Rush Proposes Vegas-Style Global Warming Catastrophe Wagering Lines

[Marnie]

On his show Monday, Rush Limbaugh asks his opponents in the Great Global Warming Debate to put their money where their mouths are. Rush proposes a betting web site put up Vegas style betting lines on the different worst case scenarios posited by doomsayers Laurie David and Al Gore.

BREITBART TV

[forrestkc]

Since Global Temperatures have thus been in line with previous IPCC assessments, Rush would have lost money so far. In fact, at this point they would have to get Rush 90 to 1 odds.

[hmh]

Or since the sun is warming up, as evidenced by the temperature increases on Mars (our fault), maybe a betting site can be posted on how long it will be until the "experts" admit that most of the problem was because of the sun.

[Marnie]

Or since the sun is warming up, as evidenced by the temperature increases on Mars (our fault), maybe a betting site can be posted on how long it will be until the "experts" admit that most of the problem was because of the sun.

I'll take a piece of that action!

[forrestkc]

Or since the sun is warming up, as evidenced by the temperature increases on Mars (our fault), maybe a betting site can be posted on how long it will be until the "experts" admit that most of the problem was because of the sun.

Your buying into the misinformation the deniers are putting out. The slight temperature increases on Mars have nothing to do with solar forcing. Its actually due to dust storms and the resulting darkening of Mar's surface.

See: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...rs-warming.html

Moreover, we have been measuring solar output with satellites since 1979 and their is no correlation between it and our current warming. In fact, solar output has actually slightly declined over the past few years. Finally, while the troposphere is warming, the stratosphere is actually cooling. This is completely consistent with greenhouse effect warming (less heat escapes back into the upper atmosphere). It also makes solar forcing as the primary driver of our current warming a very hard sell because warming due to solar forcing would result in warming at all levels of the atmosphere.

[hmh]

Why is it that any time someone puts out information against global warming, you automatically dismiss it as misinformation from deniers, especially from satellites dated back to 1979? Will you or anyone else ever come to grips that the information we have is only recent years and not centuries? Or is that too hard to swallow since it may actually cause some real logical thinking?

[forrestkc]

Why is it that any time someone puts out information against global warming, you automatically dismiss it as misinformation from deniers, especially from satellites dated back to 1979? Will you or anyone else ever come to grips that the information we have is only recent years and not centuries? Or is that too hard to swallow since it may actually cause some real logical thinking?

I am sorry, but I think the problem is that I am far better informed about the issue that you are. All I did was point out that there is no correlation between solar forcing (something that is easy to measure from space), and our current warming. I also pointed out that the warming on Mars is due to dust storms. I think the problem is that you guys automatically dismissed Anthropogenic Global Warming without ever looking at the science behind it.

As to the rest of your argument, yes our temperature record is only recent. However, with proxy evidence we can reconstruct climate and atmospheric composition for the last several hundred thousand years.

For example, a peer reviewed study was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences last year that showed through multiple lines of evidence that we are warmer today than in at least 12,000 years, and we are only 1 degree off from being warmer than in at least 1 million years.

You can read about it here: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/t...rld_warmth.html

That is but one out of several published peer reviewed studies with similar findings.

[Giaour]

I really hate it that liberals call someone who doesnt agree with global warming "deniers". It is like we are being compared to the holocaust deniers. To compare the weather to the murder of Jews is very wrong.

[georgesbluegirl]

I don't think it's "liberals" who call out those who don't believe in anthropogenic climate change as "deniers" (I think it's a stretch to involve the Holocaust in this, too), it's scientists and people of reason who look at the information that we have and realize that the overwhelming body of evidence just MIGHT be pointing to carbon emissions as a problem. Forrest is quite right - climate models factor in volcanic and solar forcing (and you can construct a climate model for the last several thousand years using a number of techniques, including examining trees and tree remains and ice core data, so to say all our data is rooted in the "recent" is erroneous, although it's only been in the last couple of decades that we've figured out how to do it).

And WHAT is so awful about raising standards for fuel efficiency and renewable energy? Who gets hurt? If anyone, Detroit and Big Oil fat cats - their profits decrease. But efficiency is pretty much good for everyone in the long run.

[forrestkc]

I really hate it that liberals call someone who doesnt agree with global warming "deniers". It is like we are being compared to the holocaust deniers. To compare the weather to the murder of Jews is very wrong.

I think the reason why the term "deniers" is used is that it denotes individuals that deny evidence, yet do not offer anything evidence to support their contention. The term "deniers" is appropriate when someone with no basis denies a known historical event, or with no basis denies the conclusion of empirical evidence and observation.