Right-wing radio: Thanks to you it's working
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
Right-wing radio: Thanks to you it's working
There's been some controversy in recent days over GOP Boss Rush Limbaugh and the number of people who listen to his national radio show -- has his audience doubled with the election of President Obama (um, no) and does have have 20 million regular listeners (something like that)? In the end, the number of listeners doesn't matter. Right-wing talk radio is making an impact on American politics, and that impact is not good, not when its spreads viral misinformation.
Consider this alarming new poll:
PRINCETON, NJ -- Although a majority of Americans believe the seriousness of global warming is either correctly portrayed in the news or underestimated, a record-high 41% now say it is exaggerated. This represents the highest level of public skepticism about mainstream reporting on global warming seen in more than a decade of Gallup polling on the subject.
And where is all this skepticism coming from? Why, it's the same demographic that listens to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity -- what a surprise!
Since 1997, Republicans have grown increasingly likely to believe media coverage of global warming is exaggerated, and that trend continues in the 2009 survey; however, this year marks a relatively sharp increase among independents as well. In just the past year, Republican doubters grew from 59% to 66%, and independents from 33% to 44%, while the rate among Democrats remained close to 20%.
Notably, all of the past year's uptick in cynicism about the seriousness of global warming coverage occurred among Americans 30 and older. The views of 18- to 29-year-olds, the age group generally most concerned about global warming and most likely to say the problem is underestimated, didn't change.
Look, skepticism is a healthy thing -- there's an old saying in journalism that if your mother says she loves you...check it out. But the compelling case for climate change isn't very hard to check out. This appeared in the New York Times this week:
U.S. EPA has added dozens of scientific accounts about global warming threats to a key document that is expected to help drive federal regulations for curbing U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases, according to an agency draft (pdf) obtained by Greenwire.
Specifically:
In the latest 161-page document, dated March 9, EPA officials include several new studies highlighting how a warming planet is likely to mean more intense U.S. heat waves and hurricanes, shifting migration patterns for plants and wildlife, and the possibility of up to a foot of global sea level rise in the next century.
The draft also warns of storm surges and flooding around the planet, especially in vulnerable regions with limited abilities to adapt, including sub-Saharan Africa and Asian mega-deltas in India, Bangladesh and China. "Climate change impacts in certain regions of the world may exacerbate problems that raise humanitarian, trade and national security issues for the U.S.," the draft says.
I know, I know, it's those wacky "socialists" that Obama has sent over to the EPA since he became president, right? Uh, not exactly. It turns out the EPA staffers who prepared this report were working under the Bush administration. Good thing some of those folks were doing their homework instead of sitting at their desks listening to Rush and Sean pontificating, also known as prevaricating.
The truth is that Michael Steele got it right the first time, that Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer, it is ugly -- and his ugly entertaining can be harmful to your health. What to do?
As some readers already know, I strongly oppose restoring the so-called Fairness Doctrine. While I agree with critics who say that right-wingers gamed the system with conservative media moguls to dominate the airwaves, I would also note the same thing used to be said about campaign finance, that it was all hot-wired for Republicans, until Obama came along and showed it was possible to raise more money than the GOP and to do it from the bottom up. Same with radio -- this is a center-left nation, and progressives and moderates can out-talk conservatives if they are smart about it.
Drown 'em out.
Before people start to drown.
(Top photo from the Daily Mail)
Comments (150)
What's that? You have a document that says "Global Warming Determined To Strike Inside United States"? Pshaw - like we should pay attention to that! Much better to be one of the Chip Dillers in the marginalized minority standing in the streets yelling "ALL IS WELL" until it blows up in your face and then you say "No one could ever have predicted..."— E.Plebnista- Will, of COURSE Rush is an entertainer!! And a HIGHLY successful one!! So is Matt Lauer, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, etc. They are paid based on driving ratings. Rush's ratings were huge when Clinton was in office, because his faithful audience tuned in daily to hear him rant and rave. It is good for him to have the opposing party in office. You point out how dangerous it is to have Americans listening to him as their news source, and how that impacts politics, but you fail to point out the similar dangers of people like Michael Moorer, Dan Rather, Keith Olbermann, etc. There is no place anymore to get "unbiased" news, so where is the center-left, center, center-right supposed to go? They go to the best entertainer -- thus Fox's ratings. Your other point about global warming -- is it possible that 41% think this because there is a legitimate debate about global warming, despite all the yelling and screaming from the left? The left has politicized this issue from way back to the point where it's almost impossible to have a reasonable discussion on it. It's now the abortion issues of the new millennium. You were not helped when the wing-nut ex-vice president who couldn't even beat "the worst president in history" became the leading spokesperson. He has ZERO credibility with most of America. I keep seeing story after story (never on NBC, CNN, MSNBC) where there are some polar ice caps growing, the fact that the planet is cooler today then 1000 years ago, that the US just had it's coldest winter in 25 years. It leads a reasonable person to believe that scientists DO NOT KNOW all the factors involved in planetary heating and cooling. I can be convinced that despite lack of hard facts, that it's a good idea to recycle and limit carbon production. I refuse to be bullied into thinking that the planet is about to explode.— IggleFan68
- Compete in the marketplace of ideas. Your (liberal) ideas stink. that's why people listen to talk radio. Don't be jealous of conservative talk radio's success- you've got television and newspapers!— Bud Fox
- Looks like slootbox Palin got dumped by Levi. Who would have predicted that?!? lol— chasing history
- PS what do you think Attytood is if not entertainment? It's certainly not journalism. You think the tools that come on here and post 50 comments are serious scholars?— Bud Fox
- Last time you used that phoo there was only one bear on the ice.— SteveMG
- People listen to talk radio because they like to have their own specific prejudices and ill-formed opinions validated. Chris Matthews recently described right-wing talk radio as "Oprah for middle-aged white guys."
- Just on the most basic level of analysis, clear cutting rainforests reduces the capacity to absorb CO2, buring more and more fossil fuels increases CO2. It is simply inevitable that global warming will occur. Since when is it a conservative principle to disregard what we are leaving to our children and grandchildren? I notice the "conservatives" are finally waking up to the national debt, (now that somebody else can be blamed for it).— SteveMG
- Those bitter people cling to their guns, their religion, and their radios.— SteveMG
- Here's a story you won't see Will blog about (or see on NBC, MSNBC, CNN). Obama Justice Dept investigates Maricopa County Sheriff for enforcing Illegal Immigration laws in Arizona. Congressional hacks, I mean reps from NY, Michigan, and VA requested an investigation into what this courageous Sheriff is doing to protect America's southern border. His office claims they have detained 16,000 illegal immigrants and have either deported them, or will deport them when their prison sentence is up. The liberal congressman are concerned that his is violating Illegal Aliens civil rights. WHAT?? Since when do illegal aliens have ANY rights????— IggleFan68
Comment removed.- Rush has a highly rated show. Hmmm....isn't American Idol and Dancing with Stars also highly rated? lol— chasing history
- Chasing -- again you demonstrate your predilection for inanity. You are making fun of an 18 yr old girl. Does that make you feel big and tough? I thought liberal loonies like you were avid supporters of teen pregnancy and out of wedlock births.— IggleFan68
Will, like many on the left, just can't stand the fact that there are people out there who see things differently than they do. Of course, if you do, you somehow "gamed the system". They give more respect to 9/11 truthers than they give to someone who says that maybe the government spends too much money, or our taxes are too high. They believe that Conservatives are robots who don't think for themselves, yet when 90% of African Americans vote Democrat, that's an informed choice. To them, there is only one perspective, and you must conform or be labeled inferior. Rush, and Hannity debate ideas and liberal callers are always put to the front of the line to present their side. What passes for debate at the liberal dominated universities? Conservative=Nazi. Conservative actors in Hollywood sometimes have to hide their politics for fear of not getting work. Liberal unions want to eliminated secret ballot elections so those who don't go along can be targeted for coercion. Our own Will Bunch calls for "truth comissions", not for truth, but to drag through the mud the left's political and ideological enemies. Conservatives want debate, and the left wants it's pound of flesh.— jmc- Comment removed.
- the fact that this winter was freezing cold might have something to do with their skepticism on global warmiing will....or maybe the fact that every major demonstration on GW in the last 2 years has gotten snowed out. The case for GW is eroding each year with more and more scientists unwilling to close their eyes and toe the party line. When Joe public is trying to hold onto his job and pay his bills you think he really cares too much for poorly concevied conspiracy theories of hippies and liberal kool aid drinkers??????— taxmemore
- Comment removed.
- bp, if you had half a brain you would realize the significance of that story is that the people running Gitmo had no idea who they were holding. Torture doesn't get you the truth, and with no process for at least reviewing evidence, all you had there was a mob of guys that were captured all kinds of ways, literally "on the battlefield", but also turned in by rival clans trying to settle scores and weaken rival clans.— SteveMG
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- A former Gitmo prisoner has recently been discovered as the Ops Commander for the Taliban in Afghanistan...and leading the charge to kill American soldiers there......Hmmmmmm, George "Cheney's monkey" Bush released him. LOL— chasing history
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Uh, what Rush is referring to in the conference that was held I think in Greenland of something like the top 100 environmental scientists in the world. Who stated that "man made global warming is a mithe". Now I know we shouldn't believe these guys, we should believe Al Gore cause he knows better. Point in fact this winter was one of the coldest in the last 10 years. But we won't let the facts get in the way of a good story.— Nick4102
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- And it looks like the neococonuts are giving Steele another "beat down" because he chose to stand up for conservative values of keeping government out of our bedrooms by stating that abortion is an "individual choice." lol....the Christian Taliban got their Depends knotted in their azzes once again and will exile him within the week.— chasing history
- Comment removed.
Will, I think you're giving Rush far too much credit for influencing opinion over the past year. First, he was too consumed with his role of playing the fear card with Obama's campaign (and we saw how well that succeeded). If I had to blame anything, it would be the lack of serious attention given to the global warming issue by both major party campaigns.- Comment removed.
- Oh, the other thing is that Rush is not really a conservative, but like the rest of the bigot class in this country, finds it useful in promoting a more sinister agenda.
- "suppose this Ops commander previously had nothing against the US but now does because of his treatment while in detention? Then our detention centers are having the opposite effect by making us less safer by producing terrorists where there were none before." Yup your right.. and all of our prisons are full of innocent wrongly convicted men. Ask them they'll tell you, they all were framed by the police. And that's why the recidivism rate is 80%, because we made these previously good people bad. This is why you can't have a discussion with a liberal. This is the logic that you have to deal with. Wow!— Nick4102
- It has been very widely documented by credible climate scientists that the rise in temperature actually precedes the corresponding rise in CO2, thus making the assertion that CO2 causes temps to rise illogical and almost assuredly wrong. It has also been widely documented by scientists (including NASA) that temperatures have plateaued in the last decade, and have even dropped somewhat. These two inconvenient facts could have a big impact on people's skepticism of the GW alarmists. And I love when GW alarmists post or link to a document that they don't read as evidence, like Will did here. Did anyone read this document? I love this little tidbit at the beginning "This document itself does not convey any judgment or conclusion regarding the question of whether GHGs may be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare". All this document does is describes the speculation of what MIGHT happen IF anthropogenic greenhouse gasses indeed were responsible for the major part of the warming of the last 100 years (which evidence shows is not the case).— pete317
- There's also another factor. When non-scientists like Drudge hype a particularly winter-like weather event as reason for skepticism, who's there to set the record straight?
- Comment removed.
- Can you imagine how much tireless research Will would have provided on Chas Freeman - had he been a Bush nominee to chair the Nat'l Intel Council.— A Friend
- yes A friend, it would have rivaled the pile of reciepts from starbucks that he compiled on Santorum— taxmemore
- Comment removed.
- "It has been very widely documented by credible climate scientists that the rise in temperature actually precedes the corresponding rise in CO2, thus making the assertion that CO2 causes temps to rise illogical and almost assuredly wrong." . . . LOL! Greenhouses therefore shouldn't work in theory, so it must be intelligent design that keeps them warm.
- montani - That is an incomplete argument. I never professed to say that the greenhouse effect does not exist. I never said that the planet hasn't warmed in the last 100 years. I simply referenced scientific discovery that found that increases in temperatures preceded increases of CO2, which leads an intelligent person to believe that anthropogenic CO2 is not the root cause for global temperature increases over the past 100 years (or in past periods of warming). I do like how you brought up an argument against religion though. It totally makes no sense, and has absolutely no context with this discussion. It just shows your irrational disdain for anything religious as well as your inability to understand simple logic.— pete317
"A former Gitmo prisoner has recently been discovered as the Ops Commander for the Taliban in Afghanistan." And who released him? Your hero, Dubya."......We can always count on didderbops to totally miss the point. Hilarious.— ocjones- "It leads a reasonable person to believe that scientists DO NOT KNOW all the factors involved in planetary heating and cooling." . . . . I don't think they ever claimed that they did. But what's funny is how the skeptics are eager to deny the link to greenhouse gas emissions on the flimsiest of possible alternative explanations.
- pete317, there may well be an alternative cause that is at the root of global warming, even one which occurs naturally from time to time. It might help if you had examples of what that might be rather than just write off anthropogenic CO2. In any event, it seems you're still ignoring the impact that anthropogenic CO2 might have in exacerbating otherwise natural global warming phenomena - such that we have the current unprecedented trend.
- "what's funny is how the skeptics are eager to deny the link to greenhouse gas emissions on the flimsiest of possible alternative explanations." That's not the way science works msl. Any claim that there is a link between GW and greenhouse gas emissions must be proven by those making the claim. In a related issue, scientists have proven that (other than babies) everyone in history who has ever died has had a drink of water. Clearly, if one survives his infancy he should not drink water, lest he risk death.— legatus
- try this one on for size semper liberi. The earth is 4 bil years old. These scientists are basing their theory on about 100 yrs of semi-reliable temperature data ( i say semi reliable because nasa and others have had some embarrassing admissions recently about the reliability of their own info) So based on far less than 1% of the necessary data that would be needed to analyze to derive a trend such as GW.....you are willing to take as doctrine a theory composed by people who cannot accurately tell you what the weather is going to look like tomorrow? I don't think it is the skeptics that need to conjure up alternative explanations for the rest of you loons. I think it would be betrer if there science wasn't junk science to begin with— taxmemore
- Comment removed.
"Liberals are supporters of teen pregnancy" ....really - you write something like that and expect anyone to take you seriously - dial back on the caffeine - or get some exercise- Anthropogenic CO2 is at the heart of cap and trade legislation. In an effort to save our doomed planet, the left will initiate a program that will drive industry overseas and exact a crushing financial burden on middle class America. As I've said, we'll cure the illness and kill the patient.— A Friend
- If anthropogenic CO2 is truly causing global warming, I think that any reasonable person would agree that we should stop using ALL energy sources immediately. No more cars, no more manufacturing, no more tv, no more movies, no more of ANYTHING man-made that would raise carbon levels. What's that...you say that this is overkill and would have a detrimental effect on the human condition? Oh, so we're just debating on where to draw the line then. Why is your line drawn more appropriately than mine?— legatus
- Comment removed.
- "Any claim that there is a link between GW and greenhouse gas emissions must be proven by those making the claim." . . . . . Okay, but there are different degrees of proof - proof by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., more likely than not) is the standard for civil litigation in American courts of law, while proof beyond a reasonable doubt is reserved mainly for criminal prosecutions. I think the current evidence behind the IPCC position meets the preponderance standard at the very least. Ultimately it's a political decision whether we "must" have proof and what standard of proof is needed. I assume you would choose the necessity for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Explain how that makes sense given the risks of inaction (global extinction) versus the costs of action (fundamentally altered economies and lifestyles, but survival of the species).
- montani semper liberi: is your house properly insulated, thermostat at 68 in winter and 78 in summer (or windows open), CLM lights throughout, water heater set at 115, and do you change your heating system and tune monthly.? No you do not even keep your tire pressure on you car properly inflated. 96% of Americans do not perform these task. If we did we cut foreign energy usage and help the environment. The best advocates for envirnomental causes states make sure your household infrastructure is efficient. Go GReen this weekend at PA Convention center this weekend. I will make sure to double charge you, since you think we need to return so much to the government.— Fisher
- Comment removed.
- "we should completely alter the way we live as we know it????" This is the problem fear of change. So are we to assume we can't shouldn't make improvements? Do you live near a nuclear power plant or coal plant? Do you realize how many toxins are in your body? Argue that it's cold today so global warming doesn't exist all you want, but if you don't realize pollution drives down productivity, you have no comprehension of business, money and manpower. Love canal anyone? What's it cost to mitigate a super fund site? You can't swim or fish in 50% of our lakes. They can't bring the Chesapeake Bay back to life and they have been trying for 30 years. The color of the sand at the shore is brown/and black. If we go organic and we go clean fuel and we "CHANGE" our business model,lower health care costs, bring back small businesses and create a slew of high paying green jobs it will be a boom economy for decades. You think Levittown was something not compared to upgrading the grid. Argue about Global Warming but don't think the status quo doesn't need to improve. The Republicans aren't going to do it. It's the party of the Status Quo and they are screaming like stuck pigs. Our current business model is based on technology from the turn of the century - LAST CENTURY - you wouldn't use a computer that was five years old or last years phone - gas powered cars - really - that's cutting edge technology - and think about it Nuclear Power has got to be the stupidest way to heat water mankind has ever come up with. Change people we can not sustain things the way we are going. There's that word again, no not change, sustain, as in sustainability. It has to happen and the people deep inside the government know it. The largest array of solar panels in this country is at Nellis Air Force Base. Uncle Sam knows the oil can be shut off at any moment no matter what Rush or the RNC are hollering about.
- "Oh, so we're just debating on where to draw the line then." . . . Intelligent folks are. They're not waiting around in hopes that scientists will discover that God exists and that this is all just a biblical punishment.
- Comment removed.
- what about the left wing propoganda Will like your column that portrays itself as fair but is anything but... you're a self serving idiot— phillysmart
- Tear Down This Myth, Vol. II...global warming.— jimmymack
- From the Examiner, Feb 21 2009: "The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) reported that faulty satellite data was responsible for it underreporting the amount of Arctic sea ice by an area the size of California." Care to explain Willy?...........— camtheman
- "Explain how that makes sense given the risks of inaction (global extinction) versus the costs of action" That is the essence of the debate....where do you draw the line...(i.e. what is the "cost of action").— legatus
- BTW, where was all this healthy skepticism over the reasons for invading Iraq? Wasn't the point made that we couldn't afford to quibble over contrary evidence? It's better to be safe than sorry? Exactly.
- Your wrong about this Will. Democrats or "liberals" will never win the radio contest. First of all, most democrats don't listen to AM radio. We read books, self educate, and question things. When we question things we look at mulitple sources to see if its true or not. There is no way liberals will ever be the brain washed, phony conservative, hypocrites that the repubs have become.— Zues
- Comment removed.
- "Sorry, but **MIGHT** does not pass the sniff test for proof." . . . . I didn't say it did, beeps. It does however disprove pete's "simple logic", to which I was responding.
- Comment removed.
The left can name call all they want but the bigger percentage increase is in independents not Republicans. Are we to believe that not only are Republican toadies listening to and accepting Rush but also independents in increasing number??— bird11- "They're not waiting around in hopes that scientists will discover that God exists and that this is all just a biblical punishment." What an incredibly elitist b-llspit comment that really isn't even worth the time that it took to write this reply. Disgusting.— legatus
- "Intelligent folks are." The self appointed leader of the GW movement (Al Gore)proclaimed the debate is over not long ago. It is only because some "courageous" (not anti cop story writing journalists) dissenters stood up to Gore and the GW army that the truth is finally being told in its entirety.— CharlieDontSurf
- "To undertake all of the cost associated, along with the DRASTIC changes this would pose in everyday life is not sensible unless there is overwhelming proof." . . . . . That's not unreasonable, legatus, and I would agree. I just happen to think it's already overwhelming, if not as absolutely conclusive as you would have it.
- Zues, you epitomize the elitist pinhead. Well done.— A Friend
- Comment removed.
- "where was all this healthy skepticism over the reasons for invading Iraq? Wasn't the point made that we couldn't afford to quibble over contrary evidence? It's better to be safe than sorry?" Wasn't it the left who argued against this idea?— legatus
- Comment removed.
- There are a lot of scientists who seriously and rigorously question AGW dogma. It isn't a Rush phenomenon, it is a matter of scientific debate finally worming its way out from under efforts of the AGW crowd to stifle such.— db_cooper
- "Disgusting" . . . . LOL, you can say that with a straight face on this blog? Gosh, maybe I should just impugn your sexual habits, habitually. That seems to be par for the course here.
- "In the latest 161-page document, dated March 9, EPA officials include several new studies highlighting how a warming planet is likely to mean more intense U.S. heat waves and hurricanes, shifting migration patterns for plants and wildlife, and the possibility of up to a foot of global sea level rise in the next century." Of course, such a study is actually predicated on the notion that human-caused increases in CO2 would actually cause that kind of warming. Which has only been 'proven' through computer modelling, much of it highly dubious or run with bogus data, while serious statisticians and modelling experts calling into question the methodolgies used.— db_cooper
- montani - there are several very good alternative explanations for warming. Some of them include natural temperature cycles, or sun activity. There are also explanations for the increase in CO2 following the increase in temperature. When the temperature rises, then the oceans cannot trap as much CO2 so it is released into the atmosphere, just like when a soda gets warm, and the CO2 is released into the atmosphere. The only fact about global warming is that the science is not settled, and its definitely not convincing enough to panic and make drastic policy decisions that will adversely affect our economy.— pete317
- "That's not unreasonable, legatus, and I would agree. I just happen to think it's already overwhelming, if not as absolutely conclusive as you would have it." Actually, that wasn't my statement that you were agreeing with, but bpphilly's. In any case, please enlighten us as to the in-depth research that you've done that leads you to believe that the evidence is overwhelming. Please include the scientific analyses that you've investigated, which contradict your pov and which you have debunked.— legatus
- bp, how pathetic can you be? The proof is well summarized in the pdf file Will links to above.
- "I should just impugn your sexual habits, habitually. That seems to be par for the course here." Where have I done such, and why would you feel that it would be ok to sink to the level of those who you find disgusting. (Btw, it is my opinion that it is more repulsive to belittle the faith of others in a serious way as you did, than it is to try to get under someone's skin by joking about the sexual habits of someone when you clearly do not know the reality of that person's sexuality.)— legatus
- Comment removed.
- "and its definitely not convincing enough to panic and make drastic policy decisions that will adversely affect our economy." . . . . Said the South when abolitionists questioned slavery.
- "But what's funny is how the skeptics are eager to deny the link to greenhouse gas emissions on the flimsiest of possible alternative explanations" Flimsy? Try, for starters, that the globe has been cooling the last couple of years, at a time when the sunspot cycle has been very slow in going back upwards. Next, global cooling and warming trends can be correlated to sunspot activity - such as the Maunder and Dalton minimums. Add in that the solar wind has measurably and signficantly weakened over the last couple of years as well. And top it off with an experiement showing how an increase in cosmic rays reaching Earth can trigger cloud formation - and clouds are the most poorly modeled aspect of climate models. That's just aspect of skeptical analysis of AGW. Now look at the bogus hockey stick. Hansen's cooked data from 2008 where he copied September 2008 temp data from Russia into October 2008. The AGW movement has a lot of documented problems. They can hardly argue that the science is settled when they can't even produce models that could be certified by experts as being reliable.— db_cooper
- "Said the South when abolitionists questioned slavery." Ah, so now skeptics, in addition to being compared to Holocaust deniers, are now being compared to slaveholders. Lovely debate methods your side employs.— db_cooper
- Comment removed.
- "Said the South when abolitionists questioned slavery." And doncha know that the Nazis said the same thing when questioned about the Final Solution. Pathetic!— legatus
- http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/28/forecasting-guru-announces-no-scientific-basis-for-forecasting-climate/ [edited and summarized to get within the 2000 character limit, much more detail at link] Forecasting Guru Announces: “no scientific basis for forecasting climate” Today yet another scientist has come forward with a press release saying that not only did their audit of IPCC forecasting procedures and found that they “violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting”, but that “The models were not intended as forecasting models and they have not been validated for that purpose.” This organization should know, they certify forecasters for many disciplines and in conjunction with John Hopkins University if Washington, DC, offer a Certificate of Forecasting Practice. The story below originally appeared in the blog of Australian Dr. Jennifer Marohasy. It is reprinted below, with with some pictures and links added for WUWT readers. - Anthony In today’s statement, made with economist Kesten Green, Dr Armstrong provides the following eight reasons as to why the current IPCC computer models lack a scientific basis: 1. No scientific forecasts of the changes in the Earth’s climate. 2. Improper peer review process. 3. Complexity and uncertainty of climate render expert opinions invalid for forecasting. 4. Forecasts are needed for the effects of climate change. 5. Forecasts are needed of the costs and benefits of alternative actions that might be taken to combat climate change. 6. To justify using a climate forecasting model, one would need to test it against a relevant naïve model. 7. The climate system is stable. 8. Be conservative and avoid the precautionary principle.— db_cooper
- "it is my opinion that it is more repulsive to belittle the faith of others in a serious way as you did" . . . . . Legatus, should I be impressed with someone's "faith" if he or she lacks overwhelming scientific evidence to back it up?
- "Well, apparently I'm nowhere near as pathetic and dumb as you." . . . . Um, really? Who's interpreting a legal disclaimer as the substance of the document?
- "The case for GW is eroding each year with more and more scientists unwilling to close their eyes and toe the party line." Then why was this year's "global warming skeptics" convention such a bust? Very few if any corporate backers this year (even Exxon backed out) Didder you are clueless, do you have a brain? regardless of what exxon thinks about GW, they would never come out publicly against it. it would be horrible for business....dope— TR
- "should I be impressed with someone's 'faith' if he or she lacks overwhelming scientific evidence to back it up?" Why you would ask for empirical scientific (ie. naturally observable) evidence for a being who believers contend is supernatural (ie. beyond the natural). It seems to me that the proof of the existence of such a being is not in the realm of the scientific method. The search for the answer to this question should lead to academic disciplines such as theology or philosophy, not to the empirical.— legatus
- All I need to know is that the polar ice is melting to know that there is at least a possibility (and I'd say a good one) that Global Warming may be happening. Nothing will be done however. Big Business (which apparently employs many shills and lawyers counteracting this research) will not allow it. To deny it's even possible that it's happening is foolish. The results of this won't be felt for many decades anyway.— James TL
- Comment removed.
- Would anyone like to comment on why it would be so terrible if the mean temperature of the Earth were to rise a few degrees?— jwad56
- "Why you would ask for empirical scientific" . . . Actually, I'm just asking for a reason why I should be impressed with someone's faith absent such evidence. A missionary seeking to convert me would have an answer to that, don't you think?
- db, I can't say I'm overly impressed by a Wharton School marketing professor's attempt to critique the climatology community's chosen methods of forecasting.
- Will...are you upset that right-wing radio spreads viral misinformation or just upset that the mainstream media, such as the soon-to-be-bankrupt Daily News and Inquirer no longer have a monopoly on it? Let's see...NYT...soon to be bankrupt. The Inky/DN...same. AJC...same. Air America...gone....NPR...needs public funding to survive...MSNBC...lowest cable ratings. Doesn't look like the country is too center-left from this side Billy. Your view must be skewed from laying so far left for so long.— puckdad77
- "All I need to know is that the polar ice is melting to know that there is at least a possibility (and I'd say a good one) that Global Warming may be happening. Nothing will be done however. Big Business (which apparently employs many shills and lawyers counteracting " And you are sure of that because? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/18/nsidc-satellite-sea-ice-sensor-has-catastrophic-failure-data-faulty-for-the-last-45-days/ NSIDC: satellite sea ice sensor has “catastrophic failure” - data faulty for the last 45 or more days— db_cooper
- msl, I'm not a missionary but......."Thomas, we were in that upper room where we'd been meeting. We lock the doors for protection. Yet, all of a sudden, Jesus appears. 'Peace, Shalom,' he says. Then he shows us his hands. There are jagged holes where the nails had been. He pulls back his tunic and shows us where the spear penetrated his chest. But he isn't weak or sick or dying. He is alive, raised from the dead!" "I don't believe it," barks Thomas. "I don't believe a word of it. You're seeing what you want to see. Jesus is dead. I saw him die, and part of me died with him. But he's dead, and the sooner you accept that fact, the better off you'll be. Give it up!" Peter pleads with him. "Thomas, I saw him myself, I tell you, and he was as real as you are!" Thomas is cold, with an edge in his voice that cuts like ice. "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it." But Thomas's anger cools, and by the next Sunday evening he is eating with his fellow disciples in the same locked room. Suddenly, Jesus stands among them once again and speaks -- "Shalom, peace be with you." All the blood drains from Thomas' face. Jesus turns to him and speaks plainly, without any hint of rancor or sarcasm, "Put your finger here, see my hands." Jesus holds out his scarred hands for him to examine. Thomas recoils. Not out of fear, really, but from a mixture of amazement and revulsion. Jesus begins to open his outer garment and says, "Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." Thomas is weeping now and then begins to sob out loud. Jesus reaches out and puts a hand on his shoulder. Then Thomas slips to his knees and says in awe, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus replies, "Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."— bird11
- bp, seriously, how old are you?
- "db, I can't say I'm overly impressed by a Wharton School marketing professor's attempt to critique the climatology community's chosen methods of forecasting." The basic principles of forecasting are the same no matter what you are forecasting. The guy offers certification for models, so I do think he knows a bit about the subject. Instead of dismissing him offhand, I suggest reading the detail I had to delete out - he makes a very compelling case for the problems with the climate models used to claim AGW is happening. But who knows, maybe one of his ancestors was a slave holder...— db_cooper
- "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" . . . . . Thanks birdo. Blessed we are with the intuition to believe in the absence of proof.
- db, I did read it, and I'd like to see how the climatology community responds to his assumptions. I think this is the guy who tried to bet Gore that global temps would remain steady for the next ten years, so it sounds like he has more to his agenda.
- Big business spends a lot of money defending themselves against enviromentalists. It's a known fact. There is nothing illegal about it but this legal obstructionism works wonders. Morality takes a back seat to making money every time!— James TL
- The reason why Rush, Hannity and the like are valid objects for ridicule is that they promote obviously false analyses as science, that frightwing dolts parrot ad nauseum. For example - the oft repeated contention and completely ridiculous contention that one cold winter "erases" trends that are decades long. Even intelligent "conservatives" like db cooper parrot such inanity, let alone your garden-variety frightwinger that has trouble thinking for themselves.— Talking point sleuth
- TPS - even if I agreed with your last post 100% how does that explain the increase in independent voters from 33% to 44%??— bird11
- "data faulty for the last 45 or more days" . . . . Yes, data which showed a sudden sharp drop (an incredible anomaly even by global warming standards). That still leaves the data for the last 30 years to be explained away.
- Comment removed.
- birdie - Independents listen to Rush and Hannity, and read Drudge also. It's possible that the increase is due to increased scientific evidence that runs contrary to AGW, but what is clear to me is that the claims that anti-AGW ideologues such as Rush, Hannity and Drudge make about the increase in scientific opposition to AGW are inflated. I haven't been able to find clear-cut data that show whether scientific opposition to AGW has increased - but what is clear is that it hasn't increased to the extent that Drudge and the like portray. I think that there are some valid reasons for skepticism. I also think that there are many, many invalid reasons that are being heavily promoted by ideologues - the laughable contention that one year's data "erases" decades of data being on. The mind-addled notion that climate experts don't take into account the sun's influence on our climate being another. But the daddy of them all is that AGW is some vast conspiracy whereby a significant percentage of scientific experts are either dumb as a rock or willing to corrupt their science.— Talking point sleuth
- Gee - I wonder why batboy responded to my remarks about frightwing dolts?— Talking point sleuth
- From feb. 25th. --snip-- GENEVA - Icecaps around the North and South Poles are melting faster and in a more widespread manner than expected, raising sea levels and fuelling climate change, a major scientific survey showed Wednesday. [The Antarctic icecap has warmed more rapidly than the global average. (AFP photo)]The Antarctic icecap has warmed more rapidly than the global average. (AFP photo) The International Polar Year survey found that warming in the Antarctic is "much more widespread than was thought," while Arctic sea ice is diminishing and the melting of Greenland's ice cover is accelerating. The frozen and often inaccessible polar regions have long been regarded as some of the most sensitive barometers of environmental change and global warming because of their influence on the world's oceans and atmosphere. Preliminary findings from the two year survey by thousands of scientists revealed new evidence that the ocean around the Antarctic has warmed more rapidly than the global average, the World Meteorological Organisation and the International Council for Science said in a statement. --snip--— Talking point sleuth
- My problem with the entire the sky is falling Global Warming talk of say an Al Gore is that while I agree that we are once again experiencing Global Warming the idea that it is a man made event or an event that can be turned off by man switching to hybrids is something I don't agree with based on the conflicting evidence currently available.— bird11
- "The basic principles of forecasting are the same no matter what you are forecasting." . . . . . . But the underlying scientific assumptions may not be. Take Armstrong's criticism that "currently, the only forecasts are those based on the opinions of some scientists" I'd take that seriously if he was an expert on the science, but he's not.
- I agree that Gore is an opportunist. Always was, always will be. But you do yourself a disservice by equating the theory that GW is A with Gore's bloviating. I don't believe that adopting our policies to try to diminish AGW would be some massive economic hardship. This country is quite capable of amazing things when its citizens pool their ollective energy together to accomplish a goal. Given the potential benefits re: AGW, and the obvious benefits re: pollution and reduced dependency in foreign oil, I see no overridding reason to not heavily invest in leading the globe in the development of green technologies. We need to be careful, because the potential for boodoggles (read ethanol from corn) is very real. But such boondoggles are not inevitable.— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- bird, I fear it would take much more than conversion to hybrids to reverse the trend. The world will have to convince nations like India and China to halt their industrialization, a century after we and Europe enjoyed that phase in our economic evolution completely unfettered by environmental concerns.
- Comment removed.
- "I'm just asking for a reason why I should be impressed with someone's faith absent such evidence." Once again, it is completely illogical to expect natural evidence as proof for a supernatural claim. "Blessed we are with the intuition to believe in the absence of proof." And now you're going to equate the lack of scientific proof of a supernatural being with the lack of scientific proof for a natural phenomenon which is the direct purview of science?! Astounding! Oh well, thanks for the admission that your acceptance of AGW is faith based, in lieu of scientific proof.— legatus
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- What's all this hating on Rush? Limelight, Tom Sawyer? What's not to like? OK, Geddy Lee did sing really high back in the day, but nowadays it's just good, heavy, straightforward rock 'n roll. Liberal or Conservative, I think we all need more of that. Even Colbert agrees!— Snowdog1
- "Once again, it is completely illogical to expect natural evidence as proof for a supernatural claim." . . . . So, we can scrap the intelligent design theory? Okay. So, once more, why should I buy into faith without logic or natural evidence to support it? (Please, don't say it can't be proven again. I got that.) If intuition is of no value, then what is?
- ---}}} So it's just a coincidence that you insist we goosestep to a bloviating left wing opportunist. --}}} I guess I need to spell this out for you batboy: I don't insist that you "goosestep" in any way whatsoever. However, with respect to global warming, I suggest that you review what scientists have to say on the matter.— Talking point sleuth
- Comrade Xi, it may be only coincidence, but you do realize that Europe's industrial revolution began in the late 17th century, when the world's population doubled.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- "MSL. You can't be that stupid." . . . Nope, but my typing can be. I meant 18th century.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- bp, I can't help but wonder at your childish rants. As for getting over myself, maybe you should follow your own advice. You tend to come off as threatened by my comments and by certain others, lashing out because we want to share an opinion or insight. Is that a sign of maturity?
- "but what was your point?" . . . . Your anecdote seems to coincide with Europe's first wave of industrialization and the sudden rise in the use of coal as an energy source to power the steam engine, the greatest innovation of the day. But it's probably just coincidence. What was your point?
- "Dear God help us...the guy is a joke." . . . . Yep. Ranks up there with vowing to get Osama bin Laden dead or alive, then saying "I truly don't worry about Osama bin Laden".
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- "Okay. So, once more, why should I buy into faith without logic or natural evidence to support it?" Because the existence of a Creator makes so much more sense than the alternative...and (as you say) the preponderance of the evidence is on this side. Does the absence of a creator make sense to you....that everything came from nothing, that life came came from non-life. You would necessarily be saying that the cause of the existence of everything that is natural, was a natural cause. What does it mean to say that the cause of the everything is a natural one? Natural causes exist within the universe, not outside of it. If something preceded the universe, then by definition it is not a natural cause, because the laws of nature came into existence after whatever preceded the universe. Now, there are MANY "proofs" of the existence of a creator that you could find, but since you asked I'll direct you to one. Try this link: http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html— legatus
- It is difficult to scientifically rationalize the initial cause of the universe's creation billions if not trillions of years ago. The problem is, the religious texts and teachings have also never been able to address this- creation myths in Genesis or wherever are not very convincing to the non-believers. It also doesn't help when the faces of the Republican Party deny Evolution and some even believe the Earth is 10,0000 years old or younger. I choose to see the universe as infinite and timeless, always here, always evolving, always mystical. No science book or religious teaching will change my mind.— pagoda
- Comment removed.
- "I choose to see the universe as infinite and timeless" If the universe were infinite and had no beginning (which is actually a mathematical construct that has never been shown to exist in reality), we could not have reached this point in time called "now". Look at it this way, if time were infinite and you tried to reach "the end of time"...we'd all agree that you'd never get there becasue there is no end. The same principle would be in effect if there were no beginning....you'd never reach "now"...there'd always be another year before you could reach this year.— legatus
- Limbaugh is nothing but hot air and the sheep that believe him also believe in Hell, where if it was real they could pack up and go too!— hejira33312
- Name one, just one, falsifiable prediction that goes counter to our general intuition which global warming theorist would predict. Name one climate model which has accurately predicted past weather patterns given the right inputs, let alone the future. The burden of proof is not on me to disprove global warming. And you haven't met that burden by repeating "global warming is true" over and over again.— geoffrobinson
1
Popular Posts
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: