RSS

Somebody should tell Chipotle that climate change is a hoax. Maybe perpitrated by a competitor.

05 Mar

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/chipotle-guacamole-salsa-victim-climate-change

Advertisements
 
59 Comments

Posted by on March 5, 2014 in Global Warming, science

 

59 responses to “Somebody should tell Chipotle that climate change is a hoax. Maybe perpitrated by a competitor.

  1. Cluster

    March 6, 2014 at 4:46 am

    This climate change issue is hilarious. It’s the perfect wedge issue for liberals to stand on their soap box and brow beat opponents. Whomever doesn’t agree with their particular climate change issue du jour is labeled a “denier” and banished to the cellar. Climate change is real indeed. The question is, are we getting warmer, or cooler?

    http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/16/another-year-of-global-cooling/

    There is however one sure way to stop climate change. We just need to stop living. Although, considering that the planet earth is a living organism, the climate would continue to change, but we just wouldn’t be around to worry about it So problem solved, right?

     
    • mitchethekid

      March 6, 2014 at 7:53 am

      Interesting that you said that. Like millions of others, I have become addicted to True Detective. The good news is it doesn’t rot my teeth. The bad is that Sunday is the Finale of only an 8 episode show. This is part of the dialog from episode one. ” I consider myself a realist. But in philosophical terms I’m what’s called a pessimist. I think human consciousness is a tragic misstep in evolution. We became too self-aware. Nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself. We are creatures that should not exist by natural law. We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self, a secretion of sensory experience and feelings, programmed with total assurance that we are each somebody, when in fact everbody’s nobody. I think the honorable thing for our species to do is to deny our programming. Stop reproducing. Walk hand in hand into extinction. One last midnight, brothers and sisters opting out of a raw deal
      The evidence is undeniable that the planet is getting warmer. Thermometers aren’t biased. Nor are droughts, downpours or severe storms. I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s pointless to point out the obvious to anyone who suddenly chooses to be skeptical. There are some people who are so conceited because they think humans just couldn’t possibly effect the environment. What, little ‘ole me?? I also think that they argue about it out of principal and nothing will change their minds. Where as what will change my mind is evidence and thus far, the science side has the evidence.
      Our planet is a massive scale terrarium. Logic dictates that untold trillions of tons of the by-products of burning shit; heat, being pumped into the atmosphere has to have an effect. It seems that the only way people who scoff at a human component in this is when the planet is poisoned and it effects them.

       
    • rustybrown2012

      March 6, 2014 at 8:41 am

      “Wedge issue”, that’s funny. Yeah, 97% of the world’s climate scientists are lying liberals who just want to berate you. And building 7 was a controlled demolition, right Cluster?

      The question is, are we getting warmer, or cooler?

      Yeah, that’s a real puzzler for the slow kids in the back of the classroom.

       
  2. watsonthethird

    March 6, 2014 at 10:37 am

    Hmmm. 2013 was the sixth warmest year since for the world since 1850. 13 of the 14 warmest years have occurred in the 21st century. And you’re confused, Cluster?

    According to the World Meteorological Organization:

    The rate of warming is not uniform but the underlying trend is undeniable. Given the record amounts of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, global temperatures will continue to rise for generations to come. Our action – or inaction – to curb emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases will shape the state of our planet for our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

    Cluster, it’s nice that your Washington Times article focuses on the US, but it’s called global warming for a reason.

     
    • Cluster

      March 6, 2014 at 7:29 pm

      Hmmmm. The planet is tens of millions of years old, and warmed and lit by a star that we have zero control over. And there is zero correlation between CO2 emissions and warming, in fact while CO2 emissions have been rising, temperatures have been plateauing, and Antarctica sea ice has been expanding.

      So spare me the histrionics about the “children”

       
      • watsonthethird

        March 6, 2014 at 7:35 pm

        Hey, you’re the one who said climate change is real, only you don’t know if it’s getting warmer or cooler–apparently because “brutal spell of cold weather” settled over some parts of the US in January.

         
      • Cluster

        March 6, 2014 at 7:39 pm

        It’s been changing for tens of millions of years. Any questions?

         
      • rustybrown2012

        March 6, 2014 at 7:45 pm

        Yes, are you able to put your own pants on all by yourself in the morning?

         
      • watsonthethird

        March 6, 2014 at 7:45 pm

        Yes. Since you’re admittedly confused, will you be sure to let us know when you figure out if the land and sea temperature is increasing or decreasing, and over what period? We’d love your insight.

         
      • Cluster

        March 6, 2014 at 7:54 pm

        Admittedly confused?? I have no confusion whatsoever. I think you are all fucking crazy. And just for the record, climate change means that temps increase and decrease over periods of time. It’s not a difficult concept.

         
      • watsonthethird

        March 6, 2014 at 7:59 pm

        Cluster, you told us above that you can’t even tell if the global land and sea temperatures are getting warmer or cooler. I’d call that confused. But I get it: It’s a slow night at the Cluster household so you just want to play games.

         
      • Cluster

        March 6, 2014 at 8:03 pm

        It warms and cools – how’s that for you? Let me ask you this. In your opinion, how much money in taxes on the rich will take to stop global warming?

         
      • watsonthethird

        March 6, 2014 at 8:23 pm

        Taxes go up and taxes go down. How’s that for you? Just more silly games from you. I think Wheel Of Fortune will be on in a few minutes. Go entertain yourself there.

         
      • Cluster

        March 6, 2014 at 8:49 pm

        But the agenda seems to be about money doesn’t it? Selling carbon credits. Taxing industry. Costly regulations, etc. So I am just curious how much money approximately will it take for temperatures to start to go down?

         
      • rustybrown2012

        March 6, 2014 at 8:28 pm

        And there is zero correlation between CO2 emissions and warming

        That’s dumb even for you. Why don’t you crack open a book once in a while?

        http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-carbon-dioxide-is-greenhouse-gas/

         
  3. watsonthethird

    March 6, 2014 at 9:05 pm

    But the agenda seems to be about money doesn’t it?

    No, I don’t see it that way. But I’m not surprised that you do.

     
    • Cluster

      March 7, 2014 at 5:20 am

      Well then, how do you see it? What drives the IPCC? What are the policy goals? And how about in this country? What is the progressive agenda?

       
      • rustybrown2012

        March 7, 2014 at 8:19 am

        Just like your farcical misapprehension in the God discussion you’re confusing issues. The “progressive agenda” has nothing to do with the veracity of AGW. If you think it does, make your claim, back it up, and stop being such a weasel.

         
      • mitchethekid

        March 7, 2014 at 8:24 am

        I’m a big fan of Ocelots.

         
      • Cluster

        March 7, 2014 at 10:33 am

        The progressive agenda has EVERYTHING to do with the veracity of AGW. And it’s called climate change now.

         
      • watsonthethird

        March 7, 2014 at 10:46 am

        I see the issue of global warming as first and foremost a scientific one. You see it first and foremost as a political one. And because you do, you assume that everyone else must also see it as a political issue. And through your political lens, you see it primarily as an issue of money, as you do just about every other issue.

         
      • Cluster

        March 7, 2014 at 11:02 am

        I don’t think you do see it as a scientific cause because if you did, you would want more data. Temperatures have flattened, sea ice is expanding, the arctic experienced a very cold 2013 summer and this winter has seen record low temperatures across many regions, solar activity is at a low point, all the while CO2 emissions continue to rise. More data is needed.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        March 7, 2014 at 11:08 am

        It is the view of almost every scientist in the world that no more data is needed to prove AGW is happening. But hey, guess we should listen to Cluster instead.

         
      • Cluster

        March 7, 2014 at 11:13 am

        And that means all the other scientists that disagree with them are wrong. Weird way to conduct to science.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        March 7, 2014 at 11:25 am

        Yeah that’s right, the two scientists out of a hundred who disagree are most likely wrong. Not weird at all. Science is always provisional, that’s how it works.

         
      • watsonthethird

        March 7, 2014 at 11:42 am

        I don’t think you do see it as a scientific cause because if you did, you would want more data. Temperatures have flattened, sea ice is expanding, the arctic experienced a very cold 2013 summer and this winter has seen record low temperatures across many regions, solar activity is at a low point, all the while CO2 emissions continue to rise. More data is needed.

        Cluster, again you demonstrate that you are politically motivated rather than scientifically motivated. For example, you say “this winter has seen record low temperatures across many regions,” as though that is proof that global warming is a hoax. And yet, if you look at a more thorough analysis of global land and sea temperatures for January 2014–when portions of the US were experiencing cold and snowy conditions–you find:

        The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for January was the warmest since 2007 and the fourth warmest on record at 12.7°C (54.8°F), or 0.65°C (1.17°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F). The margin of error associated with this temperature is ± 0.08°C (± 0.14°F).

        The global land temperature was the highest since 2007 and the fourth highest on record for January, at 1.17°C (2.11°F) above the 20th century average of 2.8°C (37.0°F). The margin of error is ± 0.18°C (± 0.32°F).

        For the ocean, the January global sea surface temperature was 0.46°C (0.83°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.5°F), the highest since 2010 and seventh highest on record for January. The margin of error is ± 0.04°C (± 0.07°F).

        Believe it or not, the temperatures in Chicago or New York are not the only ones that matter. Did you experience record cold temperatures in Arizona this winter? We certainly didn’t in California. You just cling to one anecdotal piece of evidence after another as justification for your political position. If one anecdote is refuted, you just pick another. That has nothing to do with science, and intentionally so: You don’t want to have anything to do with science because the findings might inconvenience you. And God forbid you should be inconvenienced by something as hard to understand as global warming.

        Ultimately you essentially claim that science itself is a progressive agenda. To you, progressives have been at this for hundreds of years, going back to when Galileo first observed that the Earth may not in fact be the center of the universe.

         
      • watsonthethird

        March 7, 2014 at 11:45 am

        I forgot the link to my quote above, from the National Climate Data Center.

        http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/1

         
      • meursault1942

        March 7, 2014 at 12:58 pm

        Well said, Watson.

        I will also add that I find it odd that we’re supposed to follow the money when it comes to scientists whose research leads them to conclude that climate change is a reality, but we must never, ever follow the money of anybody on the denial side because that’s “a witchhunt” or “a distraction” or “attacking the source” or what have you. If we’re following the money, then lets follow the money. Scientists get paid to do research. Denialists get paid to be denialists.

        And that’s not even getting into the issue which side is really using money to tip the scales: Hint: Scientists don’t get nearly as much money as you think they do. But there is serious money behind denialism.

         
      • Cluster

        March 8, 2014 at 5:40 am

        You really have to stop with the pretense that people deny climate change. The planet is a living organism and climate change is a simple basic fact. What I believe the progressive agenda has wrong is the conclusion and of course the remedies, and I believe recent data is bearing that out. Where the progressive agenda went wrong was to take 30 year data and arrive at “indisputable” conclusions. Comclusions of which are now more and more difficult to support. Conclusions of which were derived after just 30+ years of observation on a planet that is tens of millions of years old. Conclusions of which really did not take into account solar maximum cycles.

        So I don’t disagree with climate change. I don’t necessarily disagree with the data, although some of it is suspect based on recent admission by the IPCC, and I don’t disagree at all with the need to transition to greener energy. I do however disagree with this Al Gore driven progressive AGW agenda of selling carbon credits and taxing coal plants out of existence.

        Here’s a good read:

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/07/it-isnt-how-climate-scientists-communicated-their-message-its-the-message/

         
      • watsonthethird

        March 8, 2014 at 11:15 am

        Cluster, it’s hard to tell what you think because, even in this relatively short thread, you have posted contradictory comments. First, you essentially dismiss the science around global warming by saying that the earth warms and cools over time–nothing to see here! In fact, you dismiss the notion that the earth is warming at all by saying the real question is whether the earth is getting warmer or cooler. You apparently don’t know what to think, and you certainly don’t trust evidence or data. You also state that there is zero correlation between CO2 emissions and warming and dismiss the idea that any climate change could be manmade by reminding us that “the planet is tens of millions of years old, and warmed and lit by a star that we have zero control over.”

        Then you come along and say that you don’t necessarily disagree with “the data”–by which I assume you mean the data indicating that the earth is warming–but your real issue is with the “progressive AGW agenda.”

        Let’s just stipulate that there is a “progressive AGW agenda” and a conservative anti-AGW agenda. Fine. But you act as though the vast majority of climate scientists are frauds intent on promulgating a “progressive AGW agenda.” I call that bullshit. The only reason you think that is because of your own political agenda.

        If you look at the science and data objectively, there isn’t any debate about the climate having warmed. You can fiddle with the data or cherry pick and claim it stopped, or you can flippantly dismiss the whole idea by claiming that we don’t even know if things are warming or cooling. But that isn’t science; it’s your political agenda.

        There isn’t some natural cycle that has occurred in the last 50 or 100 years that would produce the effects that have been observed. However, the effects do fit with the scientific understanding of carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect isn’t something that Al Gore invented; it was first postulated almost 300 years ago.

        We can debate the measures that could be taken to ameliorate global warming. We can debate whether the economic cost of such measures justifies the benefit. But from your statements, it seems that you’re not even ready to acknowledge that such debates are warranted. And that is the problem I have with people like you who have a political agenda when it comes to climate change.

         
      • Cluster

        March 8, 2014 at 11:48 am

        Nothing is contradictory Watson. I have an open mind about it, and consider the entire issue unsettled which is why you are confused.

         
      • watsonthethird

        March 8, 2014 at 11:57 am

        No, it’s apparent that things like data confuse you. Otherwise, you wouldn’t make silly statements like you don’t know whether the earth is warming or cooling. It fits your political agenda to not want to know. We get it.

         
      • Cluster

        March 8, 2014 at 12:29 pm

        You are the only with an agenda watson. Don’t kid yourself. You’re a classic California liberal.

         
      • watsonthethird

        March 8, 2014 at 12:39 pm

        I think your comments speak for themselves, Cluster. I’ll leave it at that.

         
      • Cluster

        March 8, 2014 at 1:20 pm

        Thanks for admitting you have an agenda.

         
      • Cluster

        March 8, 2014 at 1:26 pm

        This should give you an idea of how popular your agenda is:

        http://www.pewresearch.org/key-data-points/climate-change-key-data-points-from-pew-research/

         
      • rustybrown2012

        March 8, 2014 at 1:18 pm

        Hard to argue with someone who’s so obstinately ignorant of the scientific method. Cluster’s on record saying missing links are a problem in the theory of evolution.

         
      • Cluster

        March 8, 2014 at 1:22 pm

        They are in terms of human evolution. That’s undeniable. Unless again you know something others don’t, like your knowledge that God does not exist but fictionally supports slavery.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        March 8, 2014 at 1:41 pm

        (Missing links) are (a problem) in terms of human evolution.

        Which coloring book told you that? Got a source? I think I have to update my list.

         
      • Cluster

        March 8, 2014 at 2:53 pm

        Actually Rusty – I think your personal evolution is very much streamlined from the tree monkey. So no genetic gap whatsoever.

        http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-missing-genetic-link-in-human-evolution/

         
      • watsonthethird

        March 8, 2014 at 2:24 pm

        Thanks for admitting you have an agenda.

        But of course I didn’t admit that. You just made it up, put words in my mouth. Lied. It’s a perfect example of how you “refute” climate science. Thank you for making it crystal clear.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        March 8, 2014 at 5:34 pm

        That article has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. Nobody claims there are no missing links in the evolutionary process–there are and always will be, especially with the fossil record, it’s the nature of the beast. Your claim was that there were missing links that pose a PROBLEM or CONTRADICTION to the theory of evolution. Where in your article does it reference a missing link that poses a fatal flaw to Darwin’s theory? I’m pretty certain you don’t even understand half of what that article says.

         
      • Cluster

        March 8, 2014 at 8:06 pm

        You know Rusty, I have come across a lot of bone deep stupid people in my life, but you are far and away the most ignorant, mentally challenged person I have ever been aware of. You don’t even have the ability to stay on topic from one post to another.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        March 8, 2014 at 5:46 pm

        Mitch, I saw that article in Salon, too. I think there’s another reason for AGW deniers that’s not mentioned there and I’m certain Cluster falls into this category (as well as the one about not understanding science). That is the unwillingness to believe in something just because your social/ political opponents believe in it. A truly sophomoric and unintellectual paradigm to fall victim to.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        March 8, 2014 at 8:31 pm

        What the hell is that supposed to mean? It’s you that seems to be having a hard time following the topic. It’s much easier to attack your opponent and call him names than actually stick to the issue at hand, isn’t it Cluster? Of course you can’t argue the subjects we’re talking about because I’m schooling you from every angle. Yawn. Time to update the list:

        Rusty’s Tally Of Facts Pulled From Cluster’s Ass

        Does every state have some level of government administered health care? Yes. Are those programs usually more effective than the federally administered programs? YES.(emphasis not mine) 2/7/14
        And even more disturbing is that the second largest contributor, the public unions, are directly using tax payer money from negotiated contracts and pensions to support the Democrats. 2/19/14
        (Missing links) are (a problem) in terms of human evolution.3/8/14

         
      • mitchethekid

        March 8, 2014 at 9:42 pm

        You know, sometimes I feel like we are arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        March 8, 2014 at 9:54 pm

        Mitch, I get what you’re saying but why shouldn’t we be held accountable for the things that we say? Invoking the missing link canard is a pretty major misunderstanding of basic science, and the ability to comprehend the scientific method is what we were discussing.

         
      • Cluster

        March 9, 2014 at 6:18 am

        Well once again Rusty, if you can provide us the unbroken genetic human evolutional chain then please, bring that forward. I mean just think of the scientists who have been working on this for decades that you could help out:

        http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2013/09/28/fossil-fish-face

        And while you do that, you may as well bring forth the evidence that God does not exist, as you claim. Why are you holding back on these incredible findings? The world awaits.

        I am going to start my own game:

        Things that Rusty doesn’t know: 1,398,456

         
      • mitchethekid

        March 9, 2014 at 7:38 am

        I can’t let this go without commenting. Answers in Genesis? You’ve got to be joking.
        God is a human idea. The concept is a rationalization for death. It gives “meaning” and “purpose” and makes us feel less alone. Science is based on evidence. Faith is not. Sometimes in spit of evidence. Just for spite. Science does not preclude a transcendent being nor does it exclude one. If humans looked like Alligators so would god. Since the existence of god can neither be proved nor disproved I suggest reading a bit of Ludwig Wittgenstien or Bertrand Russel who posited “Can the set of all sets be a member of itself?”

         
      • Cluster

        March 9, 2014 at 9:01 am

        God is a spiritual connection that is felt by all species, and rationalized by the more intelligent. God is not of human form, or of any physical concept that we could mentally process. And evolution and creation are mutually inclusive concepts.

         
      • mitchethekid

        March 9, 2014 at 9:33 am

        Sentence one, somewhat agree but there is an assumption being made re all other species. Sentence two, right on brother! Sentence three, very much disagree. The universe is full of paradoxes. It is an assumption that causes have effects. Or that time is linear. Not only are we limited by our senses and the neurology of our brains, but by language as well. Discribe the indescribable. Explain an unknown. That’s why I like Wittgenstein so much. Here’s an experiment. There are 3 objects on a table. A circle, a square and a conjoined circle and square. Someone says “move the circle with the square”. What do you do?

         
      • Cluster

        March 9, 2014 at 12:33 pm

        We are pretty much in agreement. The physical and spiritual universe are beyond our comprehension, and many believers and non believers alike look like fools when they try and simplify those realities. Many great and wise men and women have come before us and have wrestled with understanding all the complexities, but I believe those complexities are designed to be beyond our understanding. Every living being has energy matter, and their energy matters.

         
      • mitchethekid

        March 9, 2014 at 2:38 pm

        True true about energy. That’s all there is, really. Matter and energy. Neither can be created or destroyed. Just changes properties. As far as the complex, yes indeedly do. But by design? I’m not so sure. But my surety is meaningless. The nature of the universe is impervious to what we think about it or how much of it we understand.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        March 9, 2014 at 8:44 am

        Gee Cluster, I can’t provide you with “the unbroken genetic human evolutional chain”, never said I could, and that poses absolutely no problem to the theory of evolution. The theory is stronger than ever, missing links and all.

        Further I never claimed to have evidence for God’s existence. Similarly, I have no proof that Santa and leprechauns are make believe, but for the record I don’t believe in them either. The point is you cannot prove a negative, get it?

        Thanks for the link though! It was good for a belly laugh. I’m not surprised to find that your sources for evolution denial are just as dubious as your sources for climate denial. This has been illuminating; I think we all know where you’re coming from now.

        BTW, I fully endorse your list, in fact I’m certain the things I don’t know number far greater than your estimation. The difference between you and me is that I admit it while you pull things out of your ass.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        March 9, 2014 at 9:14 am

        God is a spiritual connection that is felt by all species

        Hey, Cluster decrees that voles, dandelions and hermit crabs feel spirituality. You learn something new every day!

         
      • mitchethekid

        March 9, 2014 at 9:47 am

        Don’t be mean. I’m (god) is watching. You don’t want to get a lump of coal for xmas! It’s dirty and contributes to climate change. Is it political to say that burning coal warms the atmosphere? Or is it a statement of fact made political?

         
      • watsonthethird

        March 9, 2014 at 10:41 am

        Things that Rusty doesn’t know: 1,398,456.

        Another for Rusty’s Tally Of Facts Pulled From Cluster’s Ass. 🙂

         
  4. rustybrown2012

    March 7, 2014 at 10:56 am

    The progressive agenda has EVERYTHING to do with the veracity of AGW

    How so? And don’t confuse correlation with causation. For example, just because the theory of evolution nicely supports a secular world view and undermined the church you can’t say “the secular agenda has EVERYTHING to do with the veracity of the theory of evolution”–the theory stands on it’s own scientific merits quite apart from political and social concerns, as does AGW.

     
 
%d bloggers like this: