You asked “… would you mind providing some evidence for this sweeping claim? [of people claiming GW will cause more strange and abnormal weather]‘

Here is a little piece of evidence which was written in the “Glenn Beck: Idiot” article on this blog…..

“Global warming affects global weather patterns, and it’s the Santa Ana winds that turned these fires from a nuisance into a killer. I’m not saying that GW is the trigger here; I’m saying that things will get wonkier from here on out. Count on it.”

This implies that GW will cause more strange and abnormal weather.

Do we have a “weather wonk index”???

Now geologists did refute Friends of the Earth director Tony Juniper on his claim that GW was responsible for the tsunami, but shrill groups like that take advantage of every extreme natural event to push their agenda.

There is a prediction that GW is going to lead to more earthquakes and volcanic activity. So the next time there is a big volcanic eruption, near a population center of course, expect some article to be written about how GW is responsible for it.

Anyway, here is the link.
http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2006/06/11/another-effect-of-global-warming-earthquakes-ad-volcanic-activity/

Bob, would you mind providing some evidence for this sweeping claim?

@bassmanpete – people are just as stupid across the ditch, here in NZ. It seems to be common practice for all sides on any issue to massage the message to appeal to the woefully ignorant masses. Even fairly intelligent people get swayed by BS if it is delivered with the correct emotional content (pandering to your audience’s prejudices has never hurt a politician yet).

Michael Moore (the US guy, not the NZ politician who headed up the WTO) does tend to go for the emotional buttons. But why not? He is trying to get people to react to these issues rather than just mentally brush them under the carpet. The right-wing types are the more manipulative in this way (e.g. “feminazis”*) – IMHO because their basic theories don’t hold up to intellectual scrutiny. (This also explains why the right-wing have to set up their own “think tanks” and other “independent research” organisations. Reality has a “liberal bias”, after all.)

* I’m not sure whether this shows an ignorance of feminism, an ignorance of fascism, or both. To be fair, in a technical sense Ann Coulter would fit this definition. (It is often said that Americans don’t understand irony, although it seems to me that only the right-leaning Americans don’t get it.)

Well, you’re partly right-Jackson, Sharpton and O’Donnell can go take a flying leap on many issues, although Jackson has, from time to time, been o.k. Although none of these people really have the kind of pull on the left as say, Limbaugh has on the right. I never hear rank and file liberals quoting their favorite O’donnell rant, or praising Jackson or Sharpton-the only admirers they really have are politicians who try to cash in on their grandstanding. But I have heard the word feminazi a million times, from a million ignortant, hateful mouths, since the loudest hypocrite in the world first spewed it out.

When it comes to the somewhat more serious voices on the left, like Olbermann or even Franken, they often make a great deal of sense, at least to me. I rarely hear any kind of argument (on issues)from the right, just more “Why do you hate America so much?” No responses, just hot air and evasiveness.

Michael Moore can be a bit over the top in his attempts at emotional manipulation, but there is one little problem-once again, I never hear reasoned responses, just fat jokes and red-baiting. I watched Farenheit 9/11. I’ve also been aware of Republican politics for over 25 years now. I find it telling that there were only a few of the horrible facts presented in that movie that I wasn’t already aware of, and I have yet to hear a single response or justification for ANY of it. Just more hot air and slander. I mean hey, if half of America thinks it’s o.k. to murder half a million people or so just make to a buck and feed a president’s unearned pride, I would, just once, like to hear a conservative stand up and proudly admit it. Tell the country what every liberal knows-many conservatives today, for all their moral posturing, have no problem profiting from murder, theft, and lies. When I hear a prominent American liberal calling for secret prisons, torture, unending warfare, citizen surveilance, the destruction of public education, or instituting theocracy, believe me, I’ll take notice!

I think the word you’re looking for is “truism.”

Here’s a right-wing blog’s take on Beck’s pathetic ratings, from last year: http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2006/06/glenn-beck-ratings-cnn-headline-news.html

If that were true, he would not be getting a new 50 million dollar contract.

I personally can’t stand the fact that Fox News dumbed down the whole concept of cable news by redefining “news” as “D-grade provocative celebrity commentary” and then equating their ratings somehow with actual news reportage, so that now we have no channels actually covering, you know, news 24/7, the way that CNN Headline News used to.

Instead, you get microcrumbs of news cherrypicked, mangled and interpreted through mentally retarded mouthpieces like Glenn Beck.

Does anyone else find this all a bit silly and perhaps slightly funny, in a sadly wry way?

I agree with you. A lot people feel that they are experts simply because they watch some TV show or read some blog.

For example, the recently posted 60 MPG Hummer piece. I took me all of ten minutes to prove it was wrong. I did a similar excercise in a freshman engineering class.

Don’t worry about the grammer/flow etc. I know that I make a lot errors like that too.

Now you rant about some articulating sensory organ cluster who is first and foremost an entertainer.

And there is the problem. Because a large number of the people who watch him don’t realise that he’s supposed to be an entertainer, they believe every word!

Living in Australia, I make the above comment having never seen the guy in question. But we have the same type of situation here where people base their opinions on what they see/hear on 60 Minutes (the Australian version) or whatever else passes for current affairs on the commercial channels. All they are doing is pandering to the spent-10-years-at-school-but-still-illiterate masses who will watch their programmes and, more importantly, the ads of their sponsors, then go out and buy the advertised products.

Said masses will then become experts on global warming and wax lyrical about how the sun’s output has increased, the other planets are also warming, it’s a government plot to levy a new tax, blah, blah, blah. But the vast majority of them can’t even spell properly let alone put a grammatically correct sentence together.

Rant over, I await with interest the responses picking holes in my grammar

See if you listened to more people you would have BETTER information and wouldn’t come off sounding so ignorant in “public.”

But that isn’t really something you have too much control over is it?

Beck’s at least as accurate as the rest of the liberal/left shows, which admittedly, isn’t necessarily saying much. So he’s worth the 50 mil to the net ’cause he’ll make them more than that.

“but to be “liberal” is to be somewhat open minded, and thus favoring inquiry over authoritarianism.”

Heh. I just watched the Cosby show, laughed a lot, and your joke was better than his. Well done. Almost as funny as the idea that someone might consider Media Matters to be a reliable source.

Micheal Moore, Bill Maher, Al Franken and all of Air America, Dan Rather, Keith Olbermann, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Rosie O’Donell, Whoopie Goldberg

Why would you want to demean honest prostitutes that way?

But in a related vein, I spotted this story on Yahoo! News just a few minutes ago:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20071115/sc_livescience/oddlyhypocrisyrootedinhighmorals

The first paragraph is as follows: “Morally upstanding people are the do-gooders of society, right? Actually, a new study finds that a sense of moral superiority can lead to unethical acts, such as cheating. In fact, some of the best do-gooders can become the worst cheats. ”

Sound familiar? (Ted Haggard, Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Jim Bakker, Kent Hovind, etc., ad infinitum, ad naseum)?

We don’t see them because there are no chickenhawk rat neocon fascist un-American treasonous blowhards — on the left.

Mind you, the left likely has a few regular everyday old fashioned blowhards in general, and certainly some “wimps” in Congress who don’t stand up enough to the Bushists, but to be “liberal” is to be somewhat open minded, and thus favoring inquiry over authoritarianism. That’s something Limbaugh, Coulter, et all can not do.