Whenever a "news network" wants to pretend climate change is controversial, they march out the same sad handful of washed-up denier dopes who no longer publish in their fields (if they ever did), get paid by well-heeled think tanks to impotently nitpick away at active, ongoing research, and who are discovering that their unscientific opinions are welcome in fewer and fewer legitimate reporting outlets each and every day.
Hence the fact that, as of late, you only find them on radical, fringe media stations, and their appearances, quite frankly, are dwindling there as well.
Here's On Point with Tomi Lahren, a completely brainless talk show on a relatively new right-wing network called One America News, acting like we haven't heard Joe Bastardi, Roy Spencer, Jay Lehr, and Patrick Moore babble all this incoherent, oft-rebutted crap before.
It's always the same few denier mopes, because these "news" programs can't find anyone else to shamelessly embarrass themselves like this. No one with a shred of self-respect would so willingly display such an idiotic "understanding" of science.
Let's play along like these weak and tired denier talking points haven't been refuted A MILLION TIMES BEFORE, and address them in turn, shall we?
"A hundred years ago or two hundred years ago, out of every ten thousand molecules in the atmosphere, three of them, only three out of ten thousand, were carbon dioxide. Now, after a hundred or two hundred years of carbon dioxide emissions, four out of ten thousand are carbon dioxide. There's very little carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."
-Dr. Roy Spencer
Um, Roy, it'd be about 2.8 vs. 4 CO2 molecules between then and now, but, whatever, not an important correction, because there's less ozone, even in the part of the atmosphere where its concentration is highest. Ozone levels changed to a slighter degree, and we see where that got us. We'll plunk you down on an Earth analog that has less or no ozone at all, see how you fare, and find out if you wanna continue spouting more idiocy about how "insignificant" the changes in concentrations of trace atmospheric gases can be. You have a PhD and you don't understand something so simple.
It.
Is.
Pathetic.
Thankfully, practicing climate scientists know better than to adopt Spencer's childishly cavalier attitude.
"We have record low burnage as far as acreage, yet, if a wildfire occurs, people are gonna say, 'Look at that, wildfires or tornadoes.' The fact that the total global hurricane activity, tropical activity has plummeted the way it has."
-Joe Bastardi
Record low wildfire acreage burned, you say? Uh, that'd be a no, dumb-dumb.
Not sure what "tropical activity" even means or how it has plummeted, but if Bastardi was trying to say something that in English translates to fewer but stronger cyclones, um, that is exactly what is predicted for a warmer climate. What Bastardi won't mention is that while the total number of storms may decrease, their intensity will increase. And an admittedly superficial, thoroughly unscientific tally on my part suggested this is true. This is why no one who produces a legitimate show will have him on. He refuses to correct a misconception that 4th graders don't fall for anymore, and insists on repeating it. In other words, he has transformed himself into a confused, babbling idiot. Congrats, Joe.
"There's now huge money in it. Academia gets 2.7 billion dollars a year in this country alone, and really all over the world. So it's mostly politics, uh, uh, and, and money."
-Jay Lehr
I know, right, Jay? I mean, we should all live in a fantasy world where science doesn't need funding, and where energy industry subsidies don't dwarf it. Anyway, I think we both know why you can't complete this thoroughly hypocritical statement without losing interest in its meaningless stupidity and stuttering away. Nice cheesy, rub-on, George Hamilton tan, by the way, Jay. While we're talking about "huge money," did your huge Heartland checks pay for that, ya big, leathery, know-nothing troll?
The host, Tomi Lahren, chimes in with her own two worthless cents about attending a conference somewhere where someone said something along the lines of only 1% of climate studies in the past few decades mention "human-caused global warming" explicitly. A meeting title, location, date/time, and speaker name would be nice, huh? I guess whatever speaker made this claim at whatever event (if either really ever existed) and this clueless talk show host don't understand that research papers have a bibliography where previous discoveries upon which they are basing their own findings are referenced. That is to say, explicit mention is assumed if it has been stated before and cited. I will bet my very life on the fact that 1% is an absolutely asinine underestimate. Apparently Tomi's peroxide addiction is resulting in some of it seeping through pores in her head, and eating away at essential grey matter necessary for higher cognitive functioning.
As for Patrick Moore, the main interview, do you really think he's gonna express a new or refreshing climate change opinion on this program? It's just gonna be the same unscientific tosh.
No comments:
Post a Comment