Monday, February 15, 2010

Stupid On Display

So the "reporters" at Fox "News" have decided that snow in the East Coast disproves global warming. In a scoop of epic proportions (in the same way a shovel of horse crap is a scoop), they stuck a copy of Al Gore's book in the snow. Nothing like graphics to prove a point.

Now, anyone with a brain (a subset of humanity which, as has been amply demonstrated, does not include any of the "personalities" on Fox "News") knows snow in winter -- even record snow on an occasion -- neither proves nor disproves a damn thing. The fact that this January was the warmest one, globally, on record (while Florida froze, my area had its warmest ever, and let's not mention the Winter Olympics); the fact that the ten years just ended was the warmest decade on record; those bits of data carry a little weight. One season, in one part of the world: not so much.

With that caveat in mind, it'd be interesting to ask those yukking yokels, those proud prevaricators, those fatuous fabricators of Fox "News" what they think of the fact that at the very time they were getting their giggles garroting Gore, thirty-two people died of record heat in Brazil. And that, even after the unprecedented heat wave of a year ago, they broke another heat record a few days ago in Melbourne.

I guess it would affect them the way it affects Fox listeners: not a damn bit.

Keep up the good work, Fox and followers. You're like WWII collaborators; except this time, when your denial does its work, there'll be no one left to bring the full force of history to bear on you. So, lucky you.

[Yes, I realize this is sort of old news. But in my view you never can call enough attention to the kind of idiocy that passes for news and which is eaten like ice cream by Fox "News" viewers.]


  1. Umm Sid, its Summer in Brazil and Austraila its supposed to be hot...
    Its that whole 23.5 degree tilt of the Axis thing, heck we learned that in Alabama, right after Creation class...February in North America=August in South America...heck you probably don't know what a "Reddog" is either...
    and Guess what? in July it'll be hot HERE...and cold THERE
    I KNOW, Your Anecdotal Data can beat up by Anecdotal Data, and where do you measure the temperature for January??At the equator? or randomly scattered calibrated thermometers around the globe?
    And its your side who changed the name from "Global Warming" to "Global Climate Change" when there Global Warming Conferences kept getting postponed by Blizzards..


  2. Gee, Frank, it looks like you finally got the point of one of my posts: it's winter where the Fox "news" morons are claiming snow disproves global warming, while ignoring that in places where it's summer, it's setting record temperatures. Yep, Frank, you finally get it. Now if you could just, since you speak their language, get Sean and Glenn to understand...

    Of course there's the satellite data that you DON'T seem to understand, so there's no hope at all of your lowering the stupid level at Fox "news" beyond naming the seasons.

  3. I might not understand Satellite Data, but I can recognize 4 inches of Snow on my driveway...Snow in all 48 contiguous states BTW...
    In Football a "Red Dog" was what they used to call the "Blitz" back before WW2 when nobody knew what "Blitz" meant...Back in the old days, like when you played....

  4. Okay, Frank, I take it back. You don't understand at all. Sorry to have insulted you.

  5. I think Frank makes a excellent point: Most Fox viewers (and reporters) probably don't want to, or can't, understand anything beyond the 4" of snow on their own driveways... even in Alabama.

  6. I believe what y'alls doin is a-called "Attackin the Messenger" where you call someone an imbecile or ridicule them for where they live...
    I'd do that if I didn't have any facts either...


    P.S. you mother's ugly

  7. Tone, Frankie. Tone. Ya gives, ya gets.

  8. Dr S - Is science still science if the data is skewed ..even the slightest bit?

    Can one relying on accurate science data continue to rely on said data if it has been purposely altered either through omission of factual data or intentionally altered data?

    Is it right to accept skewed data as pure science and then allow that info to affect our governmental regulations and laws?


    BBC reporting about it? Our press hardly talking about it?

    And why not have total transparency and release all of the data? Isn't science supposed to be open for review?

    I don't have a science background and so I'd appreciate if you or someone could you please help me to understand why we should continue to embrace what seems to be a global warming/climate change pseudo science as authentic, reliable and pure and thus allow it to affect our lives with cap and trade, regulations ..etc.

  9. Okay, Seaspray, I'll make it simple: if you heard it on Fox "News" it's false. Period. Climategate? If you really want to know about it, you can read this. If not, keep getting your "knowledge" from Glenn and Sean and Bill and Rush. And Chris. Yeah, Chris, too.

    I can't figure out why you keep coming here: no matter how often I show how wrong they are, your opinions are consistently based on the disinformation you get from Fox "news," and the other RWS™. You repeat their skewed crazy over and over. They have an agenda, Seaspray, and it's to bring down Obama by whatever means necessary. And they want to support the real elites, namely Wall Street: so they will oppose anything that makes it hard for them; in this case, it's solutions to global warming.

    My agenda, believe it or not, is to point out the fallacies of our media, and the dangers of an entire network of admitted and proud propagandists; why it's so scary that people like you, who seem intelligent, buy it hook line and sinker. Over and over.

    And over.

  10. PS: Since you asked, here's more information on the subject, as opposed to whatever it is that Fox "news" peddles.

    Is there some point at which you'd begin to wonder if your sources are the best you can find?

  11. Frank, you do have a knack for making good points- this time about messages. I have to question where you are getting your message, and how and why you would be a messenger. Certainly we are all used to the fact, that when related to political campaigns or agendas, the messages and facts, often have little to no relationship to each other. Are not the "messages" we hear from politicos or pundits, simply sound bites, or video clips, most often carefully crafted, to support or maintain an ideology or agenda? Could we agree on that? Wouldn't any reasonable person, when presented with two opposing messages about a subject of personal interest, diligently question the "message" and research the facts? Personally, I think a good place to start is with "messenger", and ask myself does the messenger hold any credibility for me, is the messenger legitimate? A quick look at the personal history, interests, and educational backgrounds is a good place to start, and a great example would be to Wiki Glen Beck and Rachel Maddow (granted both earn their livings with their pie holes), however, I find a thoughtful comedian, showman, ring leader, and mob inciter, vs. an educated show woman, progressive thinker, and political expert. I don't have to like either person or agendas, but I feel obligated to respect their educations and backgrounds as a source of credibility. Please tell me (aside from my sarcasms) how this process might be at fault. It is true, monkeys like shiny things, and our wonderful media knows how to use shiny things for their own agendas. And SeaSpray, you don't have to have a scientific background to understand or even research facts, a little logic goes a long way, especially when it comes to forming an opinion of where you get your messages- and leave conspiracy theory's out until you know the facts, it's only a logical process.

  12. Anybody (DrekMan, SeaSpray) ever heard of the Hydrological cycle?

    It is the continuous movement of water on, above and below the surface of the Earth.

    The sun,drives the water cycle, it heats water in the ocean; the water evaporates as water vapor into the atmosphere whereit condenses and precipitates as rain or snow depending on seasonal and geographic conditions dictate.

    You can test this in your own kitchen SeaSpray: Put some water in a pan and cover it with a lid - preferably a glass lid - turn the heat on low. You will soon see steam rising from the water to condense on the surface of the lid. Turn the heat up - more heat, more steam, more condensation.

    As the planet warms, more water is evaporated into the atmosphere where it is available for greater snow and rainfall.

    "Global Warming" or"Global Climate Change" does not predict that the planet will become a desert the concept tells us to expect greater extremes of hot and cold which, by the way, is what we are seeing.

    On the other hand, I believe that all the hot air, and methane rich flatulence produced by DrekMan et al (SS) are clearly contributing to the formation of an intellectual desert of planetary proportions.

    Seriously SeaSpray, Did W talk to God; did you check the many links I posted? Maybe you could ask God yourself?


Comments back, moderated. Preference given for those who stay on topic.

Popular posts