Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Crazy Crap / Hargrove Global Warming "Baloney," Says Home of the Whopper
Posted by Brantley Hargrove on Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Their commercials pander to the basest impulses of red-meat American men. The oneupmanship of their absurdly caloric food is an arms race to the bottom in nutrition. And now a few Memphis Burger King restaurants are global warming denialists. To come: The Limburger Limbaugh Burger, it stinks and its got a lotta meat.
According to the Memphis Flyer, Burger King corporate confirmed that five restaurants owned by a local franchiser had the message "Global Warming Is Baloney" posted on their signage. This doesn't reflect the views of BK, a corporate spokesperson says, though they certainly aren't green--rated with across-the-board zeros by ClimateCounts.org.
Sounds like the local franchiser got a stern rebuke from corporate, because the message has since been removed.
Comments (20)
Showing 1-20 of 20
Burger King are GI-normous douche bags. Their actions against the tomato pickers in Florida have been horrible. I'd boycott but I don't eat that crap anyway.
like
dislike
Right or wrong, a sign in front of your place of business is a stupid place to air your personal opinions. I wish I ate at Burger King so I could stop!
The Chicken little Al Gore disciples dropped the "global warming" moniker ages ago. They have since moved the goal post and now call it "Global Climate Change" because the Earth is actually now COOLING. Facts threw a small monkey wrench into the phony GW debate but nothing that a little wordsmithing wont change. A very creative bunch...
"Presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Monday that “we have to get used to the idea that we can’t keep our houses at 72, drive our SUVs and eat all we want.” Arthur B. Robinson, president and professor of chemistry at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, has a different response.
“I don’t want to give up eating all I want because of a failed hypothesis,” said Robinson at the National Press Club here on May 19. Robinson said global warming is not a threat to America. He said that the global temperature increased by just .5 degrees in the last century.
Robinson spoke about his petition signed by 31,000 U.S. scientists who reject the claims that “human release of greenhouse gases is damaging our climate.”
“World temperatures fluctuate all the time,” said Robinson. “The temperature of the Earth has risen many times, far more times than carbon dioxide could drive it. There is no experimental evidence that humans are changing the environment…”
Robinson said that in recent years the U.N. and a group of 600 scientists, representing less than one percent of the scientific population, reached a “consensus” that global warming is happening. This has never been done before, Robinson insists.
Dennis Avery, Director for the Center of Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute, agrees with Robinson. “Nobody can do science by a committee. You do science by testing,” said Avery. “To me it is appalling that an international organization of the stature of the U.N. would ignore the evidence of past climate changing.”
The signers of Robinson’s petition, including 9,000 Ph.Ds, all have one thing in common. They believe that human rights are being taken away."
http://www.aim.org/briefing/31000-signatures-prove-no-consensus-about-global-warming/
Ooh, Kevin, bad choice of quack scientists to prove your point. I bet you believe in intelligent design, too.
Robinson is a Christian fundamentalist, not a professional climate scientist. The study you refer to was co-published by the George C. Marshall Institute, which gets big-time donations from ExxonMobil. Think they have an interest in disproving climate change? You bet. If the best you denialists can do is throw out junk science by quack "scientists," the number of rational people rolling their eyes at your nonsense will only grow. Keep it up, by all means.
So much for having an alternative to McDonald's. Darn, and BK has a veggie burger, too!
I complement the Scene for the surprisingly fitting use of the word "douche."
"Robinson is a Christian fundamentalist, not a professional climate scientist."
-- Not relevent. The fact that you bring up his religioun shows just how intellectually impotent you are. 9,000 scientists signed the petition. Care to address specifics as opposed to bringing up details unrelated? How about elaborating on what makes him a "quack scientists"? Hurry up and Google an answer, quick!!!!
The IPCC represents 1% of the world scientific community and many people SUED to have names removed from the report claiming "scientific consensus"...
20 years ago it was global cooling....then global warming....now global "climate change".
There are some major environmental issues that need to be addressed but this BS is not one of them.
Also, define "big time". Your government profits more from oil than any oil company...
"31,000 U.S. scientists who reject the claims that “human release of greenhouse gases is damaging our climate.”
-- All "quack scientists" because I read it in The Nation...lol
Hey Hargrove, have you ever studied climate data? Go to the NASA website, and look at mean global temperatures for the last 15,000 years. Is that good enough science for you? You can call it global warming, or you can call it climate change. I call it baloney.
Contact your representatives, and tell them to do something meaningful, such as phasing out dirty diesel and two-cycle engines. We need a national mandate to exploit our natural gas resources until hydrogen and fusion power is a reality. If you want something to happen in the next ten years, you have to start today!
It's pertinent because fundamentalists of any ilk are, by their very nature, crazy. And I don't believe you can be a serious scientist and believe in an omnipotent entity no one has ever seen or heard from. Oh, and he isn't a climatologist. What could he possibly have to say on the subject that is illuminating?
Notice Kevin doesn't address the fact the ExxonMobil basically funded the pseudoscience he's referring to. And these 9,000 scientists he mentions? I wonder what kind of credentials it takes to get onto that list?
The point is, Robinson is a contrarian crackpot who even takes issue with evolution and natural selection--two theories universally accepted among REAL scientists. He's a fringe wacko at best.
If there is global warming why has the earth cooled since 1998.
Gore boogey men Hurricains predictions have proven to be incorrect. He even had to pull that section of his presentation because it was killing it's creditblity.
Donnie: "If there is global warming why has the earth cooled since 1998."
Putting aside the fact that questions should end with a question mark, your assertion is neither true, nor is what your question implies. Mean global temperatures have continued to rise, even since 1998. See this graph, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
1998 was a peak year, so it's a dishonest point to pick. If you had picked 1999 or 2000 then it has certainly gotten warmer than either of those years. Also, 2005 was warmer than than 1998, so you're still wrong. What you're doing is called "cherry picking" your data, and that hurts your credibility.
In any case, the world is still much warmer than it was just a decade ago, so even if there is a temporary steadiness in mean global temperature, it is still higher than it should be, and the trends suggest it will continue to go higher. The trend is real, and comparing it to one data point does not change that.
And are you aware of how much energy it takes to raise an area the size of the surface of the Earth by even one degree Celsius? I'll give you a hint: it's huge. You can't add that much energy to the atmosphere and not expect it to be affected. And when we look, we see that the number of reported floods and cyclones around the world have indeed gone up with global climate. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trends_in_natural_disasters.jpg
That's not a coincidence. Now, it is true some of the rise can be attributed to greater reporting. However, since we are unable to affect earthquakes we can see that the reporting rate for cyclones and floods have increased at a greater rate than earthquakes. This allows us to rule out greater reporting as the sole cause for the increased rates of floods and cyclones around the world.
This is not a "boogey man" (or "boogyman", if you want it written correctly), this is a straightforward presentation of the facts. If you'd like to keep burying your head in the sand when it comes to the facts, fine, but that won't keep us from seeing that your "facts" are neither true nor relevant even if they were true.
Donnie, whether the earth has cooled since '98 is beside the point. Scientists argue that the trends are showing warming over a long term period. And even in the last ten years, it is debatable what it means. The ice poles have clearly warmed, even if the rest of the earth hasn't. And over-all natural fluctuations can be responsible for neutralizing increased carbon output in the short-term. We still need to make changes in the way we do things though and this shouldn't be a political issue. This is something that we should all agree on.
But what's really interesting is how much the so-called "skeptics" have been changing their stories over the last few years. Several years ago, there was no global warming. Then, there was global warming but it was natural, not man made. Now, the earth is cooling. That right there is more fluctuation than what takes place in nature. The hot air from right-wing echo chambers will do that I guess.
Burger King sould have the right to tell the truth == "Global Warming is Baloney" Obama's Cap and trade is a hoax that would destroy the U.S. economy. It would be another giant step towards Marxism -- and the corruption, poverty, enslavement, destruction and despair that Marxism entails.
Obama is working much faster than Hugo Chavez at imposing socialism/communism/Marxism (or whatever you want to call the government taking over, enslaving people, and destroying the economy). No wonder the Russians are gloating:
From Pravda: “…the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people…” Read the article in Pravda… http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-american_capitalism-0
"Ooh, Kevin, bad choice of quack scientists to prove your point"
Too funny.
A talentless hack pretending to be a "journalist" claiming some scientist is a quack!
1. Look at your Graph from 1998-2007 which is where the graph ends, the Graph shows a 0.2 Degree cooling since 1998
Yes the earth has warmed since the mid 1800s when they began keeping records.
You have to ask what happened in the Mid 1800s. We came out of an ICE AGE..
If you look at the GISS Raw Data.. From 1998 to present.. you will notice we have Cooled from 1.24 Degrees above mean climate (this is from 1880 to present) to only 0.1 Degree above the mean Climate.
Year difference from mean cilmate
1998 1.24
1999 .94
2000 0.55
2001 .78
2002 .56
2003 .53
2004 .46
2005 .71
2006 1.08
2007 .77
2008 .10
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
the 150,000 year mean 40,000 years were warmer than the current climate.
According to the Oak Ridge National Laboratories Environmental Division
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
150,000 y.a. - cold, dry full glacial world
around 130,000 y.a. - rapid warming initiates the Eemian interglacial (Stage 5e)
130,000-110,000 y.a. - global climates generally warmer and moister than present, but with progressive cooling to temperatures more similar to present.
(except for possible global cold, dry event at 121,000 y.a.)
?110,000 y.a. - a strong cooling marks the end of the Eemian interglacial (Stage 5e).
105,000-95,000 y.a. - climate warms slightly but still cooler and drier than present; strong fluctuations.
95,000 - 93,000 y.a. - another cooler phase similar to that at 110,000 y.a.
93,000 - 75,000 y.a. - a milder phase, resembling that at 105,000-95,000 y.a.
75,000 - 60,000 y.a. - full glacial world, cold and dry (the 'Lower Pleniglacial' or Stage 4)
60,000 - 25,000 y.a. - 'middling phase' of highly unstable but generally cooler and drier-than-present conditions (Stage 3)
25,000 - 15,000 y.a. - full glacial world, cold and dry; Stage 2 (includes the 'Last Glacial Maximum')
(This period includes two 'coldest phases' - Heinrich Events - at around 23,000-21,000 y.a. and at 17,000-14,500 y.a.)
14,500 y.a. - rapid warming and moistening of climates in some areas. Rapid deglaciation begins.
13,500 y.a. - nearly all areas with climates at least as warm and moist as today's
12,800 y.a. (+/- 200 years)- rapid onset of cool, dry Younger Dryas in many areas
11,500 y.a. (+/- 200 years) - Younger Dryas ends suddenly, back to warmth and moist climates (Holocene, or Stage 1)
9,000 y.a. - 8,200 y.a. - climates warmer and often moister than today's
about 8,200 y.a. - sudden cool and dry phase in many areas
8,000-4,500 y.a. - climates somewhat warmer and moister than today's
Since 4,500 y.a. - climates fairly similar to the present
And the last 4500 years the current climate is ~ mean climate.
HiEv
If you read your graph if you look the earth has COOLED since 1998.
Yes the graph shows the earth has warmed since the Mid 1800s. But what event happened in the Mid 1800s The Little Ice Age ended. Of course we have warmed if we had not Warmed we would be in an Ice Age.
The 1300s were 3 Degrees warmer than today's climate. remember the Vikings were living in greenland because the climate was warm enough to grow Vineyards.
Look at the GISS Raw Data with the Exception of 2006 ( a year of Solar Flares) the earth has cooled.
2008 was the Coldest Year since 1985, and the 2nd Coldets year since 1962.
year Dela difference
from mean
1998 1.24
1999 .94
2000 .55
2001 .78
2002 .56
2003 .53
2004 .46
2005 .71
2006 1.08
2007 .77
2008 .10
The Oak Ridge National Laboratories 150,000 climate data shows we are in about the mean climate for the 150,000 year period.
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html
150,000 y.a. - cold, dry full glacial world
around 130,000 y.a. - rapid warming initiates the Eemian interglacial (Stage 5e)
130,000-110,000 y.a. - global climates generally warmer and moister than present, but with progressive cooling to temperatures more similar to present.
(except for possible global cold, dry event at 121,000 y.a.)
?110,000 y.a. - a strong cooling marks the end of the Eemian interglacial (Stage 5e).
105,000-95,000 y.a. - climate warms slightly but still cooler and drier than present; strong fluctuations.
95,000 - 93,000 y.a. - another cooler phase similar to that at 110,000 y.a.
93,000 - 75,000 y.a. - a milder phase, resembling that at 105,000-95,000 y.a.
75,000 - 60,000 y.a. - full glacial world, cold and dry (the 'Lower Pleniglacial' or Stage 4)
60,000 - 25,000 y.a. - 'middling phase' of highly unstable but generally cooler and drier-than-present conditions (Stage 3)
25,000 - 15,000 y.a. - full glacial world, cold and dry; Stage 2 (includes the 'Last Glacial Maximum')
(This period includes two 'coldest phases' - Heinrich Events - at around 23,000-21,000 y.a. and at 17,000-14,500 y.a.)
14,500 y.a. - rapid warming and moistening of climates in some areas. Rapid deglaciation begins.
13,500 y.a. - nearly all areas with climates at least as warm and moist as today's
12,800 y.a. (+/- 200 years)- rapid onset of cool, dry Younger Dryas in many areas
11,500 y.a. (+/- 200 years) - Younger Dryas ends suddenly, back to warmth and moist climates (Holocene, or Stage 1)
9,000 y.a. - 8,200 y.a. - climates warmer and often moister than today's
about 8,200 y.a. - sudden cool and dry phase in many areas
8,000-4,500 y.a. - climates somewhat warmer and moister than today's
Since 4,500 y.a. - climates fairly similar to the present
Sorry but your Graph proved my point.
There is no "Man-made Global Warming". The sign should have said, "Man-made Global Warming is Baloney"....
When did those of us with the intelligence to see through the global warming scam become "denialists"?
This is a deeply pejorative term hitherto associated with Holocaust denial. Is the idea to draw a comparison between those who reject the man-made global warming thesis and Nazi sympathizers?
Man-made global warming (and it's supposed dire consequences for humanity) *is* 100% baloney.
