In the Press: Joe Bastardi: Obama Prostituting Climate Science

[DTWXRISK]

 havent  talked  to you in 5 years and you are still     giving  JB    the  biggest  BJs of all time.

 JB  has never ever   ... not  even one time ever published  ANYTHING  on GW.  

and one  other point you  clown.    

lets  say YOU and JB ...  after you are Both married ...both turn out to be 100000% correct.
 and every   climate scientist turns out to be    100% wrong

being wrong in  SCIENCE  does NOT make you a socialist or communist .

  

 

Tremendous article by JB.....could not agree with him more. It amazes me when folks speak of this as fact. Facts that are beyond dispute  is the earth is round - there is no dispute on that from scientists. Now global warming....er climate change whatever they call it now is very far from fact as many scientists and scholars do not agree.

[Isotherm]

I'll be brutally honest here, I like the fact that JB speaks his mind and couldn't care less what people think about his comments. You score points in my book for that. There are people out there pushing agendas on all angles of this issue, and every other issue known to mankind. Who is correct and who is incorrect? Personally, I think JB falls on one extreme of the climate spectrum while activists like Al Gore and Hansen fall on the other extreme of the spectrum. Both parties are incorrect in my view.

 

However, generally with media stories, only the one extreme of climate opinion is suggested (e.g., we're all doomed), so it's nice to the other extreme even if it happens to be wrong as well.

[Msalgado]

You get points for speaking your mind?  All JB is doing is one of two things:  Lying or spitting out ignorant garbage.  If eitehr is point worthy, I question your judgement.  Why is it a good thing to either lie or spew disinformation?

[Isotherm]

You get points for speaking your mind?  All JB is doing is one of two things:  Lying or spitting out ignorant garbage.  If eitehr is point worthy, I question your judgement.  Why is it a good thing to either lie or spew disinformation?

 

 

Ok.

 

You cannot prove that either of the parties on the extreme ends of the climate spectrum are deliberately intending to deceive. They very well might believe what they say. My point is that the doomsday opinion is most often promulgated by the media, so it's nice to hear an opinion from the other extreme. Of course, those who are far from objective like to silence certain opinions and keep the "debate" within a narrow range of ideas (this applies for any topic of discussion in fact). Those who have the courage to openly posit an opinion that will not be accepted by the "mainstream" are deserving of some credit in my opinion.

[AvantHiatus]

Classic mindless libertarian that rebels just for the sake non-conformity.

[JBG]

You get points for speaking your mind?  All JB is doing is one of two things:  Lying or spitting out ignorant garbage.  If eitehr is point worthy, I question your judgement.  Why is it a good thing to either lie or spew disinformation?

No. The AGW alarmists have been the ones lieing and/or spitting out ignorant garbage. Given the magnitide of natural forces it is beyond ludicrous to think man is causing the warming. It defies common sense and intelligence.

[JBG]

No. The AGW alarmists have been the ones lieing and/or spitting out ignorant garbage. Given the magnitide of natural forces it is beyond ludicrous to think man is causing the warming. It defies common sense and intelligence.

actually, the burden should be on those who want to force a major societal of people to prove their point. It should not be up to the disbelievers to prove a negative.

[DTWXRISK]

  clearly  you have not  finished high school.

 

actually, the burden should be on those who want to force a major societal of people to prove their point. It should not be up to the disbelievers to prove a negative.

[DTWXRISK]

so if  I say  the  Moon  is made of cream cheese   and  you  dont believe that   (you think its made of rock)...
 then according to   non grasp of  critical reasoning  skills ...

its  up to YOU   to prove me  wrong ?  are you    nuts  ?  or  drunk?  

if we   follow you  line of  ahem  reasoning  I can go along an makje  any charge  or asssertion I wnats

 

the Loch ness is  a dinosaur  
the moon  landings  were faked  
Hitler escaped  to South America
Pamela ansderson boonbs are real

and all my charge are IMMEDIATELY   10% correct  and YOU  have to  disprove  it.. and I am not   required to ever  
support my claims ?
 
 

actually, the burden should be on those who want to force a major societal of people to prove their point. It should not be up to the disbelievers to prove a negative.

[WEATHER53]

No. The AGW alarmists have been the ones lieing and/or spitting out ignorant garbage. Given the magnitide of natural forces it is beyond ludicrous to think man is causing the warming. It defies common sense and intelligence.

You be in a heap of trouble for not following the herd mentality.  No one wants to address the volume of suspended moisture related particulates in the atmosphere that utterly dwarf anything that mankind has interjected.

[skierinvermont]

I'll be brutally honest here, I like the fact that JB speaks his mind and couldn't care less what people think about his comments. You score points in my book for that. There are people out there pushing agendas on all angles of this issue, and every other issue known to mankind. Who is correct and who is incorrect? Personally, I think JB falls on one extreme of the climate spectrum while activists like Al Gore and Hansen fall on the other extreme of the spectrum. Both parties are incorrect in my view.

 

However, generally with media stories, only the one extreme of climate opinion is suggested (e.g., we're all doomed), so it's nice to the other extreme even if it happens to be wrong as well.

 

As DonS said, the article is just factually incorrect. Spewing falsehoods gets no cred in my book for any reason.

[LithiaWx]

JB is a weather and climate change prostitute. Pot meet kettle,

[WEATHER53]

It's yet another frightening turn when the only speech that can be accepted is "mankind is melting the planet"

[JBG]

You be in a heap of trouble for not following the herd mentality.  No one wants to address the volume of suspended moisture related particulates in the atmosphere that utterly dwarf anything that mankind has interjected.

 

 

It's yet another frightening turn when the only speech that can be accepted is "mankind is melting the planet"

Couldn't agree more on both counts. This is more like a religion than a science. And the same suspects are attacking fracking, oil exports, and overseas projection of U.S. force in favor of such "indigenous" groups as ISIS.

[The_Global_Warmer]

It's like some crazy alternate reality fantasy up in here.

 

Where on Earth do you guys come up with this crazy conspiracy stuff?

[Sundog]

It's like some crazy alternate reality fantasy up in here.

Where on Earth do you guys come up with this crazy conspiracy stuff?

There's a reason there's a ton of pseudoscience tv shows on the air today. It satisfies the need for the conspiracy theorists to validate their claims and it brings in money.

[The_Global_Warmer]

There's a reason there's a ton of pseudoscience tv shows on the air today. It satisfies the need for the conspiracy theorists to validate their claims and it brings in money.

 

 

 

But it's not just one conspiracy.  This craziness is still a sustainable reality to each individual that has such a world view.

 

Every piece of the puzzle, every single piece of information, memory, and thought that goes into what creates the personal self identity and point of view for every human being has to run fluidly.

 

Because self identity becoming unglued is dangerous and usually traumatic to the person experiencing it.

 

 

Basically in order to believe the stuff some of the posters above are saying they have to also believe a whole bunch of other delusional/non factual things as if they are real and true.

 

I read that some people.  Like hundreds of thousands of hardcore Christians/conservatives believe Ebola has been genetically engineered by Obama to specifically target them and politicians like them and only infect them so he can kill off the conservatives and Christianity in the US so he can start up the Muslim brotherhood.

 

That is so absurd it's scary to see things like that out there.  Like how can that be real at all.  How do you become that insulated from reality that you believe things like that.

[wildweatherman179]

But it's not just one conspiracy. This craziness is still a sustainable reality to each individual that has such a world view.

Every piece of the puzzle, every single piece of information, memory, and thought that goes into what creates the personal self identity and point of view for every human being has to run fluidly.

Because self identity becoming unglued is dangerous and usually traumatic to the person experiencing it.

Basically in order to believe the stuff some of the posters above are saying they have to also believe a whole bunch of other delusional/non factual things as if they are real and true.

I read that some people. Like hundreds of thousands of hardcore Christians/conservatives believe Ebola has been genetically engineered by Obama to specifically target them and politicians like them and only infect them so he can kill off the conservatives and Christianity in the US so he can start up the Muslim brotherhood.

That is so absurd it's scary to see things like that out there. Like how can that be real at all. How do you become that insulated from reality that you believe things like that.

Not attacking you at all or intending to but where are these so-called "hundreds of thousands of people" who believe such lunacy? First I have ever heard of it.

On the topic of climate change as a whole, it's stupid to continue to throw up extremities on either side as examples of anything. It is also extremely foolish to immediately turn everyone into a villain who has a disagreement with any part of what you think. For people to assume or state as fact that science is settled on a subject, when it clearly is not even remotely close, is the most useless statement of ego I have ever heard in this debate. It's simply ludicrous and false.

It's simply sad that we as a country have abandoned reasoning and wisdom under the pretense of being educated. Education and intelligence without wisdom are a total waste which is one thing this debate continues to prove on a daily basis. Again, not an attack on anyone at all. It is just disappointing to continue to see the same things out of both sides every day. My 2 cents...apologies for any offense.

[AvantHiatus]

Not attacking you at all or intending to but where are these so-called "hundreds of thousands of people" who believe such lunacy? First I have ever heard of it.

On the topic of climate change as a whole, it's stupid to continue to throw up extremities on either side as examples of anything. It is also extremely foolish to immediately turn everyone into a villain who has a disagreement with any part of what you think. For people to assume or state as fact that science is settled on a subject, when it clearly is not even remotely close, is the most useless statement of ego I have ever heard in this debate. It's simply ludicrous and false.

It's simply sad that we as a country have abandoned reasoning and wisdom under the pretense of being educated. Education and intelligence without wisdom are a total waste which is one thing this debate continues to prove on a daily basis. Again, not an attack on anyone at all. It is just disappointing to continue to see the same things out of both sides every day. My 2 cents...apologies for any offense.

This is the classic libertarian 'control' argument. You also have another group that have alot to lose by responding to AGW, such as some economic sectors and oil companies. Some things are not worth it and you have to know when to throw out the dice. There are not 2 sides, only truth. This is the beauty of science. It can eliminate all other options overtime, removing the need for debate.

 

We can then proceed onto more productive tasks without wasting time on rhetoric and trivial details. We are not yet ready to dump an oil-based economy, however we should be more serious about moving forward in light of this and realize the timescales involved with the climate and the differentiation from weather.

 

I am somewhat of an existentialist so truth is pretty subjective to me, regardless if someone like myself can respond to AGW then anyone can. 

[WeatherRusty]

Not attacking you at all or intending to but where are these so-called "hundreds of thousands of people" who believe such lunacy? First I have ever heard of it.

On the topic of climate change as a whole, it's stupid to continue to throw up extremities on either side as examples of anything. It is also extremely foolish to immediately turn everyone into a villain who has a disagreement with any part of what you think. For people to assume or state as fact that science is settled on a subject, when it clearly is not even remotely close, is the most useless statement of ego I have ever heard in this debate. It's simply ludicrous and false.

It's simply sad that we as a country have abandoned reasoning and wisdom under the pretense of being educated. Education and intelligence without wisdom are a total waste which is one thing this debate continues to prove on a daily basis. Again, not an attack on anyone at all. It is just disappointing to continue to see the same things out of both sides every day. My 2 cents...apologies for any offense.

 

If you wish to understand why the scientific consensus is so strong with regard to AGW then all you need do is look here:

 

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

The people in the best position to have an informed opinion form the consensus. People who deny the consensus are not doing so based scientific inquiry.  They have neither been involved in research themselves nor been in a position to be able to analyize the vast body of science across the multitude of scientific disiplines which form our understanding. That's why there exists an IPCC which is tasked with gathering over a century's worth of scientific research into a cohesive summation.

[wildweatherman179]

If you wish to understand why the scientific consensus is so strong with regard to AGW then all you need do is look here:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

The people in the best position to have an informed opinion form the consensus. People who deny the consensus are not doing so based scientific inquiry. They have neither been involved in research themselves nor been in a position to be able to analyize the vast body of science across the multitude of scientific disiplines which form our understanding. That's why there exists an IPCC which is tasked with gathering over a century's worth of scientific research into a cohesive summation.

I have zero problem understanding the viewpoint of either side but I appreciate the link.

[GaWx]

Not attacking you at all or intending to but where are these so-called "hundreds of thousands of people" who believe such lunacy? First I have ever heard of it.

On the topic of climate change as a whole, it's stupid to continue to throw up extremities on either side as examples of anything. It is also extremely foolish to immediately turn everyone into a villain who has a disagreement with any part of what you think. For people to assume or state as fact that science is settled on a subject, when it clearly is not even remotely close, is the most useless statement of ego I have ever heard in this debate. It's simply ludicrous and false.

It's simply sad that we as a country have abandoned reasoning and wisdom under the pretense of being educated. Education and intelligence without wisdom are a total waste which is one thing this debate continues to prove on a daily basis. Again, not an attack on anyone at all. It is just disappointing to continue to see the same things out of both sides every day. My 2 cents...apologies for any offense.

 

 I agree especially with what I bolded. I can say this about the PR forum, too.

[WeatherRusty]

I have zero problem understanding the viewpoint of either side but I appreciate the link.

 

The relevant science is settled and has been for decades. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. A long lived greenhouse gas which produces a radiative forcing on Earth's near surface temperature regime. Physics informs us that a radiative forcing the equal of a doubling of CO2 will warm the Earth's surface nearly 1.2C degrees at a minimum. It's settled science just as well founded as is the greenhouse effect from water vapor.

[wildweatherman179]

The relevant science is settled and has been for decades. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. A long lived greenhouse gas which produces a radiative forcing on Earth's near surface temperature regime. Physics informs us that a radiative forcing the equal of a doubling of CO2 will warm the Earth's surface nearly 1.2C degrees at a minimum. It's settled science just as well founded as is the greenhouse effect from water vapor.

My questions about this fact are as follows:

1. Were there not periods of much higher atmospheric CO2 centuries ago?

2. What proven effects, if any, did CO2 have at these times and on what timescale were the effects notable?

3. The earth/atmosphere is how old compared to the 120 or so years we consider to be studied/modified/re-studied and re-modified x number of times?

Thanks in advance.

[LithiaWx]

JB is a weather and climate change prostitute. Pot meet kettle,

 

JB is still a whore.  He is a disgrace to meteorologists.

[Jim Marusak]

JB is still a whore.  He is a disgrace to meteorologists.

 

have to admit, yea the climate change stuff is a big downfall of his. if he had only stuck to the short/mid-range stuff he actually was not a bad guy to be around. just have to wonder though. at this point, will this damage his new company Weatherbell, or will it help it from an "any publicity is good publicity" thing?

[Quixotic1]

have to admit, yea the climate change stuff is a big downfall of his. if he had only stuck to the short/mid-range stuff he actually was not a bad guy to be around. just have to wonder though. at this point, will this damage his new company Weatherbell, or will it help it from an "any publicity is good publicity" thing?

That's just it. I don't think he actually believes the nonsense he spouts. He saw an opportunity to work as a mouthpiece. His industrial "clients" are probably thrilled to death at his stance as it is exactly what they want to hear. Pandering at its lowest level.

[Minnesota Meso]

have to admit, yea the climate change stuff is a big downfall of his. if he had only stuck to the short/mid-range stuff he actually was not a bad guy to be around. just have to wonder though. at this point, will this damage his new company Weatherbell, or will it help it from an "any publicity is good publicity" thing?

 

I just watched his free video on the Weather Bell site posted on Sat Oct 18th.  He would do much better focusing on the medium to seasonal forecasting issues.  He would attract way more viewers if he would separate the Saturday disco into two vids, one for medium to seasonal forecasting  and one for climate change.  As Dorothy once said in a famous song "somewhere over the rainbow'

[Minnesota Meso]

That's just it. I don't think he actually believes the nonsense he spouts. He saw an opportunity to work as a mouthpiece. His industrial "clients" are probably thrilled to death at his stance as it is exactly what they want to hear. Pandering at its lowest level.

 

I don't know if I would have been this strong in my assessment.  See my post #58 on this thread  What is at the end of the rainbow???.

[Quixotic1]

I don't know if I would have been this strong in my assessment.  See my post #58 on this thread  What is at the end of the rainbow???.

I won't pretend to know how a private sector company like WB works, however I know an agenda when I see one. Much like anyone else I suppose JB knows who is paying him. A few big corporate clients that want to hear AGW is rubbish, would make up for a lot of small frys that subscribe.

JB would have us believe that Al Gore and every other AGW proponent is in it for the money, however the money to be made is a pittance when compared with what the fossil fuel guys bring in.