Nicely done, Rach.

Keep fucking that chicken...

Wow, I smell a brewing love story here. Maddow and Beck sitting in a tree K I S S I N G.

Both sides can stick it up their fucking asses.

Real Science doesn't deal with politics it deals with measurements, observations, and hypotheses. It has no time for touching the hearts and minds of people, or creating propaganda.

Politicians, racketeers, and media perpetuate bad science. I like my science straight from the source, and not the news.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

The convoluted nested nature of this back and forth is hard to follow.

Beck is a douche, and no one else is calling him out on his bullshit. Kudo's to Maddow for breaking it down this way.

>> ^dag:
The convoluted nested nature of this back and forth is hard to follow.


Seriously! She has a doctorate in politics and this is the most concise argument she can make? I like Maddow but her gleeful, long-winded taunts aren't going to do any good.

The Fox lies, Mad Hoe calls him on it. Fox denies, Hoe Insists.

Whoopdie freakin do.

she knows she's being watched and picked apart for glenn beck ratings, she needs to be more careful with her language.

The ironic thing is, the amount of snow that was dropped was actually because the Atlantic is warming up, and put a whole lot more moisture into the air. The Ocean effect + the big weather cell smashing together = big snow fall.

Oh well, some people just want to play the violin while Rome is burning =)

*quality

But please...please...dont make me watch any more Glenn Beck.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by JiggaJonson.

*promote... what happened to glenn beck after this?

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, February 17th, 2010 6:01am PST - promote requested by MycroftHomlz.

Maddow - like most biased pundits - has a bad habit of taking things out of context and being stupid. It is pretty obviou the Beck quote was a jibe and not meant to be a serious claim that "XYZ snowstorm disproves Global Warming". A lot of people have been making jibes of that nature, but - as Beck said - I have not seen anyone (so far) try to make a scientific argument about it. It is smacktalk. And quite frankly, the Warmers deserve it. Their arguments have been falling apart, and they need to realize they have lost the popular as well as the scientific debate.

Frankly, I think Maddow is desperate. Her ratings aren't just bad. They're non-existent. As of last week her average was under 960K viewers. Becks are over 3 million. If she doesn't turn it around she may get cancelled. I think there's blood in the water, and Maddow is trying to gin up ratings by piggybacking on Beck with a stupid manufactured 'fight'. To accomplish it she is whoring away her ethics with bogus misquotes. M'eh. Par for the course in that business.

i think there are enough clips from each others shows in this clip that i've effectively watched this clip four times in one viewing.

Here is the Maddow/Warmer position, if I were to plot it out as an argument...
1. Earth's climate has changed in the past.
2. Past climate changes are science.
3. Anthropogenic C02 emissions caused recent climate changes (AGW).
4. Those who disagree with AGW are therefore arguing against 1 & 2.

Maddow is following this rather illogical argument to the letter. Alas for her, that the position is fallacious. Yes, climate changes are facts. But AGW is not fact. AGW is a hypothesis (and a pretty weak one at that). Therefore it is false to say that arguing against AGW (a theory) is the same as arguing against 'science'. AGW Deniers are not arguing against 'climate change'. They are arguing against the politically motivated bunk that is the AGW Warmer movement.

So these two chimps could pick nits off each other for years and never address the underlying miscommunication.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Their arguments have been falling apart, and they need to realize they have lost the popular as well as the scientific debate.


It's hard to debate science. Either it is or it isn't. Most of the debate lies in theory, and climate change being affected by human actions isn't a theory.

*Prissy bitch fight between two polar "equals"

It's hard to debate science. Either it is or it isn't. Most of the debate lies in theory, and climate change being affected by human actions isn't a theory.

It depends on what you mean when you say that. There is no arguement that human being can affect localized climates. But the premise of the Warmers is that the C02 generated by man since the industrial revolution is the cause of temperature increases. Furthermore, they also argue that human beings MUST reduce C02 emissions to 1840 levels in order to stop temperature increases. And they ALSO argue that the political manifestation of this must take place in the form of immense transfers of money from private ownership to governments.

Baloney. There is no science proving human C02 emissions have caused any warming. Nor is there any evidence that reducing human C02 output to 1840 levels would do jack-diddly to cool the planet. There CERTAINLY is no scientific evidence that the methodology of massive private-to-public wealth transfers would accomplish anything.

So - again - you need to clarify what you mean when you say 'isn't a theory'. If you are talking about localized things like a power plant polluting a specific river or something then sure. But I would stridently argue that "AGW" as defined by the Warmers very much IS a theory. A crappy theory.

There is science that supports the notion that CO2 emissions are to blame for a global temperature increase since 1850. You might not like it, because it doesn't fit into your magical worldview, but the science is there.

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/08_1.shtml
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Should readers believe NASA, or random internet dude with a cowboy hat who claims to be a statistician?

>>^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
It's hard to debate science. Either it is or it isn't. Most of the debate lies in theory, and climate change being affected by human actions isn't a theory.
It depends on what you mean when you say that. There is no arguement that human being can affect localized climates. But the premise of the Warmers is that the C02 generated by man since the industrial revolution is the cause of temperature increases. Furthermore, they also argue that human beings MUST reduce C02 emissions to 1840 levels in order to stop temperature increases. And they ALSO argue that the political manifestation of this must take place in the form of immense transfers of money from private ownership to governments.
Baloney. There is no science proving human C02 emissions have caused any warming. Nor is there any evidence that reducing human C02 output to 1840 levels would do jack-diddly to cool the planet. There CERTAINLY is no scientific evidence that the methodology of massive private-to-public wealth transfers would accomplish anything.
So - again - you need to clarify what you mean when you say 'isn't a theory'. If you are talking about localized things like a power plant polluting a specific river or something then sure. But I would stridently argue that "AGW" as defined by the Warmers very much IS a theory. A crappy theory.

He said that I said that he said that I said... wait. What?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Here is the Maddow/Warmer position, if I were to plot it out as an argument...
1. Earth's climate has changed in the past.
2. Past climate changes are science.
3. Anthropogenic C02 emissions caused recent climate changes (AGW).
4. Those who disagree with AGW are therefore arguing against 1 & 2.

Actually the argument is:

1. By studying climate changes in the past, scientists have determined that the two big factors affecting global temperature levels are insolation (the amount of energy falling to Earth from the sun) and the infrared transparency of the atmosphere, which is governed by the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
   
2. Solar radiation rises and falls in predictable, 11-year cycles, and we have lots of historical data on it, and it's been stable for more than a century
   
3. The makeup of the atmosphere can also be measured, and we have lots of historical data on that as well
   
4. Since the industrial revolution, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been going up at a rate that roughly matches the rate at which humans have increased their output of CO2
   
5. We've been having record high temperatures at the nadir of the 11-year solar cycle
   
6. We've been seeing changes in weather patterns that are affecting crop yields, as well as an uptick in the number of extreme weather events, confirming the predictions of the theory
   
7. Therefore, we should do something to curtail our CO2 emissions, the way the nice people who study this stuff for a living say we should.
   

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

It depends on what you mean when you say that. There is no arguement that human being can affect localized climates. But the premise of the Warmers is that the C02 generated by man since the industrial revolution is the cause of temperature increases.

I thought it was pretty clear,humans are effecting the increase in temperature on the planet. I don't think I can make it more precise. Someone has already linked the science proving that, and if you desire more, then I will provide it. But it is more than C02 production, it's a combination of other things as well, that have to deal with pollution.

eg. Why are the oceans warming up at such a pace? A great visual example of that is the Gulf of Mexico. The waters are so damn warm there, that any tropical storm gets whipped up into a hurricane in no time flat. Why? Because of all the crap coming down the Mississippi and settling into the Gulf.

Is it all C02? No, but it does play its part. You can't disprove this, because they've been researching it for decades now. You think that tossing that amount of Carbon into the air wouldn't do anything to the atmosphere? Or dumping tons upon tons of crap into our oceans and drinking water, wouldn't have some kind of effect on the environment around it?