(UPDATE)When confronted with this blogpost, the Meatbeater read exactly 2 sentences before his liberal brain shriveled up and he could handle no more. The reason for his loss of bowel control? Originally the second sentence read "Meathead makes reference to an attempt by Mr. Watts to have the video removed from Youtube, something that has not happened.' Immediately, Meatbrain's eyes began to flood with tears, and he quickly had to out me as a 'liar' so that harmony and balance could be restored to the universe. The only problem is, I didn't lie. The video is, in fact, still posted on Youtube, and linked in this post. The video was taken down for a short while, but ultimately reposted on Youtube. Which means that Mr. Watts' attempt to get it taken down failed. If you were going to tell this tale to a friend, you would say that Mr. Watts attempted to get the video pulled, but ultimately he failed, or it hasn't happened.
However, in an attempt to have a logical debate with this ass, I changed the line to read, as it does below. Unfortunately, Meat-for-brains took this as evidence of a lie, and heralded it from the highest twitter peaks, at right is his twitter stream to me. There is no intelligence on the left, and Meatbrain is exhibit A.
But the larger story is here that Meathead knows that he does not possess the ability to dispute any of the facts listed in the blog post below and so instead of taking them on, he must resort to calling me a liar. It's a very old trick, and one that is worn out. You see, if you can call the author a liar, then it doesn't matter what's in the article, or in this case blogpost. That way you don't have to address the overwhelming facts within the post itself. Where do we first behold this behavior? In the 2nd grade. This leads me to believe that Meatheads momma set him up with a blog, and since he can't run with the big boys, he just calls the liars from the sideline. Insinuating that someone is a liar implies intent. Meatass cannot prove intent, and as such his name calling is nothing more than libel. Proof once again that libtards are on a completely different evolutionary path from conservatives. While conservatives continue to evolve and become better and brighter, the left peaked with Nathan Bedford Forrest, and have been steadily deteriorating ever since.
Bottom line, Meathead is an anti-intellectual fool for posting such tripe on his blog and standing behind it as reasoned evidence. When called on this, he dissolves into the 3rd grader on the playground and calls everyone within earshot a liar. Well played sir, well played.
---
Paul's favorite libtard of the week, Meathead has the following video posted at his blog which he purports to 'spank' Anthony Watts 'hard.' Meathead makes reference to an attempt by Mr. Watts to have the video removed from Youtube. Apparently the video was pulled and later reposted, but that is inconsequential to the facts below, get over it. Just what is in this video that so totally spanks Anthony Watts? Let's see:
Okay, let's go through this video point by point to view the utter carnage it's wreaked upon Anthony Watts and 'climate change deniers.'
Anthony Watts works for KPAY 1290 which also happens to feature Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage.
Sweet Jeezus! He's obviously part of the vast rightwing conspiracy! Really, unless KPAY sanctioned his work, I have a hard time seeing how the on air talent at the radio station has any bearing on this issue... Guilt by association much?
He's recruited volunteers in his efforts to photograph weather stations in question.
Can't trust them uneducated rubes to take photographs! If he were relying on volunteers to take radiation readings for proof of some nuclear fallout or something, I could understand discounting the effort based upon the involvement of some rookies, but pictures?! Who can't work a camera? This is an attempt to discount the data based upon the perceived incompetence of the volunteers.
Anthony Watts' book was published under the hospices of The Heartland Institute, who also happens to advocate Free Market Principles and champions smokers rights!
Bastardz! Who the eff would champion smokers rights?! This is obviously proof that this far right wing group hates all humans and is looking for causes to support based upon how many humans will be killed as a result... Or not. The fact that The Heartland Institute supports smokers rights has NOTHING to do with this piece, and once again is an attempt to vilify Anthony Watts based upon association.
The Heartland Institute makes lots of money and is a right wing organization!
The reality is that Mr. Watts more than likely does not earn enough money as a radio meteorologist to publish a book. The fact that he found THI who agreed to support his efforts to publish a book means little. Is anybody really shocked when a book supporting socialized health care is backed by a leftwing organization? Then why is anyone shocked that an organization with rightward leanings is helping to publish books which call into question the validity of AGW? The only time any of us should be shocked is if it were a leftwing organization publishing a book decrying communism or something... Once more, guilt by association.
The Heartland Institute has been a primary facilitator behind the initiative to 'distort and obfuscate the science surrounding' global climate change.
Because we all know that the science behind global climate change, or more specifically AGW is settled, right? The fact that an individual or a group questions a theory or produces evidence that some of the science used to support a theory is not sound is hardly 'distortion' or 'obfuscation.' If there is, in fact, distortion or obfucsation going on, the video provides NO evidence of either.
NOAA responds, agreeing that the stations in question could be (and are, in fact) giving false readings.
The fact that NOAA corrects the data that they are receiving from these stations is an indication that the readings are being influenced by their surroundings... Which is exactly what Mr. Watts asserted. So, Anthony Watts was right? That appears to be the case.
After correcting for surroundings, the data taken at the stations in question matched the overall trend of warming noticed via the data taken from stations which were not in question.
Great! Fantastic! But, why does the graph in the video only show data going back to the 1950's? You see, the earths climate is cyclical. In order to get a true understanding of what's happening to global temperatures, you have to look at hundreds of years of data, because if you only look at a couple of decades, you paint an incomplete picture and people might accuse you of being 'a politically motivated liar!'
Hudson Bay was the growth centre for the main ice sheet that covered northern North America during the last Ice Age. The whole region has very low year round average temperatures. (The average annual temperature for Churchill at 59°N is -5°C; by comparison Arkhangelsk at 64°N in a similar cold continental position in northern Russia has an average of 2°C.) Water temperature peaks at 8°-9°C on the western side of the bay in late summer. It is largely frozen over from mid-December to mid-June when it usually clears from its eastern end westwards and southwards. A steady increase in regional temperatures over the last 100 years has been reflected in a lengthening of the ice-free period which was as short as four months in the late 17th century.
Growing seasons have changed drastically in recent decades
See above. This would make sense given the cyclical nature of warming and cooling in our environment.
A recent peer-reviewed NASA study analyzed several global biological markers and their reaction to climate change
Again, if the trends of warming and cooling are cyclical in nature and they last for 30 years (on average) then animal and plant life, as well as ice would be effected and in the case of animals and plants, would adapt to these changes. This is not damning evidence against the AGW deniers, but evidence for the cyclical nature of warming and cooling.
The very same people who told you that WMD's were real are now trying to tell you that climate change is not.
Sometimes, I really hate flogging the left so handily, but they continue to just tee it right up...
For the last time, EVERYONE believed there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, because Saddam wanted the world to believe it. Hell, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Algore, Hillary and Bill all stated that Iraq possessed WMD's, so can we get off that? Besides, WTF does it have to do with AGW?
Secondly, no one is claiming that climate change is not happening. What we are disputing is man's role in the change. The fact is that the earth has been warming and cooling for a millennium, without the help of my Suburban, mmkay?
You want to make Anthony Watts look like an ass because you don't agree with his political viewpoint? Fine. Foisting bad science and attempting to bring him down because of is associations, that's called intellectual dishonesty, something the left has mastered.
0 People Have Had Their Say:
Post a Comment