, why spend so much time expounding on the many things that exist in the present which science is completely ignorant of when there are so many predictions scientists are making about our [completely unknown] future which we can obsess about? I don't know, why IS that?
Golly, Mike, I never thought of it that way. If I just think about it the way you do, global warming *must* be a myth.
Fact: My dog barked this morning.
Fact: The sun doesn't really set.
Fact: Some men like blonds, scientists at a loss.
Fact: The earth only has one moon. Where is the other one?
Fact: Einstein couldn't speak Chinese.
Fact: Aaron can bark like my dog.
Fact: Rush is a millionaire. Scientists can't explain it.
Wow Mike, it's as if you have never looked at anything at all concerning GW other than the conspiracy theories. You must either not read anything other than what you want to believe or you're just a complete idiot. Probably a mixture. You obviously didn't read my other information which addressed all of these points, so why would you read them now? You might actually learn something and change your mind.
1. I've already discussed the warming planets red herring.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
"There is a slight irony in people rushing to claim that the glacier changes on Mars are a sure sign of global warming, while not being swayed by the much more persuasive analogous phenomena here on Earth…"
2. The sun's output has been studied. The studies that have come out have attributed about 10% of the warming to the sun. Of course, this won't stop you from completely ignoring this piece of information and pretending I never said it. There have been multiple studies verifying the same results by multiple experimenters. This is why the idea that the sun is causing GW is almost summarily dismissed.
3. Computer models, though not perfect are still fairly good:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/GCM_temp_anomalies_3_2000.jpg
These are the projected temperatures based on the same type of models:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Global_Warming_Predictions.png
what you don't know about GW data eclipses the little you embrace.
Co2 is the EIGHTH least powerful of the greenhouse gases, and amounts to less than 1 degree of their total.
Can you name the 7 more powerful gases? Do you even CARE? Do you actually understand the implications of causation vs. correlation? Have you studied your geo-history regarding the Permian mass extinction and what caused the methane to be released, how long it took and how radically the temperature had to rise before that happened? The PME is about the only real precedent we have, but then who needs precedent when we have "computer models?"
Additionally, I don't care HOW many articles GW alarmists will throw at the sun, the result is the same and you can't dispute the fact that it IS acting peculiarly. There is no known precedent for it's current behavior. There are simply far too many unknowns for anyone to even TRY to pigeonhole all the data into one concise conclusion, but hell, knock yourself out, because like you say about Rush, it's "entertainment."
Sorry Mike, I have seen *nothing* about the sun acting peculiarly anywhere. I don't know what you are talking about or where you got that from.
Your point about CO2 is even dumber than your prior points, and betray your near total lack of understanding of the issue. This is myth #8.
http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/global-warming-myths
Looks like Mike did a little reading, came back bursting with "information".
//Can you name the 7 more powerful gases? Do you even CARE? Do you actually understand the implications of causation vs. correlation?//
Ha! I love it. "More powerful gases"? The posturing is priceless! All of a sudden he's Mr. Scientist. He'll get shot down once again. Then he'll come right back with how little scientists know.
//There are simply far too many unknowns for anyone to even TRY to pigeonhole all the data into one concise conclusion...//
Of course, it never occurs to Mike that this is exactly what he's doing. He's concisely concluded that climate change is bunk. Priceless. The guy cracks me up!
Yes precisely chicken ditto, Mike looks at any scientific issue, sides with the least likely position with the fewest scientific supporters, then uses his slective and conveniently cherry picked "science" to support his fringe opinion, then blasts science as knowing nothing. Like the other denialists, the arguments contradict, displaying the desperate incoherent fabrication. "It's not warming hardly at all"...then..." all the planets are warming...then "of course it's warming, its a natural cycle and there is a natural CO2 cycle"....then... "dumping billions of tons of extra CO2 doesn't change anything"...then..."CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas, who cares about it"...the..."the volcanic activity is releasing CO2 thus the warming....but..."it's not even warming, see look at this graph... etc...
It is a riot.
Post a Comment