You do have to give John Kerry some props: he is using the old saying that there is no such thing as bad press to good effect. Witness his latest histrionics
Speaking at a town hall-style meeting promoting climate change legislation on Thursday, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) predicted there will be “an ice-free Arctic†in “five or 10 years.”
“The arctic ice is disappearing faster than was predicted,†Kerry said. “And instead of waiting until 2030 or whenever it was to have an ice-free Arctic, we’re going to have one in five or 10 years.â€
Except, none of the other climate alarmist organizations agree with him. Perhaps Kerry should check the ice himself. Stay there for the next 5-10 years and let us know. That way, when he says something really stupid, he won’t follow it up with more incredible idiocy
Kerry further said: “Predictions of sea level rise are now 3 to 6 feet. They’re higher than were originally going to be predicted over the course of this century because nothing’s happening. But the causes and effects are cumulative.â€
“The Audubon Society – not exactly, you know, an ideological entity on the right or the left or wherever in America – has reported that its members are reporting a hundred-mile swath in the United States of America where plants, shrubs, trees, flowers – things that used to grow — don’t grow any more,†Kerry said.
Intelligent discourse and rebuttal usually goes right here, yet, I believe I will go with the old standard “liar liar pants on fire.”
Let’s move to ABC, which has gone from news organization to advocacy group
“It’s so hot outside, you could fry an egg …†or something like that.
Perhaps ABC News should have rehearsed their attempted dramatic presentation to promote global warming alarmism before going forward. But instead, they have egg on their face after failing to fry an egg in the heat, that is.
According to a spokesman for Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., a producer for ABC News senior congressional correspondent Jonathan Karl requested an interview about pending climate legislation. However, the producer insisted it be conducted outside instead of in the U.S. Capitol or in any of the surrounding Senate office buildings. Washington, D.C. temperatures have been in excess of 95 degrees. An abbreviated clip of the interview aired on ABCNews.com’s “Topline†on July 23.
Hilarious video is available at the link of frying egg failure.
Maybe he can do an Arctic crossing in his new sailboat.
Seriosly? He brings up that worn-out tired 3-year old argument? For one who wanted to be president of the USA, he sure is stupid, ignorant, or purposefully blind.
Ice is at “normal” levels (according to avg set by only the recent years monitored) and is considered to be in a growing trend. In fact, recent suppositions point to a coming several-decade long new cold spell like we had around 70’s.
As for your second part, did they really think they could pull a fast one on the honorable revered and ever-astute Senator Jim Inhofe? Am sure he was laughing all the way home. Am sure he reminded the reporters that it was indeed a period in the seasonal climate change called…. “summer”.
The US Navy seems to feel differently Captain Fish The US Navy says that the Arctic Ocean will be ice free in summer by 2020. They are concerned because that means that surface ships will be able to track our boomers.veterans Of course some people do not trust our military, perhaps Captain Fish is one of those
I trust our military. I trust our military to do one of several things. Shoot bad people and blow stuff up.
Weather and climate monitoring? Not so much. Leave that to Nasa and NWS.
Might I suggest you see this…
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png
…note that everything is going along like it should. And, here is a link to the extent of current ice…
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
And, temperatures are heading back towards freezing a bit early…
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
…. kind of hard to melt all of your ice when temps are still at freezing. And for those who like anomalies, how’s the earliest date to get back down to freezing? Even 2007, didn’t happen. And how about the bad winter 09/10? Or the S. American winter 2010 they are having of record? (No, it doesn’t mean much. Give me 2-3 years in a row then we can talk of possible trends.)
Are you really saying that a one-year “low” in 2007 is a sign of apocalypse that is bound to come? Or, are we just experiencing a “low” in only the data that we have collected thus far?
Am sure that the ice extent and coverage were next to nill during the 1930s.
How can those who believe in the “apocalypse”, claim record numbers or portend a future event, when the only data we have is for the last 40 years?
Because he has Faith, Captain.
He sure as HELL has nothing else to base it upon.
The US Navy seems to feel differently Captain Fish The US Navy says that the Arctic Ocean will be ice free in summer by 2020.
Geez Ryan, you keep saying this even though the article you used to link to says nothing of the sort.
They are concerned because that means that surface ships will be able to track our boomers.
Clearly you have never served on a naval ship nor understand submarine warfare today. Boomers don’t travel under the ice pack to lose potential enemies (although they can) boomers mived under the ice pack to shorten the range to the former Soviet Union.
veterans Of course some people do not trust our military, perhaps Captain Fish is one of those
No, we just don’t trust you. Until you are willing to actually debate and not snipe from under your bridge, you are nothing more than an uninformed, little hypocritical, ignorant troll.
GC,
For someone who claims to be so interested in debate, you sure have left several of my questions alone. I’m starting to get the feeling that you know a lot of talking points, but not many details.
CF,
Why did you use the term “Apocalypse” in quotes? Has any climate scientist used this term? I saw Boehner claim that the health care bill would bring about “armageddon”, but I haven’t seen the “apocalypse” claim.
That being said, I must say that, as someone who follows and values scientific research, I must disagree with Kerry on this one. I’m not going to say that there couldn’t be some perfect climatic shift that would bring about an ice-free arctic in a short time period, but as far as I can tell, the science still points to a few decades from now before that will happen.
I don’t know if he’s trying to exaggerate, or if he just got confused, but I’d rather he just stuck to the science. There is clear evidence of arctic sea ice decline. That should be good enough. Combine that with the many other pieces of evidence of warming, and one might think we’d have a public that wanted to make changes for the better. But, no. Instead, we have a public that is confused by conflicting information that is funded by energy corporations and spread throughout the intertubes by their trusty sidekicks, the rightwing bloggers. Good job, Teach, et. al.
For a group of people who complain so much about bias and kool-aid drinking, you guys sure do your fair share of it, especially on this subject.
For someone who claims to be so interested in debate, you sure have left several of my questions alone. I’m starting to get the feeling that you know a lot of talking points, but not many details.
I don’t think I have left your questions alone. What happens is you refuse to see something and then think that is proof that it didn’t occur.
That is not debate, discussion or even questions from you. That is simple dishonesty.
Oh, and I am beginning to think that you don’t have any details, but a lot of sand to stick your head into.
Clear enough for you now?
Well, let’s see.
I asked you how school choice keeps minorities “oppressed and dependent on the governmentâ€, but you haven’t responded.
You claimed that the NAACP crowd expressed approval of Sherrod’s description of not helping the white farmer as much as she could, but couldn’t provide a time in the video that it happens.
You claimed the NAACP President was at the speech, but couldn’t provide anymore detail about where you saw him in the video.
You claimed that Sherrod finally helped the farmer because of abuse of power, rather than an aversion to racism, but couldn’t provide a specific quote to substantiate that claim, either.
You claimed that Sherrod made other racist statements, which you refused to specify.
You see, in a REAL debate, when someone makes a claim, they substantiate it with factual information. Any time I’ve asked you for specifics, you’ve either ignored me, or claimed that I was “blind” (a convincing argument if I ever saw one).
I asked you how school choice keeps minorities “oppressed and dependent on the governmentâ€, but you haven’t responded.
I didn’t see that questions. School choices deprive children of quality education which affects minorities the most.
You claimed that the NAACP crowd expressed approval of Sherrod’s description of not helping the white farmer as much as she could, but couldn’t provide a time in the video that it happens.
Factually false. I did tell you when it occurred. You refused to look at it.
You claimed the NAACP President was at the speech, but couldn’t provide anymore detail about where you saw him in the video.
I never claimed he was in the video. I said that there was video that he was at the event. Secondly, the NAACP later said that they had the entire video at the time they condemned Sherrod’s remarks as racist. Thanks for playing though.
You claimed that Sherrod finally helped the farmer because of abuse of power, rather than an aversion to racism, but couldn’t provide a specific quote to substantiate that claim, either.
Factually false. You were given her quotes. If you choose not to read them, or stick your head in the sand, that is on you. And for the record, I was not the one who claimed that she saw not helping the farmer as an abuse of power – she did.
You claimed that Sherrod made other racist statements, which you refused to specify.
Factually false again. Once again, your head in the sand doesn’t change that the information was provided.
You see, in a REAL debate, when someone makes a claim, they substantiate it with factual information.
As I did. There is no way for me to force you to look at something. Real debate involves actually looking at the evidence.
Any time I’ve asked you for specifics, you’ve either ignored me, or claimed that I was “blind†(a convincing argument if I ever saw one).
I’ll let that argument stand on its own merits. Or in reality, the lack of merit.
As for debating and not answering questions, did you ever think that your demand for answers that you like and of which you approve (because that is really all this is about) is somewhat contrary to providing an answer to the simple question that I asked repeatedly of “how many times does a person have to admit racist acts and attitudes to be a racist?”
I guess you feel that you are the only one that ever deserves answers.
Yes, I realize your argument was that it deprives minorities of a quality education, but HOW?! How does allowing families to choose to send their children to a better school deprive them of a quality education?
Nope. Sorry. You never provided the time in the video at which said approval occurred.
Which you never provided any link to. You’ve provided no proof for your assertion that Ben Jealous was there.
I specifically asked you which statements she made you that thought qualified as her claiming she wasn’t helping the farmer because of an aversion to racism. You never replied.
Same thing with the other supposed racism remarks. No reply.
You provide quotes. Don’t just assume that what you think is racist is actually racist.
Oh, and I answered your question. You may not like the answer, but I answered it.
How does allowing families to choose to send their children to a better school deprive them of a quality education?
Choice means a better marketplace which means competition which improves the product, which is the education.
Nope. Sorry. You never provided the time in the video at which said approval occurred.
I didn’t realize that I had to answer your question in the way you demand. You got your answer when the approval occurred.
You never replied.
Yeah, I did. Your reply was constant denial and asking the same question again. You are doing it again here. You just don’t like the answers so you avoid it.
Same thing with the other supposed racism remarks. No reply.
Same response from you. It gets tiring when you are given what you supposedly asked for and then deny that the question was answered.
You provide quotes.
One last time.
I already did. If you want to ignore them, that is on you.
Look back through the thread. Your answers are there.
Oh, and I answered your question. You may not like the answer, but I answered it.
You know what? You very well may have answered it. After asking 4 or 5 times and getting no response, and while responding to you, I finally decided that you’re just not worth the hassle. Your continued denial and tactics aren’t worth the time.
You are trying the same thing in a thread above. You get trapped in your own interpretation and view and then you blame everyone else.
I am just not playing with your dishonesty anymore.
Oh, and if you wish to reply to me in this thread, it won’t be read. I am not coming back to watch your games.
Just to be clear….”You know what? You very well may have answered it” ……
I never returned to the thread after your continued denials of the what was said and after you continually refused to offer the same courtesy you demand of others.