LGF Demonstrates Moronic Warmists Receive Exponential Butthurt Every Time They Engage Skeptics!


Note! If I get anything wrong about what b_flat stated/asserted/implied…. etc., I would like to apologize beforehand to Steve Goddard and Marc Morano.   (Explained below Winking smile  )

The fun never ends when alamists actually find the “juevos” to engage a skeptic.  It’s like clockwork.  I’ll explain the process.  An alarmist steps up to debate a skeptic.  Now, this is a rare event, and if alarmists were capable of learning, these events would cease to occur.  But, when it does occur, the alarmist moves to advance spurious and unsupported claims.  The alarmist gets embarrassed by skeptic because the skeptic has a better command of the facts and issues at hand.  Later, in a sympathetic show, other alarmists step forward to embarrass themselves.  It is assumed they do this so the original alarmist won’t look uniquely stupid.  Instead, the whole camp gets to look as equally vapid as the original one.  This doesn’t make sense to rational individuals, but, totalitarian Malthusian Marxists prefer equally stupid things over just a few uniquely stupid things.  We don’t have to understand it, just accept that’s the way they are. 

The most recent example is Marc Morano, Bill Nye, and LittleGreenFootballs.  For those not familiar, Marc went on Piers Morgan’s show to have an informal debate with Nye about climate alarmism and stupid anecdotal events.  Morano, as all skeptics do when engaging alarmists, handed Nye his a$$. 


It was so apparent that Nye was outmatched, some moron at LGF decided to complete the cycle.  (Not wishing Nye to appear uniquely stupid.) But, before we get to that, let’s start at the start.  Among many unsupported claims, Nye forwards the unsupported claims that CO2 causes the globe to warm, and warming is the cause of increasingly bad weather events.  One only needs to read the transcript to see that Nye was completely outmatched.  That’s where LGF moron steps in.  The moron goes by the moniker of b_sharp.  (Clearly a musical reference rather than an encouragement towards mental acuity.)   He decided to simply invent a statement and attribute it to Morano.  b_sharp gets bonus strawman stupidity points by even making up one about Steve Goddard, who wasn’t even mentioned in the debate. 

In a well rehearsed and technically correct cherry picked comment, Morano links to a Steve Goddard article where Goddard mentioned the 1935 Labor Day hurricane as the strongest storm to ever hit land in the US. The implication is that for AGW’s affect on severe weather to be true, past storms can not be as strong as current storms. A ridiculously illogical statement, but that’s the intended message.

Uhmm b_flat, Morano didn’t say that and Goddard didn’t imply that.  Double plus good! 

b_flat actually does get some positive credit for admitting that he just made stuff up about Morano, though, he apologizes to the wrong persons. 


After reading Morano’s post about this article, I listened to the debate again to find where he commented on the 1935 hurricane. His comments at his site are correct, he did not mention that hurricane in the debate. The comment was from Steve Goddard on the ‘Real-Science’ blog.  ….

My apologies to Charles Johnson for publishing a page with bad information. I was obviously confused by the support given to Goddard by Morano on climatedepot.com.

No, b_flat, you were confused by your own lies, conflated with other people’s lies, invention of measurements, poor logic, and sophistry. 

But, this does give us some insight to the mindset of an alarmist.  He makes up a lie about two different people and then apologizes to someone else!  Beyond that, whatever credit he gets for admitting that he invented a statement and attributed it to Morano, he loses for a couple of other falsities he (or she) advances in the little hit piece. 

In the first paragraph b_flat states,

“During the debate Morano peppered the air with a vituperative Gish Gallup aimed at Bill who was standing in for the climate science community.”

What?!?!?!!??!!?  Morano covers the very common talking points we are daily inundated with by the lunatic alarmists!!!  If there is a Gish Gallup, and there is, it rests entirely at the feet of the lunatic alarmists.  Good heavens!  The only reason why I know a warming ocean isn’t going to adversely affect the GBR is because the lunatics are the ones that brought it up!  Absorption spectrum of CO2?  That’s because alarmists brought it up!  Hurricanes?  Same.  Tornadoes, same.  Droughts, same.  Forest fires, same.  Hockey sticks, same.  Sea levels, same.  Bristle pine cones, same. …… and on and on ad nauseum. 

Another laugh I got out of LGF and b_flat is the either naïve or disingenuous assertion that we knew or even know today, what the energy reserve of the Atlantic ocean is/was.  Even more fascinatingly stupid is that b_flat bases this assumption upon another assumption which is just as absurd.  b_flat thinks we can know how many Atlantic storms and hurricanes we had back in the early 1900s.  

The coup de grâce   is a nice one!  It’s nice because b_flat tried to finalize his/her point by adding the two absurd assumptions, to make the summation.  The summation can be boiled down to two incredibly vapid statements. 

“One consequence of an increased store of energy is that the number of storms will go up as shown in the above graph. …… A second consequence of increased available energy is the severity goes up.”

This is riotous!  Either b_flat is a complete imbecile and doesn’t study what is happening, or, b_flat is a disingenuous person hell bent on misleading the public to advance his/her ideology/religion. 

Because most of the world’s radars and other spotting devices were broke for the first 7 decades last century, we don’t know how many storms we had prior to about 1970, much less their energy content.  But, we do know what has been happening the last 40 years or so. 

Dr. Ryan Maue, being well published, graphs such things.  I know of no one who disputes the validity of Ryan’s data or graphics.  Storms and hurricane frequency?


And the energy measurements of the storms and hurricanes.  We call this the ACE value.


Another way to measure the energy…… PDI (power dissipation index)


Note:  Because the general discussion is about global concerns, I referenced global measurements.  Measurements, even the ones invented by b_flat and other imbecilic alamrists, are irrelevant if the context doesn’t tie to global concerns. 

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to LGF Demonstrates Moronic Warmists Receive Exponential Butthurt Every Time They Engage Skeptics!

  1. Paul H says:

    Piers Moron initiated the discussion by saying

    Our big story tonight, you are so hot, America. And I mean that literally. The temperature was a balmy 60 degrees this afternoon in New York just outside CNN’s studios. The average high temperature in December is normally 43. A warm front has flooded the lower 48 states with 482 daily high temperature records across the country on Monday alone. Quite extraordinary but is it evidence of manmade global warming?

    It turns out that such temperatures are common in December in New York – like 171 occasions since 1895. In 1998 temps reached 75F, and even in 1881they got to 67F.

    As usual, facts trump alarmism.


    • suyts says:

      Outstanding! I knew I should have looked around before finishing my post. Ours make excellent bookends. 🙂

      Maybe, in the interest of time, we should start listing some of the things the warmists get correct. We could condense down to just a few words a week.

  2. I’ve been wasting my time on politics and this knuckleheaded climate science (same thing actually) that I haven’t been devoting much time to my third favorite thing–astronomy. I was reading my January copy of Astronomy Magazine. They were covering the top 10 space stories of 2012. Number one was the Higgs boson discovery–obviously. Number two was a problem with type Ia supernovae–I missed that one.

    Type Ia supernovae are considered standard candles. They were used to discover that the Universe’s expansion is accelerating. This is “settle science” and Nobels were awarded. However, hold the phone!

    Apparently the standard model for type Ia supernovae (star donating material to its white dwarf companion) may not be right. There’s the double-degenerate model too. If true, then type Ia supernovae are not standard candles and the accelerating Universe idea goes out the window.

    So much for “settled science.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s