The conservative dumb video of the day

20150226_inhofe_snowballWhen U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, brought a snowball onto the floor of the U.S. Senate last week and proclaimed it evidence that global warming is a fraud, I thought he had set a standard of silliness in the global warming “debate” that would probably last a long time.

Alas, that standard lasted a week. Because this is the latest “evidence” that has gotten climate-change deniers all a-ga-ga:

Climate-change deniers have seized on the 43-year-old video as a great confirmation of something or other, with the “breaking news” sweeping through the conservative blogosphere faster than a joke about Nancy Pelosi and facelifts. It has already been featured on Drudge and Breitbart and Newsbusters and HotAir and the Media Research Center and RightwingNews, among many others, no doubt.

So I decided to investigate and report back on what it all means:

Julia Seymour at Media Research Center tells us that the 43-year-old video is important because it’s “completely different from the media’s line today that global warming is settled science.” Hmmmm. Marc Morano of the right-wing Climate Depot says that “Having Cronkite’s image and face discussing global cooling fears reveals the fickleness of the climate change claims.”  Ed Morrisey at Hot Air points out that John Holdren, now President Obama’s science adviser, was also among those who at least suggested back in the mid-’70s that an ice age was possible. And at RightWingNews we’re told that this “proves” the existence of a “consensus” two generations ago about global cooling.

Let me make a few points in response:

1.) If the “consensus” in favor of a new ice age was indeed as widespread as the deniers like to pretend, they wouldn’t be grabbing so desperately at this one small, isolated data point — citing one suggestion by one British professor more than 40 years ago — to prove their case. The fact that they’re trying to make so much of this proves just how scarce such evidence really is.

2.) The British scientist cited by Cronkite, Hubert Lamb, did indeed surmise back in the early ’70s that natural forces — not mankind — might drive the planet toward a new “little ice age”, but not for another 4,000 to 7,000 years. Subsequent research caused Lamb to withdraw that assertion and acknowledge the role played by carbon in the atmosphere.

3.) Holdren, President Obama’s science adviser, argued back in the ’70s that global warming and cooling were BOTH possible outcomes of what he called “global thermal pollution,” while today he argues strongly that human beings are driving a climatological warming.

4.) Scientists such as Holdren who change their minds over a period of 43 years are not guilty of “fickleness.” They are guilty of science. In fact, changing your mind as the evidence changes is pretty much a basic test of intelligence. Refusing to change one’s mind to account for changing evidence, on the other hand, can be described as ignorance, ideology or wilfull self-deception — it can be a whole lot of things. Smart is not on the list.

Let me close with an example of the scientific method at work:

I noted above that I thought Inhofe’s little snowball stunt represented the most intellectually foolish argument I’ve seen against climate change. Now that we have additional data, I am forced to revise that theory:  The Cronkite video is now the most intellectually foolish argument I’ve seen against climate change. And since tomorrow is another day, and since I’ll be reading at least of few of the comments below, even that theory may have to be revised.

Because that’s the way it is, Friday, March 6, 2015.

 

Reader Comments 0

763 comments
NWGAL
NWGAL

The argument I love the most is that catastrophic climate change is not possible because the Bible doesn't validate that theory. So if these major climate shifts keep occurring and deepening, then it is god's will in action and has nothing to do with us.

honested
honested

It's a shame the video stops before we get to see where inhofe stuffs that snowball!

honested
honested

@Orange15 

Now if the 'shut down' can just be expanded around the country where petty crimes have come to be viewed as the 'profit center' for funding local law enforcement.

Normd
Normd

@Gmare 


Well, he HAS been out for a long time...

Gmare
Gmare

"I'll be out...."

Oh, thank Goddess!

Captian-Obvious
Captian-Obvious

I should add that the libs here spend so much time here that they do not seek out that which would enlighten them on the fact of propagandist libs who want money at all costs and therefore lie with things like that the globe is warming and 97% of people agree on this when the truth is that most people and especially people who are clever with science degrees have told us all about the climate lies and hoaxes.

ALibNotToBeMessedW/
ALibNotToBeMessedW/

Good god! Every blog has a resident dunce. I think I know who that is here.

Captian-Obvious
Captian-Obvious

It is tellingly to me that lib moochers ignore facts that are invonveniences to the propaganda they are feeded without critical thinking. It is the only way to explain things like their installation of mushroom and their fear of the planetary weather as expounded by stupid scientists with a agenda for money and perpetuity of moocher policies which are killing our nation and jobs. We should all thank the lord daily for giving us the new GOP which is saving us from moocher lib killing policies.

honested
honested

The day-shift flat earthers are not nearly as ridiculous as the night-shift ones.

Post after post of non-information and non-data with no studies to refute the obvious, just incessant efforts to pick at irrelevant points in hopes Citizens will look away.


A challenge to those most ardent supporters of fossil fuel consumption, provide ONE in-depth study not funded by the hydrocarbon industry that even suggests indiscriminate combustion of fossil fuels has no negative impact on planet Earth and the organisms that live here.

JamVet
JamVet

@Orange15 @honested 

You would first have to understand the actual definition of a scientific theory for the answer to mean anything...

honested
honested

@Captain-Obvious @Orange15 @honested 

Then demonstrate some EVIDENCE supporting your inexplicable skepticism rather than carp about irrelevant aspects of a given study.

Refusal to accept the overwhelming conclusions of multiple studies is reminiscent of the religious community's refusal to accept the fact of evolution or even that the world is round!

As for 'funding sources' how is it that the ONLY people who reach any conclusion different from the obvious are those who are funded by the fossil fuel industry?

For a group of people who jump on every possible conspiracy theory to denigrate those evil liberals, Democrats and Clintons, you seem all to unwilling to question an obvious conflict of interest.

ALibNotToBeMessedW/
ALibNotToBeMessedW/

Captain-Obvious - perhaps you need to learn how to be less of a POS if you want people to engage you in an intelligent manner. You may actually find yourself happier if you could find a way to live with less anger.

ALibNotToBeMessedW/
ALibNotToBeMessedW/

Why are you incapable of making a rational, reasonable argument in favor of a particular position without resorting to ad hominem attacks and reliance on abject stupidity, Captain-Obvious?

JamVet
JamVet

@Captain-Obvious @Orange15 @honested 

Are you the jacker?

Either way only a scientifically bereft  hayseed would write, "he cannot refute / debunk alternative theories..." 

My goodness, just how embarrassingly stupid could that pronouncement be????

The reason that the theory of anthropogenic climate change reigns supreme is exactly because it has been deemed superior, by the overwhelming agreement of the SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS, to all of the Republican's idiotic alternative "theories"

Either way, your goofiness has certainly escalated...


breckenridge
breckenridge

"We have got to find a level of cohesion where we can at least pass legislation that we get to the president's desk. If we can't do that, we fail to govern and we lose 2016." US Congressman Dennis Ross, R-Florida, 3-4-2015


Well yeah, that's true.

JamVet
JamVet

@Normd 

LOL!

Great article, Normd!

Let the Republicans stew in their untalented bile.

As they have so very little of their own, they are constantly trying to hijack great artists who are progressives and liberal and who likely despise who these non-evolved fake conservatives are and what they stand for

Nimoy was one of many huge talents in that category.

A lifelong Democrat, he supported:

Franken for US Senate

Dean for America

John Kerrey for President

Obama for America

MoveOn, org

As for these new age American fascists and segregationists, I would suspect that he might say, "Die soon and unprosperous."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWgcG9S2opo



JamVet
JamVet

@Captain-Obvious @JamVet @Normd 

Are you the original sunspot nutjob or the jacker?

If you are the esteemed climatologist and self proclaimed constitutional scholar, you would be able to confirm just how many dogs you were responsible for rounding up while you were in the Forsythe County Animal Control Department.


Normd
Normd

I've got to ask...What does the suns temperature have to with greenhouse gases.  They act like a blanket and keep the earths heat in.  We, by burning fossil fuel are actually making that blanket thicker...so...I don't think that the sun cooling down a bit really matters, especially given the fact that its temperature runs about 10 million degrees on just its surface.

Captian-Obvious
Captian-Obvious

It is a fact that if global warming is real and hasn't been paused then logic dictates the sun's temperature would increase ponentially. But the sun has been cooling so the hoax is proven. But libs are so dumb they will eat nothing they are feeded. (Eye roll)

Captian-Obvious
Captian-Obvious

The next time you are on topic will be the first. (Eye roll)

Kamchak
Kamchak

@Captian-Obvious

The next time you can reach the cash register without standing on a five gallon bucket will be your first time.

Justsayin'.

gotalife
gotalife

Cry all you want but full employment now belongs to President Obama's great legacy.


Choke on the pretzel cons.

td1234
td1234

@gotalife If we were at full employment then why are so many Americans looking for work and why are their so many Americans on Welfare? 


When we were at full employment during the Clinton and Bush years McDonald's and places were advertising bonuses to come to work and offering way above the min wage to work. 


This justs proves the numbers are bogus and have been for a while. 

InTheMiddle2
InTheMiddle2

@gotalife  Cannot claim a legacy for something that does not exist. Have you always been so gullible?

breckenridge
breckenridge

Inhofe = 'tardo stooge.


Speaking of.........there's a new billboard just south of Clayton Georgia.  It's an advert for the Clayton Baptist Church, and at the bottom it reads Join us and find out about the fatal flaws in evolution.


It's really a shame, the church is doing the community a tremendous disservice by promoting folklore and superstitious nonsense at the expense of science.


Wascatlady
Wascatlady

This just proves you don't have to have the intelligence of a turnip to be voted into Congress.

gotalife
gotalife

5.5 is full employment. That is called a fact.


We will go lower.


Without any rw help. Period.

InTheMiddle2
InTheMiddle2

@gotalife  Not fact - speculation. At full employment wages rise because of increased demand for labor - THAT is fact. The fact that wages are barely moving just proves what a big lie the UE rate is.

idigalot
idigalot

No -- that just proves that the "job-creators" are still hoarding their millions even after over 12 years of tax cuts that were to assist them in job-creating. They have not kept up their end of the faustian bargain.