Too bad David Gregory couldn’t have been more concise with his questions (or whatever you want to call what he was saying.)
Blackburn wins for smugness. Nye wins for most shell-shocked. He clearly wasn’t at his best.
All in all, there’s really nothing to see here, unfortunately.
The point that I remember, and it sort of sucks really, but it was that even if the US does all kinds of drastic cuts, ruins the economy to reduce CO2 emissions, it won’t change a fucking thing as far as CO2 levels, which means it won’t do jackshit to stop the feared global warming.
Who in their right mind will starve their own family while the neighbors are eating like pigs?
The point to remember here is that it will not ruin the economy. But we know already how wrong you are on this subject.
.
I can tell somebody didn’t watch the debate.
Regarding the “debate” Philip Bump who is a technology and environmentalist writer did check and it is clear that Blackburn turned the falsehoods up to 11.
And not only Blackburn got criticized, also the hosts and the show were.
You really should watch a debate before trying to discuss it.
A meaningless retort as I did see the “debate”, and I agree with other posters, not much to see there, but it gives us evidence of how loopy the current crop of republicans are.
“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”
~ H. L. Mencken
Of course that is the point that many climate scientists make, but there are many contrarians that only look at cherry picks and call it a day, indeed that is a very simple and wrong solution, dealing with what the scientists report is too complicated for them it seems.
Wait, was that supposed to have any connection to anything else in the thread?
The current ideas to explain the slight cooling trend measured by every single data set of global temperatures, are quite varied at this point. I of course, like mine best, but there are many others.
There are also several ideas that simply brush aside the data and claim that warming has actually continued.
It’s an interesting time.
So indeed, scientists do take natural forces into account, and as usual it as to be mentioned that researchers like Latif pointed at the variability that was bound to show up, and just like he predicted, natural variations in the long term warming are being misinterpreted by the denier media. Out of ignorance, or malice. They did a good job on many and that sorry idea still omits the ocean temperature increase.
I think the very concept that one hand is declaring no slowdown, while the other is explaining why the slowdown happened, just whooshed right over somebodies head.
The evidence shows that the whoosh happened to the ones that are trying to claim that it is clear and simple. Natural variations are indeed acknowledged by science, the oceans and other evidence point at the “pause” as being a repeat of the movie seen in the 70’s. **More **warming will come eventually to the surface too.
“More” warming? “Eventually”? That seems to be the part of this climate change thing that really hurts the IPCC’s and agw believer’s credibility. Global warming with no global warming.
Why o why does the Earth’s temp keep disagreeing with the IPCC guesstimations?
As someone said, you are looking for simple items to dismiss what the experts and scientists found before and now, not as easy as you want. And still what you said is less credible where it counts.
Which doesn’t change the fact that even the IPCC and it’s feeder organizations are trying to explain the current pause/plateau in the global temperature.
Once again, you can not explain away the fact that we saw this movie before in the 70’s.