has anyone every heard Teller speak?

I don’t expect these videos to remain at YouTube much longer, so watch ’em while you can.

I think that part of their agreement with Showtime is that full episodes become public domain after it's been aired a few times.

I think it would be cool if "global warming" made Florida shrink! fun!

Geenpeace taken over by politiocs using it for money grubbing? how corporate!

I just love when AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) sheep get their asses handed to them.

(Something tells me this one won’t get the same kind of reaction as their debunking of creationism.)

It's all good when it's somebody else's ox being gored.

I was born a few months before the modern state of Israel. 1948 was a good year. During World War II my parents along with 2000 other civilians were prisoners in a Japanese Internment Camp in the Philippines that our forces believed was scheduled for massacre. On the very day Americans were raising the flag on Mount Surabachi on Iwo Jima, a daring rescue attempt of my parent’s Internment Camp located miles behind enemy lines succeeded without the loss of a single prisoner. It is easy to understand why I have no sympathy for those who would imprison people in concentration/death camps or call for the destruction of Israel. For the record, I am no friend of Pat Buchanan.

I was pleased to discover the Little Green Footballs website and have gained valuable information both great and small—from a video showing a funeral procession in Gaza were the “deceased” falls off the stretcher and miraculously gets back on by his own power to learning of the folks at pizzaidf.org who accept orders to deliver pizzas and other goodies to Israeli soldiers after their patrols. When my finances allow, I sometimes even escalate to sending a round of hamburgers. With all these positive points, I cannot express too strongly my keen disappointment in the constant attack on those who do not follow the pc mandated view that our existence is the result of the random, purposeless, undirected interactions of matter and energy. Please consider the words of this ID Theory quack.

"I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the universe, in its parts, general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition. The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces; the structure of the Earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters and atmosphere; animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles; insects, mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organized as man or mammoth; the mineral substances, their generation and uses, it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe, that there is in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a Fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their Preserver and Regulator, while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regeneration into new and other forms. We see, too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power, to maintain the universe in its course and order."
Thomas Jefferson

Atheist philosophers from Friedrich Nietzsche to George Carlin have amply demonstrated the despair of a nihilistic viewpoint which is the only reasonable conclusion if our existence is merely the result of non-directed materialistic forces. Notions of good and evil, right or wrong, moral or immoral are obsolete and illogical. All that is left is expediency.

guilt-ridden white middle class people bangin' drums and dancing equates to making life suck for people in poor nations. yep.
Same white middle class yuppies will be voting for Obama.

re: #1 FrogMarch

has anyone every heard Teller speak?

No

I've been waiting for this. Debunk Algorism! It's bullshit!

re: #1 FrogMarch

has anyone every heard Teller speak?

Yes

re: #6 TigerFan68

I cannot express too strongly my keen disappointment in the constant attack on those who do not follow the pc mandated view that our existence is the result of the random, purposeless, undirected interactions of matter and energy. Please consider the words of this ID Theory quack.

Uhhhh, what the video.

Save the forests! Silent Running!

Hey, I'll take anything to push the space programs ahead.

Did they have a date on when this was taped?

re: #5 Sharmuta

It's all good when it's somebody else's ox being gored.

Or when some Gore is being oxed.

re: #1 FrogMarch

A friend of mine went to their show in Vegas a month or so ago and apparently Teller speaks normally after the show. Talks to the fans and signs autographs.

re: #1 FrogMarch

has anyone every heard Teller speak?

He sounds much like Marcel Marceau.

Di-hydrogen monoxide!
I love it!
Morons... maroons, ultra-maroons.

"Teller gets grumpy when it's hot out".

I think they said it was back in 2003, right at the start.

"I don’t expect these videos to remain at YouTube much longer, so watch ’em while you can."

I far as I know, P&T have a deal with HBO. They own the rights to distribute their show how they want, and it is they themselves that post these videos.

Walter in Golden, Co.

I love that they're sitting on redwood stumps.

re: #16 debutaunt

He sounds much like Marcel Marceau.

LOL

re: #15 Archimedes

A friend of mine went to their show in Vegas a month or so ago and apparently Teller speaks normally after the show. Talks to the fans and signs autographs.

ah. thanks.

re: #1 FrogMarch

has anyone every heard Teller speak?

I think you can hear his voice on an episode of the Simpsons.

re: #3 FrogMarch

I think it would be cool if "global warming" made Florida shrink! fun!

Geenpeace taken over by politiocs using it for money grubbing? how corporate!

When the French government sank the Rainbow Warrior they deliberately set the charges so that the vessel would sink slowly and that everyone on board would have more than sufficient time to get off. Of course some moron had to go back and get his camera thus ended up drowning.

re: #20 Walter L. Newton

I seem to remember the same thing but I can't find a link to back it up.

Penn & Teller bulls**ts Delenn!

re: #27 Macker

Penn & Teller bulls**ts Delenn!

Is everyones "h" and "i" keys messed up? All I keep seeing is "**."

WRONGO - NOT STARR -

Earth Day 1 was actually April 20, 1970 - HITLER'S BIRTHDAY THAT YEAR! Discussion?

-S-

Not too long ago I was reading some farm magazine articles Laura Ingalls Wilder wrote before she became famous. One of the topics that came up was the fact that in a few decades there would be no coal or trees left. (Written in the early 20^th century.) Obviously, this did not turn out the way people 100 years ago thought it would. Forests were replanted, new sources of coal were found, and new sources of energy came into use.

Even assuming that what the moonbats are predicting is true, why is this generation unable to accomplish what was done 100 years ago?

Leftists resort to emotionalism? Whodah thunk?

re: #27 Macker

Penn & Teller bulls**ts Delenn!

I actually do think that the failure to obtain enlightenment is funny.

Unless of course the individual in question is standing for public office.

re: #29 Dr. Shalit

WRONGO - NOT STARR -

Earth Day 1 was actually April 20, 1970 - HITLER'S BIRTHDAY THAT YEAR! Discussion?

-S-

Isn't that also Lenin's birthday?

re: #28 Walter L. Newton

Only keeping in theme with Charles.

Greenpeace and the environmental movement were taken over by political lefties, to the exclusion of science.

Something tells me this one won’t get the same kind of reaction as their debunking of creationism.

Now what in the world would ever give you that impression?
//

I wonder what reaction the episode debunking 9/11 troofers would generate?

re: #30 mossley

Not too long ago I was reading some farm magazine articles Laura Ingalls Wilder wrote before she became famous. One of the topics that came up was the fact that in a few decades there would be no coal or trees left. (Written in the early 20^th century.) Obviously, this did not turn out the way people 100 years ago thought it would. Forests were replanted, new sources of coal were found, and new sources of energy came into use.

Even assuming that what the moonbats are predicting is true, why is this generation unable to accomplish what was done 100 years ago?

That would actually require going out and doing work.

A lot a folks on the Left have a problem with that.

re: #34 Macker

Only keeping in theme with Charles.

It was a joke!

There are some exceptional giant puppets in this episode. That's all I care about.

re: #31 FrogMarch

Leftists resort to emotionalism? Whodah thunk?

They don't.

Not the Video--I reject creationism--The constant attack on those who do not take the theory of evolution as the final truth on this matter.

Please do not conflate creationism with Intelligent Design.
A post at Plumbbobblog a friend of "Little green Footballs" explains the difference.

[Link: www.plumbbobblog.com...]

Some consider William F. Buckley a man of some honor. Please consider this exchange at a debate on Evolution and Intelligent Design

Evolutionist Philosopher: Why are you on that side rather than ours? (…)

Buckley: I object to the way in which your confederates (…) conduct themselves. They conduct themselves by simply assuming that people who argue the contrary are naifs or ignorant. It seems to be manifestly they are not. But my objection to your position is its ideological fixity. What you are speaking from is a dogmatic position from which everything else derives as one would expect. Right?

You can view the exchange at

re: #6 TigerFan68

I tried to ding up both up and down but, it doesn't work that way.

OT:

Is Obama our next president? Nothing harmful, of course, but I'm really looking for divine intervention. All of a sudden, dementia is looking good.

/senior citizen out.

re: #33 The Other Les

Isn't that also Lenin's birthday?

"TOL" -

I shall look. If you are right - WOW!

-S-

Last time I saw a Pink Pig was at a Pink Floyd concert....

'Should passion replace common sense?'

I don't think so, but then you don't get to make stupid papier mache puppets and have those really cool chants to show how individualistic you are.

re: #39 Charles

There are some exceptional giant puppets in this episode. That's all I care about.

Good thing I didn't see any Giant Duck of Peace™....

re: #36 Slumbering Behemoth

Now what in the world would ever give you that impression?
//

I wonder what reaction the episode debunking 9/11 troofers would generate?

Troofers are easy to understand.

If a statement is true, they won't believe it.

re: #35 solomonpanting

Greenpeace and the environmental movement were taken over by political lefties, to the exclusion of science.

That's why Patrick Moore, one of the founders, the scientist in the bunch, has washed his hands of them.

GreenSpirit

I remember the first Earth Day observation in 1971, and I remember thinking then that it was bullshit.

re: #49 CyanSnowHawk

That's why Patrick Moore, one of the founders, the scientist in the bunch, has washed his hands of them.

GreenSpirit

Linky no worky!

re: #27 Macker

One of my favorite this to do while traveling is to get people tell me jokes. They are never funny but always interesting. I also like to collect euphemisms from other languages ("spanking the monkey", "Killing two birds with one stone." etc)

A petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide! I love it.

re: #39 Charles

There are some exceptional giant puppets in this episode. That's all I care about.

Few things say "look at me, I'm a narcissistic attention whore" like a giant puppet.

That's the trouble with the fringe. 'I feel, I believe', never 'the data shows that...'.

re: #6 TigerFan68

TLDR
//

Seriously though, what is with this obsession some have in equating atheism with nihilism?

re: #54 The Other Les

Few things say "look at me, I'm a narcissisticattention whore" like a giant puppet.

There, fixed that for ya!

re: #51 Macker

Hiw website has always been quirky, try a few refreshes at it will work.

re: #52 Killgore Trout

One of my Venezuelan co-workers talks about "having to pay through the eye."
Sounds more painful than the nose.

re: #51 Macker

Linky no worky!

That's weirod. I cut and paste it from the site.

Try this, GreenSpirit.

re: #59 jaunte

One of my Venezuelan co-workers talks about "having to pay through the eye."
Sounds more painful than the nose.

Well, if you ever too a good look at Hugo, you'd understand.

/

re: #60 CyanSnowHawk

Linky worky! Thanks!

Imagine the reaction of these folks when thry saw themselves in the video.

Bwahaha.

re: #59 jaunte

In China they call a narrow minded person a frog in a well (because he only sees a small part of the sky).

re: #61 Walter L. Newton

What he says about Hugo, I can't repeat here.

re: #44 Dr. Shalit

Reply to Self and "TOL" -

Lenin's Birthday is "22 April" - My recollection is that "Earth Day 1," with Green "E" (US Flag Parody) Flag and all was on "20 April." One of us is right, in either case, making EARTH DAY the same as Hitler's or Lenin's Birthday WAS a bad joke.

-S-

Just remember PJ O'Rourkes Iron Law of Activism.
Cute girls are found where the action is.
Seeing these girls jumping to the drumming made me fear a raft of bad and expensive policy more than all the windy speeches in Congress.

OT, this is a hit and run, so don't reply, this is a funny take off of "Star wars" by Gnarles Barkley for his song "Crazy" featuring Chewbacca on the drums. Enjoy!

re: #64 Killgore Trout

That's a good one. Reminds me of the Ballad of Reading Gaol.

re: #50 jaunte

I remember the first Earth Day observation in 1971, and I remember thinking then that it was bullshit.

I think the united states has done a great job in evironment issues since 1971.. and with or without the moonbats Earth day started a movement to protect clean air and water..look at china..they suck.. I'm proud of what we have accomplished over the years..

re: #70 HoosierHoops

Back then people were worried about the population bomb, and the coming ice age. But mostly what we did was pick up litter, so it worked out all right.

re: #39 Charles

There are some exceptional giant puppets in this episode. That's all I care about.

Really Charles? Ahem, if after watching these overly emotional lovelies their dates big goofy puppets are all you care about I'd be worried. Agreed the puppets are pretty goofy though.

Ban dihydrogen monoxide! I love that... it just proves how senseless so many people are about causes that they have done no research on.

The other part that irritates me is the prominence of anti-capitalism and anti-globalization that somehow manages to find its way into a demonstration for the environment.

re: #67 lifeofthemind

Just remember PJ O'Rourkes Iron Law of Activism.
Cute girls are found where the action is.
Seeing these girls jumping to the drumming made me fear a raft of bad and expensive policy more than all the windy speeches in Congress.

Well if the Left had it's way during the Cold War those girls would have to learn the phrase "hello handsome soldier" in Russian or Chinese.

Islamists, like their prophet, don't bother to ask.

I love the "Corporations are Greedy" meme. As if there are any successful Corporations that don't care whether or not they turn a profit.

Great vid

re: #72 lifeofthemind

Really Charles? Ahem, if after watching these overly emotional lovelies their dates big goofy puppets are all you care about I'd be worried. Agreed the puppets are pretty goofy though.

Is this really Cognito?

re: #77 Walter L. Newton

Is this really Cognito?

Nah. The sock would be named "lifeofmymind".

re: #78 MandyManners

*puurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr*

re: #73 jordash1212

Ban dihydrogen monoxide! I love that... it just proves how senseless so many people are about causes that they have done no research on.

The other part that irritates me is the prominence of anti-capitalism and anti-globalization that somehow manages to find its way into a demonstration for the environment.

Capitalism means having to work. Globalization means having to the call tech support guy in India.

re: #78 MandyManners

Nah. The sock would be named "lifeofmymind".

Gosh, that was GOOD. LOL.

re: #71 jaunte

Back then people were worried about the population bomb, and the coming ice age. But mostly what we did was pick up litter, so it worked out all right.

hey..i think so also..I like it that are kids care about our world..
yes..some can be moonbats..
But i like the passion..
/plus after 5 kids..i know they grow up..

re: #1 FrogMarch

has anyone every heard Teller speak?

Yes

re: #15 Archimedes

A friend of mine went to their show in Vegas a month or so ago and apparently Teller speaks normally after the show. Talks to the fans and signs autographs.

I was there last year, saw their show and confirm.

re: #78 MandyManners

Thanks Mandy, tough crows in here.

re: #70 HoosierHoops

"H-H" -

Trust Me - IMPLICITLY - EARTH DAY 1 WAS IN 1970. In fact, some of the literature we were given at the time said that the OCEANS would be DEAD by 1973!

-S-

re: #85 lifeofthemind

Thanks Mandy, tough crows in here.

That wasn't for you, it was for our dear crosswise friend Cognito. Sorry I used you as the foil.

re: #86 Dr. Shalit

"H-H" -

Trust Me - IMPLICITLY - EARTH DAY 1 WAS IN 1970. In fact, some of the literature we were given at the time said that the OCEANS would be DEAD by 1973!

-S-

Someone was misinformed.

They actually have a recent version of this called 'Being Green' and it is on demand right now. It is also playing on showtime on the dates found here
Check it out, its hysterical

re: #1 FrogMarch

has anyone every heard Teller speak?

I know of a youtube video where he speaks... but would you watch it? It may shatter your view of reality.

re: #86 Dr. Shalit

"H-H" -

Trust Me - IMPLICITLY - EARTH DAY 1 WAS IN 1970. In fact, some of the literature we were given at the time said that the OCEANS would be DEAD by 1973!

-S-

I hear ya Doc.. I've read the sillest things..wait..
I watched Al Gores movie the other day..
So.. i hear ya..
/ I still like the passion..

re: #40 The Other Les

That's just it they thunk in stead of think. pb10

re: #1 FrogMarch

has anyone every heard Teller speak?

I actually have. I saw them live in Atlanta. After the show, they were in the lobby doing the glad hand/ autograph thing.

So, did Rainforest Action send Kate back to the re-education camps after that performance?

Being somewhat, er, old, I remember reading that there was a river that used to catch fire [Link: www.epa.gov...]
and that was one of the drivers for Earth Day.

I have no problem with taking care of the planet, after all it ain't smart to poo in your nest. However these alarmist types will end up doing more harm than good BECAUSE THEY ARE IDIOTS!

re: #73 jordash1212

Ban dihydrogen monoxide! I love that... it just proves how senseless so many people are about causes that they have done no research on.

The other part that irritates me is the prominence of anti-capitalism and anti-globalization that somehow manages to find its way into a demonstration for the environment.

The socialists/Marxists/anti-capitalists/anarchists have co-opted the movement. When it really got underway, and many people saw the wisdom and benefit of doing significant things to protect the environment, they all basically thought, "You know, that's a pretty good idea." And the more radical elements, of which there were many in the early environmental movement, thought, "You know, this looks like a good vehicle to spread our ideas." Sort of like what the European Nationalists are trying to do with the anti-Jihad efforts now.

Everything you every wanted to know...

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

re: #94 mossley

So, did Rainforest Action send Kate back to the re-education camps after that performance?

Are you kidding? They gave her a promotion and sent her on a prolonged speaking tour.

//

Originally leftists were opposed to capitalism because they claimed socialism produced more prosperity. When this became untenable, they started emphasizing environmentalism.

It's no coincidence that global warming started to get publicized in the late 1980s, the same time the U.S.S.R was collapsing.

As the late Warren Brookes put it, a lot of environmentalists are like water melons, "green on the outside, pink on the inside."

Charles AND Everyone -

I am Partially Wrong. Earth Day 1 was 22 April, 1970 - close - but No Cigar. Ergo - It WAS LENIN's BIRTHDAY - NOT HITLER's. Everything else I have said is AB-SO-LUTE-LY CO-RECT. "Search Engine" It.

-S-

On Linux, the last two videos are out of sync; the first plays fine, however.

Now back to your regularly scheduled topic...

I equate the socialistic environmentalist hysteria with the threeat of say, Islamic terrorism, or that sinester, evil, smile that Barney the dinosaur has. All of the above must be met with force, and they must be defeated before they can ruin us, and send us back in the stone age. I for one would not enjoy a mud hut, and my weak, nerd body wouldn't enjoy this whole hunter-gatherer thing either. And with my medication going at the window (I am bipolar), I would quickly revert to an almost animalistic nature. It might even be the death of me.

re: #99 LesLein

Originally leftists were opposed to capitalism because they claimed socialism produced more prosperity. When this became untenable, they started emphasizing environmentalism.

It's no coincidence that global warming started to get publicized in the late 1980s, the same time the U.S.S.R was collapsing.

As the late Warren Brookes put it, a lot of environmentalists are like water melons, "green on the outside, pink on the inside."

"LL" -

More or less the "Other Vaclav" has said the same thing.

-S-

re: #95 Van Helsing

Being somewhat, er, old, I remember reading that there was a river that used to catch fire [Link: www.epa.gov...]
and that was one of the drivers for Earth Day.

I have no problem with taking care of the planet, after all it ain't smart to poo in your nest. However these alarmist types will end up doing more harm than good BECAUSE THEY ARE IDIOTS!

"The Earth is the cradle of the mind, but one cannot stay in the cradle forever."

-- Konstantin Tsiolkovskiy

Science and rationality is under attack from all sides. It's instructional that most of the "environmentalists" in this piece have little grasp of facts, tend to base thier actions on emotion, and are against progress of any sort.

re: #104 Thanos

Science and rationality is under attack from all sides. It's instructional that most of the "environmentalists" in this piece have little grasp of facts, tend to base thier actions on emotion, and are against progress of any sort.

Luddites is the term. Un-educatedIgnorant, clueless Luddites.

re: #103 The Other Les

"T-O-L" -

The River WAS the Cuyahoga - in Cleveland, OH - Ringy Dingy any bells?

-S-

re: #97 Walter L. Newton

Everything you every wanted to know...

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

It is left an exercise for the student to separate the fact from fiction in Wikipedia.

Julia Butterfly Hill. Why are the cute ones always the dumbest?

I think Kate was into the kine before she started answering questions.

re: #106 Dr. Shalit

Take a look at #95.

re: #100 Dr. Shalit

Charles AND Everyone -

I am Partially Wrong. Earth Day 1 was 22 April, 1970 - close - but No Cigar. Ergo - It WAS LENIN's BIRTHDAY - NOT HITLER's. Everything else I have said is AB-SO-LUTE-LY CO-RECT. "Search Engine" It.

-S-

I didn't know Lenin was so into the environment back then..
I'm not sure he gets all the credit..
My little sister lives out in Seattle and is so into saving the earth..she goes to classes all the time and is there to help save wildlife on a moments notice..
I may giggle at some of her tree hugging ways..but i respect her and her passion for wildlife...
I'm proud of my sis and don't think everyone should be labeled idiots because we don't share the same love and passion..
WE need people like my sister...

re: #107 CyanSnowHawk

It is left an exercise for the student to separate the fact from fiction in Wikipedia.

Agreed. But as a professional magician, and one who spent 10 years in the 80's producing magic shows for theme parks and state fairs, I know P&T, the magic industry and etc. and this article is relatively free of hype.

re: #106 Dr. Shalit

"T-O-L" -

The River WAS the Cuyahoga - in Cleveland, OH - Ringy Dingy any bells?

-S-

I think you're answering somebody else.

re: #99 LesLein

Originally leftists were opposed to capitalism because they claimed socialism produced more prosperity. When this became untenable, they started emphasizing environmentalism.

It's no coincidence that global warming started to get publicized in the late 1980s, the same time the U.S.S.R was collapsing.

As the late Warren Brookes put it, a lot of environmentalists are like water melons, "green on the outside, pink on the inside."

From what I've read the former worker's paradise of the USSR has far more environmental issues than the US at it's worst.

Chernobyl ring any bells?

Facts of course are not relevant to the fools that just want to have parades.

With drums.

And puppets.

An bouncey breasted young ladies bouncing.

re: #114 Van Helsing

From what I've read the former worker's paradise of the USSR has far more environmental issues than the US at it's worst.

Chernobyl ring any bells?

Facts of course are not relevant to the fools that just want to have parades.

With drums.

And puppets.

An bouncey breasted young ladies bouncing.

Of course I mentioned the environmental problems of the Soviet Union to a Lefty at a bookstore and he just flat out denied it.

re: #115 The Other Les

I can understand when people have opinions based on little information but how can they deny that which is so well documented?

I can't fathom it.

Penn and Teller may be breaking the Smokey Bear Act*.

* Act of May 23, 1952
(P.L 82-359, Ch. 327, 66 Stat. 92;18 U.S.C 711; 16 U.S.C. 580p-2)

[Link: www.symbols.gov...]

re: #104 Thanos

Science and rationality is under attack from all sides. It's instructional that most of the "environmentalists" in this piece have little grasp of facts, tend to base thier actions on emotion, and are against progress of any sort.

Does this remind you of anything going on in, say, a previous thread today?

re: #108 Noam Sayin'

Julia Butterfly Hill. Why are the cute ones always the dumbest?

I think Kate was into the kine before she started answering questions.

My thoughts exactly, Noam. Living here in the Bay Area, the land of moonbats and Humboldt Sensi, I've had many frustrating, one-sided convos like that. Add a vegan diet to the mix, and you can pretty much forget about the person in question ever responding to reason, linear thinking, short-term mnemonics, and/or common sense.

Teller Talks

Second sourcing the video: Penn and Teller - Bullshit! - Environmental Hysteria.

re: #112 ploome hineni

Heh, the Disco Institute is trying to derail Judaism too. Good luck with that.

The ban dihydrogen monoxide website.

re: #120 Thanos

Teller Talks

AH! Nobody watch that. Once you do you cannot unwatch it. Do you really want all you know about reality to be shown to be false? :O

re: #1 FrogMarch

has anyone every heard Teller speak?

Yes. Met him after a show.

He'll talk your ear off once the act is over and he's out of character.

re: #118 reine.de.tout

Does this remind you of anything going on in, say, a previous thread today?

Well, maybe...
Naw, I got nuthin'.

re: #56 Slumbering Behemoth

TLDR
//

Seriously though, what is with this obsession some have in equating atheism with nihilism?

None of this is to imply and definitive link between nihilism and atheism; ergo they are not necessarily equivalent. Their can be said to be some interrelationships between the two philosophies. Each contains some of the other.

Some basics; an interesting blog entry that speaks in simple terms about some of the principles of Nihilism. (done by some student I believe).

Some more comments that offer some explanations.

Of course Atheists won't admit to nihilism but it can be said that a Nihilist, by definition, is an Atheist.

re: #99 LesLein

I think that explains a lot why watermelons are the exploding target of choice for many...

Atheist philosophers from Friedrich Nietzsche to George Carlin have amply demonstrated the despair of a nihilistic viewpoint which is the only reasonable conclusion if our existence is merely the result of non-directed materialistic forces. Notions of good and evil, right or wrong, moral or immoral are obsolete and illogical. All that is left is expediency.

BULLSHIT.

Of course Atheists won't admit to nihilism but it can be said that a Nihilist, by definition, is an Atheist.

BULLSHIT.

re: #132 Tigger2005

BULLSHIT.

saying B!llshit as a response is Bullshit!

re: #132 Tigger2005

Ah. I remember you. Your nic might be more identifying if it was eeyore2005.

HUMMUDDLE

Great stuff except for the last minute.

At one point in my life I would have signed the petition to ban h2o. But then I was 5 and didn't want to take a bath!

re: #1 FrogMarch

has anyone every heard Teller speak?

Yeah, Students in the English courses he taught at the University of Pennsylvania.

re: #133 jcw46

saying B!llshit as a response is Bullshit!

BULLSHIT!

re: #135 jcw46

Ah. I remember you. Your nic might be more identifying if it was eeyore2005.

OH BOTHER!

these people on the front lines, marching, cavorting, feeling great abt. themselves, are pathetic.
they have no commitment to their own lives.
they seem aimless and ridiculous. they don't even know why they are there.
i have friends who could easily be in those crowds of fools. it's abt. a paint your face dance party for them.
unbelievable. i learned a lot. i can't wait to put it out there in discussion to my moonbat friends.

re: #127 jcw46

Of course Atheists won't admit to nihilism but it can be said that a Nihilist, by definition, is an Atheist.

You should look into Objectivism. It is true that many atheists are nihilists, but atheism simply means not believing in a god. It doesn't affirm what one does believe.

But what do I know, because I think life could be the result of semi-random undirected processes this means I also think intelligent creatures aren't capable of finding their own meaning in life and their own reasons to be moral and sometimes self-sacrificing, to live by rules, to have principles and ideals, belief in right and wrong, and so on, and must have all this imparted to them arbitrarily by a transcendant deity.

Has it never occurred to you that if something is really "true," it is true regardless of whether it has the endorsement of deity?

Charles - the best Penn & Teller was the one they did about the bible.

Also, the one on PETA.

re: #142 nyc redneck

It's to be expected in a wealthy nation. A large number of people will naturally have way too much time on their hands.

Excellent. Watch it.

"definitely"

re: #143 Archimedes

You should look into Objectivism. It is true that many atheists are nihilists, but atheism simply means not believing in a god. It doesn't affirm what one does believe.

didn't say it did.
was answering a question about the juxtapostion of atheism with nihism by some.

and btw not believing in god is not a simple belief.

Wow. In one half-hour Penn and Teller completely dismantle the edifice of bullshit Al Gore spent twenty years building. Along with Michael Crichton's speeches on the subject, THIS should be required viewing in public schools (with the bad words bleeped out, of course). Unfortunately, it ain't gonna happen.

re: #86 Dr. Shalit

"H-H" -

Trust Me - IMPLICITLY - EARTH DAY 1 WAS IN 1970. In fact, some of the literature we were given at the time said that the OCEANS would be DEAD by 1973!

-S-

Indeed. True.

[Link: www.theaustralian.news.com.au...]

"The Science Of Snobbery"...featuring the hilariously addle-pated George Monbiot. Read, snort, snicker. :)

Penn Jillette is the most obnoxious person I've ever learned to truly admire. Well, there was Iggy Pop, but that was in another lifetime.

I've always thought di-hydrogen monoxide was a pox upon this earth...

/sarc

re: #150 rakkasan

Wow. In one half-hour Penn and Teller completely dismantle the edifice of bullshit Al Gore spent twenty years building. Along with Michael Crichton's speeches on the subject, THIS should be required viewing in public schools (with the bad words bleeped out, of course). Unfortunately, it ain't gonna happen.

I've spent years debating this subject with hysterics, and trust me, they won't be swayed by Penn & Teller. For the "scientists" who are still on board (and they are legion, if only publicly), there's way too much grant money involved. For the True Believers, there's only Faith, and they don't ever let a few inconvenient truths get in the way of their religion.

Wow Kate will probably be head of forestry management under Obama, and won't we all feel funny wiping our ass with leaves.

/ oh dead leaves we gathered yourselves .. not evil corporate.. factory packaged leaves.

This is really a good video.

re: #90 Basho

I know of a youtube video where he speaks... but would you watch it? It may shatter your view of reality.

and we can't have that!

I've just never heard him speak. I've also never spent substantive time in Vegas.
he speaks!

re: #13 Van Helsing

Did they have a date on when this was taped?

The end credits show 2003

re: #39 Charles

There are some exceptional giant puppets in this episode. That's all I care about.

Hey, I think it was outstanding to hear Bjorn Lombard speak! He really does have a way of bringing things into perspective. No wonder he is vilified by "environmentalists"

I have to call some bullshit on Penn and Teller.

They are correct that moonbats have their own agendas and make all sorts of nonsense. They are correct that the average person doesn't know squat about climate change.

They say we should do our homework.

How about interviewing a single scientist? They find some morons who can't talk their way out of a paper bag - ok point taken, don't ask Moonbeam and Starhawke for science. They ask a JOURNALIST! Oh, and then a fellow from the Cato institue a libertarian think tank. Hmmmm.

Why not someone from NASA or MIT or Johns Hopkins?

They reason is that then, they would get the real story. That there is evidence that we are affecting the climate. That would nt be a sensational as calling the whole thing bullshit.

typo, the reason they do it...

Just for the sake of completeness, here is something from the APS.

The science here is not full of crap. It is the real deal. Before anyone here decided to jump on me, please read this.

[Link: www.aps.org...]

Also I love CATO guy saying it's only a couple of degrees, no big deal. Anyone who says that has never learned about specific heat to say the least. How much extra energy is in the system after a couple of degrees over a whole planet? Moron.

re: #163 LudwigVanQuixote

Scientific Proof?

I just love it when Penn and Teller get put on here.

re: #164 wiffersnapper

Scientific Proof?

That link is really pretty ridiculous.

My link comes from the American Physical Society. There are lots of people on both sides of the political debate who say all sorts of crap. The scientific community is another matter.

All you have done is find a bunch of folks who snarkily say things that you want to hear for your own reasons.

re: #166 LudwigVanQuixote

Lugwig - There is evidence that the earth is warming. The only thing Penn & Teller are saying is that the vast majority of people touting this so-called "crisis" are so idiotic it's ridiculous.

Also, things are blown way out of proportion for the sake of politics and money. Al Gore is the biggest hack going.

One of the main points of the hysteria has been the melting of the polar ice-cap. Last year the "faithful" made a big deal about how the northwest passage could be open soon. It almost looked like a safe bet because with less ice, the pole absorbs more solar energy (open sea is darker than ice).

But then, [Link: nsidc.org...]

Click on the graph to enlarge it. Obviously more that 50% of the ice "shortage" has recovered IN A SINGLE YEAR. This is a stunning reversal and portends some serious winter weather if something doesn't change fast.

But what happened? One theory is the lack of sunspots. [Link: www.spaceweather.com...]

Hmmmmm.

re: #167 bryantms

Lugwig - There is evidence that the earth is warming. The only thing Penn & Teller are saying is that the vast majority of people touting this so-called "crisis" are so idiotic it's ridiculous.

Also, things are blown way out of proportion for the sake of politics and money. Al Gore is the biggest hack going.

You are absolutely correct in everything you say. I thought I was pretty clear about that when I said that you shouldn't ask Moonbeam and Starhawke about science.

There is another side to it though. There are a ton of politically motivated people on the other side who clumsily try to claim that the real science doesn't exist. They are very reminiscent of the ID crowd.

I do not care for the political hackery of either group. The message that many will take from the Penn and Teller piece is not that there is a a lot of unscientific foolishness out there on the extreme-left, but rather that the unscientific folly of the extreme-right is legitimate.

oooo...I like that theory...joining.

People wanting to joining other people. Getting together. Dancing for trees. Sweating and stinking. Climbing and protecting. Avenging and condemning.

OOOOOOOOOOO. Just know they can't wait till they save the world. Can't wait to prevent another generation of pond shrimp from approaching distinction. Can't wait for to put a stop to another polar bear having to swim back to the bergs. Can't wait to make us all one with the earth.

Yet, looking at them you could tell.

Mostly they can't wait for sex to work off all the aggression..........

What would a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood?

re: #162 LudwigVanQuixote

Gee, I thought the APS was back-pedaling on that November statement by their top officials that "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate." This, after they recently published a paper (with the same "not undergone any scientific peer review") that claimed that the sensitivity of the Earth's surface temperature to CO2 had been exaggerated by orders of magnitude.

My impression was that they were going to open debate on this, despite certain absurd political types having claimed "the debate is over".

Oh, and Schwartz's name rings a bell. He must be one of the main players in AGW. Like those frauds, Mann & Hansen.

re: #168 Pythagoras

One of the main points of the hysteria has been the melting of the polar ice-cap. Last year the "faithful" made a big deal about how the northwest passage could be open soon. It almost looked like a safe bet because with less ice, the pole absorbs more solar energy (open sea is darker than ice).

But then, [Link: nsidc.org...]

Click on the graph to enlarge it. Obviously more that 50% of the ice "shortage" has recovered IN A SINGLE YEAR. This is a stunning reversal and portends some serious winter weather if something doesn't change fast.

But what happened? One theory is the lack of sunspots. [Link: www.spaceweather.com...]

Hmmmmm.

Isn't it only the North Pole where the cap is melting? the South Pole ice pack is much thicker. Isn't it also true that they have found active undersea volcanoes under the Northern Ice Cap. Could this explain the malting?

Inquiring minds wan to know.

re: #168 Pythagoras

One of the main points of the hysteria has been the melting of the polar ice-cap. Last year the "faithful" made a big deal about how the northwest passage could be open soon. It almost looked like a safe bet because with less ice, the pole absorbs more solar energy (open sea is darker than ice).

But then, [Link: nsidc.org...]

Click on the graph to enlarge it. Obviously more that 50% of the ice "shortage" has recovered IN A SINGLE YEAR. This is a stunning reversal and portends some serious winter weather if something doesn't change fast.

But what happened? One theory is the lack of sunspots. [Link: www.spaceweather.com...]

Hmmmmm.

Ok that is one year in a non-linear system. What about all of the other years? Also, that is one place on the Earth, what about everywhere else? Please read the APS article.

From your pejorative use of the phrase "faithful" you neglect that the "faithful" are the vast bulk of the legitimate scientific community.

To be fair to you, what they (the scientists) are saying is not necessarily reported accurately by the MSM either. MSM "science" articles are so oversimplified and sensationalized that they are frequently just plain wrong.

Bravo, Pen & Teller. Expose those loony retards.
Next thing is to do the same with their anti-Israeli/American Bullshit.

re: #162 LudwigVanQuixote

Oh, and I haven't read the whole thing (lots of pretty equations, though, I see), so can you point to the part that explains how - despite their repeated claims that increasing CO2 will warm the Earth out of control, and despite ever-increasing CO2 levels, that the Earth hasn't cooperated in warming at all in the last 10 years? And might even be starting a cooling trend?

Is there something special about these guys, that their theories do not have to be judged by whether or not they agree with actual reality? 'Cause that ain't what science is supposed to be about.

re: #171 Optimizer

Gee, I thought the APS was back-pedaling on that November statement by their top officials that "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate." This, after they recently published a paper (with the same "not undergone any scientific peer review") that claimed that the sensitivity of the Earth's surface temperature to CO2 had been exaggerated by orders of magnitude.

My impression was that they were going to open debate on this, despite certain absurd political types having claimed "the debate is over".

Oh, and Schwartz's name rings a bell. He must be one of the main players in AGW. Like those frauds, Mann & Hansen.

Wow! There is a thread on LGF that I was heavily involved in a few days ago about the Monkton BS.

The APS is not backpedaling. It never did. Monkton has made quite a little hoax out of what happened. He had remarks web-published in a newsletter as part of a debate. His remarks are pseudo-scientific garbage. That is NOT the same thing as peer review at all. No journal of note published any "work" that he ever did. He is a journalist and not even a physicist.

Hansen is at Columbia and NASA/Goddard, just down the road. He was a student of Van-Allen. I am a physicist in reality I should add. I do think he is overly alarmist at times, but, he is a careful researcher and his papers are not foolish. On exactly what do you base your claim that he is a fraud - other than you do not like what he has to say?

re: #174 Age Of Freedom

Bravo, Pen & Teller. Expose those loony retards.
Next thing is to do the same with their anti-Israeli/American Bullshit.

I am so torn here. I certainly hope that the extreme left's romance with Islam and hatred of Israel gets ridiculed, but this really is an unfair piece.

re: #168 Pythagoras

Something that doesn't seem to ever be brought up is the question of whether the ice at the North Pole melting would even be a big deal. The first explorers visited something around 100 years ago, so I doubt we have regular observations of that place that go back more than a few decades. For all we know, maybe it's been happening every 50 years or so!

But note the hype about it, without much defense of the issue's importance.

Oh, and don't hold your breath waiting for the same media that was hyping the "50/50" probablility this year (as if anyone knows enough about it to calculate odds!) to tell you that we can already tell there's no way it will happen this year. But they'll STILL hype absurd odds-making over the next 10 years! Amazing!

re: #175 Optimizer

Oh, and I haven't read the whole thing (lots of pretty equations, though, I see), so can you point to the part that explains how - despite their repeated claims that increasing CO2 will warm the Earth out of control, and despite ever-increasing CO2 levels, that the Earth hasn't cooperated in warming at all in the last 10 years? And might even be starting a cooling trend?

Is there something special about these guys, that their theories do not have to be judged by whether or not they agree with actual reality? 'Cause that ain't what science is supposed to be about.

Really, that is not what the data I am looking at says. Also, I am reading the actual papers, not MSM stuff. Where is your evidence? As to the lot's of pretty equations, if you have a fault with them please say. If you don't understand them, how can you claim they are wrong?

Yes, MSM science is frustratingly simple-minded. However, I strongly disagree with the contention that the vast bulk of the scientific community believe that CO2 is the (or even a) primary driver of climate change. The top of the food chain (e.g. Reid Bryson, Richard Lindzen, George Taylor) are skeptics. Furthermore, the refutation of Michael Mann's fraudulent hockey stick should give anyone pause.

The recent improvement in the temporal resolution of the ice core now shows that temperature change precedes CO2 change, not vice-versa. This REVERSES the key piece of evidence behind the CO2 theory.

The tide is clearly turning.

Forget who supports it and who doesn't -- why believe. Was it not warmer 1000 years ago when the Viking colonized Greenland?

And, yes, the trend for the Antarctic ice is up.

re: #167 bryantms

Lugwig - There is evidence that the earth is warming. The only thing Penn & Teller are saying is that the vast majority of people touting this so-called "crisis" are so idiotic it's ridiculous.

Also, things are blown way out of proportion for the sake of politics and money. Al Gore is the biggest hack going.

Correction: There WAS evidence that the Earth WAS warming. After 10 years, I think it's fair to say it has stopped (which is not to preclude the possiblity of it starting again). I think that Penn & Teller episode is actually kinda old - they talk about 1998 as being "a few years ago". They could say something much stronger today.

re: #39 Charles

There are some exceptional giant puppets in this episode. That's all I care about.

Ghandi Be Gone!

re: #170 yesandno

oooo...I like that theory...joining.

People wanting to joining other people. Getting together. Dancing for trees. Sweating and stinking. Climbing and protecting. Avenging and condemning.

OOOOOOOOOOO. Just know they can't wait till they save the world. Can't wait to prevent another generation of pond shrimp from approaching distinction. Can't wait for to put a stop to another polar bear having to swim back to the bergs. Can't wait to make us all one with the earth.

Yet, looking at them you could tell.

Mostly they can't wait for sex to work off all the aggression..........

What would a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood?

"Change!"

Mucho Kudos to those who debunk both Creationism and "Environmentalist" hysteria! My kind of people.

Death to BS!

Screw Environmentalists who follow the Goracle. Conservation FTW!

That Teller's a right smart feller, even though he don't talk much.
I hear he invented the hydrogen bomb.

re: #180 Pythagoras

Yes, MSM science is frustratingly simple-minded. However, I strongly disagree with the contention that the vast bulk of the scientific community believe that CO2 is the (or even a) primary driver of climate change. The top of the food chain (e.g. Reid Bryson, Richard Lindzen, George Taylor) are skeptics. Furthermore, the refutation of Michael Mann's fraudulent hockey stick should give anyone pause.

The recent improvement in the temporal resolution of the ice core now shows that temperature change precedes CO2 change, not vice-versa. This REVERSES the key piece of evidence behind the CO2 theory.

The tide is clearly turning.

Forget who supports it and who doesn't -- why believe. Was it not warmer 1000 years ago when the Viking colonized Greenland?

And, yes, the trend for the Antarctic ice is up.

Here is the conclusion form the APS piece.

Conclusion: Earth is getting warmer. Basic atmospheric models clearly predict that additional greenhouse gasses will raise the temperature of Earth. To argue otherwise, one must prove a physical mechanism that gives a reasonable alternative cause of warming. This has not been done. Sunspot and temperature correlations do not prove causality.

I will try to find links to the pole data - which is actually difficult since the journals are accessed via subscription from the university server. But in the mean time how about these pictures of receeding glaciers.

[Link: nsidc.org...]
[Link: www.nichols.edu...]

re: #172 yesandno

Isn't it only the North Pole where the cap is melting? the South Pole ice pack is much thicker. Isn't it also true that they have found active undersea volcanoes under the Northern Ice Cap. Could this explain the malting?

Inquiring minds wan to know.

Yes, the ice at the South Pole is expanding right now, by as much as the North Pole has dropped. Don't hold your breath waiting for similar media attention to that.

Steve McIntyre (who de-bunked the "hockey stick") doesn't put any stock in the theory of the volcanoes being responsible, but I can't say he's an expert on such things. Mostly, the changes up there have been due to some oddball wind patterns pushing ice into warmer waters last year. The ice seems to be returning to a more normal state this year.

re: #180 Pythagoras

Also, you listed some people whom you place "at the top of the food chain."

I mean this humorously... How did you discover the food chain awards that come right after the Nobels are announced? That was a secret of our little physics cabal!

Now as to seriously, there are those in the community who are holdouts. However, the vast bulk of the community are not. It is a true statement. One measure of this is that the APS has come out as strongly as it has as an organisation.

re: #176 LudwigVanQuixote

Wow! There is a thread on LGF that I was heavily involved in a few days ago about the Monkton BS.

The APS is not backpedaling. It never did. Monkton has made quite a little hoax out of what happened. He had remarks web-published in a newsletter as part of a debate. His remarks are pseudo-scientific garbage. That is NOT the same thing as peer review at all. No journal of note published any "work" that he ever did. He is a journalist and not even a physicist.

Hansen is at Columbia and NASA/Goddard, just down the road. He was a student of Van-Allen. I am a physicist in reality I should add. I do think he is overly alarmist at times, but, he is a careful researcher and his papers are not foolish. On exactly what do you base your claim that he is a fraud - other than you do not like what he has to say?

1) I've seen enough on ClimateAudit to make it pretty obvious to me that he's tinkering with the data to his own political purposes (although the owner of that site would not likely say as much). He throws in inexplicable adjustments to his temperature data that "coincidentally" always drive more recent temps up, and older ones down. He has also tried to discourage funding for more satellite temperature data - even though the flaws in surface measurement have been exposed as systemic and widespread. The more comprehensive satellite data doesn't match his fudged data, and he's embarrasing himself, and betraying the public trust. That's my take on him, anyway.

2) As far as being a scientist, he totally step off the reservation in his recent speech. It is not for a scientist to call for corporate executives to be put on trial for crimes against humanity. Personally, I think HE ought to be put on trial for the same.

3) He's taken a fair amount of money from Gore's cronies, and - among scientists - is Gore's right-hand man. This is not the kind of guy you can look to for unbiased science.

re: #187 LudwigVanQuixote

The links are excellent but they show what we all agree on -- we've been recovering from the little ice age for centuries. I even think that the warming isn't done -- the recent cold spell is temporary.

I am stunned by the words, "to argue otherwise one must prove . . ." Nothing short of a proof of an alternate mechanism counts even as an argument?!?

The sunspot theory competes with CO2 on a level playing field and, with the ice cores showing temperature change preceding CO2 change, I think the sunspots are on much more solid ground. The recent rise in CO2 is a minor player in the rise in temperature. The recovery from the little ice age started before the industrial revolution and (contrary to Mann's bogus plot) continues at about the same pace.

Remember, warming could cause a rise in CO2, but it can't cause a change in sunspots. When two things are correlated, and one direction of causality is ruled out, the other direction gains weight. Only chance remains as an alternate hypothesis.

re: #190 Optimizer

1) I've seen enough on ClimateAudit to make it pretty obvious to me that he's tinkering with the data to his own political purposes (although the owner of that site would not likely say as much). He throws in inexplicable adjustments to his temperature data that "coincidentally" always drive more recent temps up, and older ones down. He has also tried to discourage funding for more satellite temperature data - even though the flaws in surface measurement have been exposed as systemic and widespread. The more comprehensive satellite data doesn't match his fudged data, and he's embarrasing himself, and betraying the public trust. That's my take on him, anyway.

2) As far as being a scientist, he totally step off the reservation in his recent speech. It is not for a scientist to call for corporate executives to be put on trial for crimes against humanity. Personally, I think HE ought to be put on trial for the same.

3) He's taken a fair amount of money from Gore's cronies, and - among scientists - is Gore's right-hand man. This is not the kind of guy you can look to for unbiased science.

At first I thought you were talking about Monkton.

response to point 1:

I have no idea what Climate Audit is. As far as the peer reviewed Journals go i.e. legitimate sources that are read by the legitimate community, like Physical Review, Physical Review Letters and Journal of Climate, no one has ever found any "tinkering" in his work. Do you realise that the biggest, worst, "thou shalt not" in science is tinkering with data? Do you realise even a fraction of the magnitude of what you are accusing him of simply because you don't like him? What you are saying is ridiculous and casually savage.

Your point two is legitimate.

Point three: Hansen is not on Gore's payroll. Even if he were, there are thousands of others who have similar findings who are certainly not. Are you certain that your sources are unbiased.

re: #179 LudwigVanQuixote

Really, that is not what the data I am looking at says. Also, I am reading the actual papers, not MSM stuff. Where is your evidence? As to the lot's of pretty equations, if you have a fault with them please say. If you don't understand them, how can you claim they are wrong?

Are you saying there are papers out there with computer models that predicted (10 years ago) that global warming would grind to a halt for 10 years? 'Cause I'd like to see those.

I didn't claim the equations are wrong, I asked you to point me to the part where they reconcile the claim they make with real-world data, which says that the Earth hasn't warmed in 10 years.

re: #191 Pythagoras

The links are excellent but they show what we all agree on -- we've been recovering from the little ice age for centuries. I even think that the warming isn't done -- the recent cold spell is temporary.

I am stunned by the words, "to argue otherwise one must prove . . ." Nothing short of a proof of an alternate mechanism counts even as an argument?!?

The sunspot theory competes with CO2 on a level playing field and, with the ice cores showing temperature change preceding CO2 change, I think the sunspots are on much more solid ground. The recent rise in CO2 is a minor player in the rise in temperature. The recovery from the little ice age started before the industrial revolution and (contrary to Mann's bogus plot) continues at about the same pace.

Remember, warming could cause a rise in CO2, but it can't cause a change in sunspots. When two things are correlated, and one direction of causality is ruled out, the other direction gains weight. Only chance remains as an alternate hypothesis.

There is a difference between a theory and an hypothesis. Assuming that sunspots are the primary cause, by what mechanism do you propose that they are the cause?

re: #180 Pythagoras

...Forget who supports it and who doesn't -- why believe. Was it not warmer 1000 years ago when the Viking colonized Greenland?

...

In the technical world, this is what we call a "reality check". You can run all kinds of numbers, ignoring the problems with temperature proxies, but at the end of the day we know that Vikings were farming in Greenland, vineyards grew in Britain, and that Ice Ages did occur (Sorry, Creationists!). There were no cars to cause it, and the all-important polar bears (who likely did NOT evolve within the last 1000 years) survived.

I think even the Greens are starting to wake up to the realization that they're being used as the latest and greatest "useful idiots" by the world's socialists.

re: #193 Optimizer

Are you saying there are papers out there with computer models that predicted (10 years ago) that global warming would grind to a halt for 10 years? 'Cause I'd like to see those.

I didn't claim the equations are wrong, I asked you to point me to the part where they reconcile the claim they make with real-world data, which says that the Earth hasn't warmed in 10 years.

I am saying that I have seen no evidence that it has ground to a halt. Please, what peer reviewed papers are you referring to?

As to cooling there are models that predict the certain sections of the world will cool as the warming continues.

There are some here who will immediately cluck about warming not being able to cause cooling. To them I will respectfully remind them that their refrigerator uses a lot of energy to do it's job, it's back gets quite warm and that using actually adds heat to their house. Thermodynamics is real. Heat pumps are real.

Actually Hydrogen Hydroxide (HOH) is a more accurate representation of the bonds in the water molecule, but the "Dihydrogen Monoxide" petition was hilarious!

Regarding melting the arctic icecap and a lot of the antarctic one, try this experiment. Put an ice cube into a glass of water (gin and tonic will also do nicely, but only if you have the self-discipline not to drink it for a while). Mark the level of the water in your glass. Then let the ice melt. Notice that the water level doesn't change.

Realize, of course that in questioning the existence of global warming, you folks here are in conflict with decades of study by the Majority of Published Scientists, including Dr. Eugenie Scott, who would question whether your criticisms are appropriate or "fair" for discussion in Science classrooms.

Also, by questioning the theory of global warming (or perhaps now the Law of Global Warming), you are calling into disrepute Eminent Scientists, are anti-science, and are thus obviously an arm of the secret conspiracy by Creationists to sneak religion into publicly funded classrooms!

You should be ashamed of yourselves, you sneaky weasels!

Disclaimer: The statements above do not constitute an endorsement or advocacy of teaching any religion in science classes.

At the beginning of a clip he says the usual "she means well" about some activist gal. I just wonder to how many more thugs and murderers people like these need to proclaim their support, to how many more civilized people they need to proclaim their hatred, and how more obviously they should be having fun at their street parties (a.k.a. protests) so that people start thinking that maybe, just maybe, their intentions are not that selfless.

re: #195 Optimizer

In the technical world, this is what we call a "reality check". You can run all kinds of numbers, ignoring the problems with temperature proxies, but at the end of the day we know that Vikings were farming in Greenland, vineyards grew in Britain, and that Ice Ages did occur (Sorry, Creationists!). There were no cars to cause it, and the all-important polar bears (who likely did NOT evolve within the last 1000 years) survived.

I think even the Greens are starting to wake up to the realization that they're being used as the latest and greatest "useful idiots" by the world's socialists.

The question is not if there have been cycles in Earth's history. The question is how much we are effecting the current cycle and if so, by how much. I will say upfront that we do not yet have a way to calculate all of the mechanisms involved. But, do not take that to mean that there is nothing or no evidence.

re: #187 LudwigVanQuixote

Here is the conclusion form the APS piece.

Conclusion: Earth is getting warmer. Basic atmospheric models clearly predict that additional greenhouse gasses will raise the temperature of Earth. To argue otherwise, one must prove a physical mechanism that gives a reasonable alternative cause of warming. This has not been done. Sunspot and temperature correlations do not prove causality.

I will try to find links to the pole data - which is actually difficult since the journals are accessed via subscription from the university server. But in the mean time how about these pictures of receeding glaciers.

[Link: nsidc.org...]
[Link: www.nichols.edu...]

You're cracking me up with these glacier photos! Did you notice it says the first one has been receding since 1780!?! Never mind the question of what it has to do with the price of tea in China. Ignoring that one glacier does not a global climate make, the oceans have been rising at a clip of less than a foot per century for a long time, and that hasn't changed.

And, actually, there was a theory put forward recently that shows a mechanism for amplifying the effect of solar variation (I guess you missed it). Considering that centuries of climate change has tracked what the Sun does, I think that's the one I'd bet my economy on.

It's been fun and enlightening but I'm on eastern time and it's too late for me. I'll catch up tomorrow.

re: #189 LudwigVanQuixote

Also, you listed some people whom you place "at the top of the food chain."

I mean this humorously... How did you discover the food chain awards that come right after the Nobels are announced? That was a secret of our little physics cabal!

Now as to seriously, there are those in the community who are holdouts. However, the vast bulk of the community are not. It is a true statement. One measure of this is that the APS has come out as strongly as it has as an organisation.

Um, that's a nice sentiment, but the way I heard it the APS didn't exactly take a vote on it. Their stance came from a few at the top - maybe even just one guy.

re: #201 Pythagoras

It's been fun and enlightening but I'm on eastern time and it's too late for me. I'll catch up tomorrow.

Sleep well! I have to get to sleep soon too.

re: #202 Optimizer

Um, that's a nice sentiment, but the way I heard it the APS didn't exactly take a vote on it. Their stance came from a few at the top - maybe even just one guy.

OMG, and who did you here that from?

The way the APS took this stance is by having dozens of scientist review the last twenty years or so of evidence. Do you really think that we physicists have a robed commisar science master telling us what is appropriate? If the bulk of the community did not agree with the APS stance do you really think that they would stand for it? Many in the community thought that the APS was too slow and too conservative in that it took too long for it to take the stance it did. At this point, I will remind you that I actually go to work every day in a physics department.

re: #202 Optimizer

Um, that's a nice sentiment, but the way I heard it the APS didn't exactly take a vote on it. Their stance came from a few at the top - maybe even just one guy.

In fact did you notice that my sources come from scientists and yours do not? Please do not tell me that the bullshit that is said for political reasons about the community has the same merit as what the actual community says about itself.

Further, you have contradicted yourself. You were all set to take community as a legitimate source a few posts back when you thought that they had backpeddled. All you are doing is saying "it is science if I like it."

re: #192 LudwigVanQuixote

At first I thought you were talking about Monkton.

response to point 1:

I have no idea what Climate Audit is. As far as the peer reviewed Journals go i.e. legitimate sources that are read by the legitimate community, like Physical Review, Physical Review Letters and Journal of Climate, no one has ever found any "tinkering" in his work. Do you realise that the biggest, worst, "thou shalt not" in science is tinkering with data? Do you realise even a fraction of the magnitude of what you are accusing him of simply because you don't like him? What you are saying is ridiculous and casually savage.

Your point two is legitimate.

Point three: Hansen is not on Gore's payroll. Even if he were, there are thousands of others who have similar findings who are certainly not. Are you certain that your sources are unbiased.

ClimateAudit.org is the blog of Steve McIntyre - the guy who de-bunked the "hockey stick". If these "legitimate sources" you talk about were so legitimate, scams like the "hockey stick" wouldn't have happened in the first place. It might open you eyes to see what they do there. I think it's legitimate for me to be "causally savage" here (since I'm convinced Hansen is using my tax dollars to try to thrust socialism upon me, for the sake of his own vanity), but don't expect to see the same there. They're just taking a hard, cold, dispassionate look at the data, and trying to reverse-engineer the results that our public servants have produced but feel they need not defend.

re: #200 Optimizer

You're cracking me up with these glacier photos! Did you notice it says the first one has been receding since 1780!?! Never mind the question of what it has to do with the price of tea in China. Ignoring that one glacier does not a global climate make, the oceans have been rising at a clip of less than a foot per century for a long time, and that hasn't changed.

And, actually, there was a theory put forward recently that shows a mechanism for amplifying the effect of solar variation (I guess you missed it). Considering that centuries of climate change has tracked what the Sun does, I think that's the one I'd bet my economy on.

That in context, is only one piece of the evidence. I never claimed that one glacier a global climate change makes. You should be more careful. Did you notice the increase in rates? Did you actually read the links? I know you feel that if you do not like the data, that you have the right to call it names and ignore it. However, that is why you are not a scientist.

re: #206 Optimizer

ClimateAudit.org is the blog of Steve McIntyre - the guy who de-bunked the "hockey stick".

I am not aware of any such de-bunking. I will look this guy up

If these "legitimate sources" you talk about were so legitimate, scams like the "hockey stick" wouldn't have happened in the first place.

If PRL, Phys Rev and Jour of Climate are not legitimate, than nothing is. You have no clue how science works or how publications work. Einstein, Fermi, Feyman etc... was happy to publish a PRL.

It might open you eyes to see what they do there. I think it's legitimate for me to be "causally savage" here (since I'm convinced Hansen is using my tax dollars to try to thrust socialism upon me, for the sake of his own vanity), but don't expect to see the same there.

And there is your politics talking, not your science.

They're just taking a hard, cold, dispassionate look at the data, and trying to reverse-engineer the results that our public servants have produced but feel they need not defend.

re: #204 LudwigVanQuixote

OMG, and who did you here that from?

The way the APS took this stance is by having dozens of scientist review the last twenty years or so of evidence. Do you really think that we physicists have a robed commisar science master telling us what is appropriate? If the bulk of the community did not agree with the APS stance do you really think that they would stand for it? Many in the community thought that the APS was too slow and too conservative in that it took too long for it to take the stance it did. At this point, I will remind you that I actually go to work every day in a physics department.

So ... (like I said) ... they "didn't take a vote". Not that science is a matter of democracy, anyway.

You don't sound like much of a physicist, to me, if you're willing to accept unvalidated (invalidated, really) models as fact. When the data doesn't support the theory, you guys are supposed to reject it and come up with a better one, not cook up some sort of denial to feed your self-agrandizing impulses.

re: #207 LudwigVanQuixote

That in context, is only one piece of the evidence. I never claimed that one glacier a global climate change makes. You should be more careful. Did you notice the increase in rates? Did you actually read the links? I know you feel that if you do not like the data, that you have the right to call it names and ignore it. However, that is why you are not a scientist.

I thought you AGW types were the first ones to jump on how the climate at one particular point is not necessarily indicative of a global trend - at least when the data doesn't support you. I have no feelings at all about this single isolated case. Your suggestion that I should focus on such a case doesn't make YOU sound like much of a scientist, actually. Actually, you sound a little hysterical.

All anybody really has to do is look at the satellite data (which says the warming has stopped for 10 years, and averages over the entire world), the sea levels (which are creeping along the same as they have for centuries, as far as anyone can tell), and the historical record of Vikings living in Greenland (without global catastrophy, or polar bear extinction). Granted, this last item is not global in nature, but it does speak to the polar bear issue and to natural variability.

re: #208 LudwigVanQuixote

1) You seriously hadn't heard about the hockey stick being debunked, and you have the nerve to write three sentences on this topic? OMG!

2) Spare the "you just don't understand because you're not one of us" elitist crap for somebody who is impressed by it.

3) Re: "And there is your politics talking, not your science." Your point is nonsensical, since it is in response to something that was not part of an argument about any science, but rather a conclusion about the likely motives of someone, based upon observations of their actions. As Penn & Teller more eloquently explained, the tell-tale signs of the "end-of-the-world" types is unmistakable.

In the AGW case, you need only look at what they're after to see the motivation behind what they're doing. They want control over the world's economy via control of its energy. It's any socialist's dream. Ironically, it's all the money being made by huge corporations making windmills and ethanol that's starting to turn the greens away from AGW. The world ain't getting any warmer, and there are still trees that need hugging.

Well, on that note I better call it a night!

re: #209 Optimizer

So ... (like I said) ... they "didn't take a vote". Not that science is a matter of democracy, anyway.

You don't sound like much of a physicist, to me, if you're willing to accept unvalidated (invalidated, really) models as fact. When the data doesn't support the theory, you guys are supposed to reject it and come up with a better one, not cook up some sort of denial to feed your self-agrandizing impulses.

And now for the ad-hominum. I expected better from you. Look, if we are going to go to that level I will point out that if you had any scientific background at all that was relevant to this topic, you would:

1. Know what a PRL is.
2. You would know a bit more about the APS.
3. Not make references to "pretty equations" when it becomes apparent that you can not do the math. And yes, I can do the math.
4. Not keep failing to come up with references, thinking that force of bluster would impress me.
5. Have more respect for peer review.

You claim that warming has stopped, from satellite data no less. That is a very bold claim. Where is your evidence? Which satellites? What paper was published showing this? You don't need to give a link, just a reference will do. I can easily look it up myself. If you have no such paper, frankly, what you have is garbage.

To be fair, I have not seen, or heard of any such paper existing. That does not mean it does not. I will be fair to you. What paper?

re: #166 LudwigVanQuixote

Please, do try to disprove the scientific evidence.

re: #211 Optimizer

1) You seriously hadn't heard about the hockey stick being debunked, and you have the nerve to write three sentences on this topic? OMG!

I have not heard of it being debunked by someone I would take seriously.

2) Spare the "you just don't understand because you're not one of us" elitist crap for somebody who is impressed by it.

Spare me the conceit that you have the qualifications to debate the physics in a journal article. Unless you are a heart surgeon, you are not qualified to crack a chest. Unless you are a pilot, you are not qualified to fly a plane. I get really fed up with the conceit of people thinking that they do not need an actual science education to talk meaningfully about complicated scientific arguments that they have no real tools to follow... that since you are whomever, you can talk about "those pretty equations" as if your opinion means anything. And yes, going to the trouble to get that knowledge gives you the right to act is if you know what you are talking about.

3) Re: "And there is your politics talking, not your science." Your point is nonsensical, since it is in response to something that was not part of an argument about any science, but rather a conclusion about the likely motives of someone, based upon observations of their actions. As Penn & Teller more eloquently explained, the tell-tale signs of the "end-of-the-world" types is unmistakable.

No, my point is, Hansen's science is not true or false based on your perception of his politics.

In the AGW case, you need only look at what they're after to see the motivation behind what they're doing. They want control over the world's economy via control of its energy. It's any socialist's dream. Ironically, it's all the money being made by huge corporations making windmills and ethanol that's starting to turn the greens away from AGW. The world ain't getting any warmer, and there are still trees that need hugging.

The math on Ethanol doesn't work. Most of the science community is opposed to it.

Well, on that note I better call it a night!

re: #213 wiffersnapper

Please, do try to disprove the scientific evidence.

Of the links that worked, one was a link to a paper by Shwartz.

[Link: www.ecd.bnl.gov...]

The good people at your website misunderstood a sentence in the abstract to support their political cause. They failed to understand the paper. It concludes:

" The empirical determinations presented here of global heat capacity and of the time constant of climate response to perturbations on the multidecadal time scale lead to a value of equilibrium global climate
sensitivity of 0.30 ± 0.14 K/(W m-2), where the uncertainty range denotes a one-sigma estimate. This sensitivity together with the increase in global mean surface temperature over the twentieth century would imply a total forcing 1.9 ± 0.9 W m-2; although the central value of this range is fairly close to the total greenhouse gas forcing over this time period, 2.2 W m-2, this result is consistent with an additional forcing over the twentieth century of –0.30 ± 0.97 W m-2."

re: #209 Optimizer

So ... (like I said) ... they "didn't take a vote". Not that science is a matter of democracy, anyway.

You don't sound like much of a physicist, to me, if you're willing to accept unvalidated (invalidated, really) models as fact. When the data doesn't support the theory, you guys are supposed to reject it and come up with a better one, not cook up some sort of denial to feed your self-agrandizing impulses.

Ohh and one other note, of course I don't sound like much of a physicist to you... I don't agree with you so therefore I can not be. Again. My sources are from people with PhD's peer reviewed by others with PhD's, you have not produced equivalent sources. You have also demonstrated that you would not understand them if you had.

At the beginning of the movie Penn & Teller Get Killed (1989) one can hear Teller speaking off camera.

They use subcontractors to interview the victims on the show. Then they edit it down.

re: #6 TigerFan68

[Link: www.skeptic.com...]

Many people cannot bear to think that they are cousins not just of chimpanzees and monkeys, but of tapeworms, spiders, and bacteria. The unpalatability of a proposition, however, has no bearing on its truth. I personally find the idea of cousinship to all living species positively agreeable, but neither my warmth toward it, nor the cringing of a creationist, has the slightest bearing on its truth.

The same could be said of political or moral objections to Darwinism. “Tell children they are nothing more than animals and they will behave like animals.” I do not for a moment accept that the conclusion follows from the premise. But even if it did, once again, a disagreeable consequence cannot undermine the truth of a premise. Some have said that Hitler founded his political philosophy on Darwinism. This is nonsense: doctrines of racial superiority in no way follow from natural selection, properly understood. Nevertheless, a good case can be made that a society run on Darwinian lines would be a very disagreeable society in which to live. But, yet again, the unpleasantness of a proposition has no bearing on its truth.

Huxley, George C. Williams, and other evolutionists have opposed Darwinism as a political and moral doctrine just as passionately as they have advocated its scientific truth. I count myself in that company. Science needs to understand natural selection as a force in nature, the better to oppose it as a normative force in politics.

re: #41 TigerFan68

Not the Video--I reject creationism--The constant attack on those who do not take the theory of evolution as the final truth on this matter.

Please do not conflate creationism with Intelligent Design.
A post at Plumbbobblog a friend of "Little green Footballs" explains the difference.

[Link: www.plumbbobblog.com...]

Some consider William F. Buckley a man of some honor. Please consider this exchange at a debate on Evolution and Intelligent Design

Evolutionist Philosopher: Why are you on that side rather than ours? (…)

Buckley: I object to the way in which your confederates (…) conduct themselves. They conduct themselves by simply assuming that people who argue the contrary are naifs or ignorant. It seems to be manifestly they are not. But my objection to your position is its ideological fixity. What you are speaking from is a dogmatic position from which everything else derives as one would expect. Right?

You can view the exchange at
[Link: youtube.com...] at 4:21

Have you even read the Wedge Document, or the proceedings of the Dover court case? It has been conclusively proven that the very name 'intelligent design' was invented by the Disco Dewdes to get around court prohibitions against teaching creationism in public high school classes. It didn't wash with the court, and it doesn't wash around here, either. We have read the material. And we know better.

re: #104 Thanos

Science and rationality is under attack from all sides. It's instructional that most of the "environmentalists" in this piece have little grasp of facts, tend to base thier actions on emotion, and are against progress of any sort.

Remind you of anyone else?

re: #112 ploome hineni

Charles, you may find this interesting

Is Darwinism Kosher?

Damn Disco Dewde shills again! They're working BOTH Orthodox Jews AND Islamocreationists, ayy?

I'm accepting empirical evidence whether either of them like it or not! And I eat bacon, too! It's the chocolate of meats!

re: #127 jcw46

None of this is to imply and definitive link between nihilism and atheism; ergo they are not necessarily equivalent. Their can be said to be some interrelationships between the two philosophies. Each contains some of the other.

Some basics; an interesting blog entry that speaks in simple terms about some of the principles of Nihilism. (done by some student I believe).

Some more comments that offer some explanations.

Of course Atheists won't admit to nihilism but it can be said that a Nihilist, by definition, is an Atheist.

So? All bachelors are men but all men are not bachelors.
All lesbians are women but not all women are lesbians.
All Barack Hussein Obamas are biracial but not all biracial people are Barack Hussein Obamas. (nods to Tiger Woods).

If you believe in nothing, you obviously do not believe in God, but just because you do not believe in God does not mean that you believe in nothing. In fact, I would hazard to wager that only a tiny subset of atheists are nihilists.

re: #162 LudwigVanQuixote

Just for the sake of completeness, here is something from the APS.

The science here is not full of crap. It is the real deal. Before anyone here decided to jump on me, please read this.

[Link: www.aps.org...]

Just for the sake of completeness...;~)

[Link: www.aps.org...]

re: #223 Salamantis

Just for the sake of completeness...;~)

[Link: www.aps.org...]

Hey buddy!

You sure do know how to get my goat! I assume you saw the discussion on the other thread about this. Note the disclaimer on his remarks! Monkton is a rather nasty little journalist.

re: #224 LudwigVanQuixote

Hey buddy!

You sure do know how to get my goat! I assume you saw the discussion on the other thread about this. Note the disclaimer on his remarks! Monkton is a rather nasty little journalist.

How nasty must Bjorn Lomborg be?

re: #225 Salamantis

?

re: #221 Salamantis

There is unfortunately a subset of the Haredi community (read ultra orthodox) that takes issue with Evolution. Many of the rabbiam who do so, do it out of fear that the questions raised by it for theology a better left unasked. They are not the majority of Jews - or even observant Jews.

re: #227 LudwigVanQuixote

typo "are better left unasked"

Earth's temperature seems to be linked to clouds not CO2, and these to solar activity as mentioned in this video.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Another interesting hint is that aircrafts left in South Pole have only their rudders tails cleared of snow, so, what happened to that ozone's layer hole?

Environmentalists are really glad to help in the leftist agenda, the useful idiots are the ones who believe in their agendas.

re: #229 Bullskin

Earth's temperature seems to be linked to clouds not CO2, and these to solar activity as mentioned in this video.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Another interesting hint is that aircrafts left in South Pole have only their rudders tails cleared of snow, so, what happened to that ozone's layer hole?

Environmentalists are really glad to help in the leftist agenda, the useful idiots are the ones who believe in their agendas.

For a complete debunking of what you just said see...

[Link: www.aps.org...]

Sorry, I have no time to find a link to the video, that is only their website.

My sense tells me a few things. That video doesn't follow the mainstream hysteria. Temperature graph shows, if true (it seems), that changes in temperature along XX century are the same That ones showing changes in solar activity. CO2 levels graph is not even close to both previous graphs. I see more sense in those who say a rise in temperature could be really good since vast lands now frozen could be cultivated. I use not to buy anything from someone who claims rain forest deforestation has to do with CO2 or O2 since most of these seem to be regulated by phytoplankton, (3/4 of Earth's surface is covered by seas).
Another theory says that the nucleation which is the process of forming clouds from water vapor can be done just by solar radiation along its peaks of activity. I find this sound with clouds regulating temperature.

And, for me, saying we are responsible for the climate change is like saying the man has the power to change Nature.

I wonder what happened to that Norse tribe that settled and developed in Greenland in the 1000s? Oh right, mother nature kicked them out.

I'm glad I went to bed and missed all the nastiness. Only civil disagreements are worth the time. Please respect those who disagree with you -- unless you're never wrong. Now, on to substance.

Mann's hockey stick was genuinely and truly debunked. The latest IPCC report drops the hockey stick without comment. I think that was rather unprofessional of them.

I recommend that any scientist research this is detail. The lack of any subsequent technical defense is quite telling. They didn't just find technical flaws -- Mann's paper was a fraud. The peer review was obviously inadequate. Check here for one summary. [Link: www.technologyreview.com...]

After reading this, you may find yourself joining the growing chorus of skeptics. [Link: epw.senate.gov...]

re: #233 wiffersnapper

I wonder what happened to that Norse tribe that settled and developed in Greenland in the 1000s? Oh right, mother nature kicked them out.

Look, no-one is saying there have not been cycles in the past. How can you think that I am arguing that? What is being said is that we have been altering the present cycle. Again the questions are "by how much" and "what can we do about it?"

You do realize that the one scientific paper you brought actually supports my side.

I have said many times that I think the hysteria of the far left is garbage and I do not care for political motivations. That said, I also do not care for the political motivations of the far right either. Neither is science.

re: #234 Pythagoras

I'm glad I went to bed and missed all the nastiness. Only civil disagreements are worth the time. Please respect those who disagree with you -- unless you're never wrong. Now, on to substance.

Mann's hockey stick was genuinely and truly debunked. The latest IPCC report drops the hockey stick without comment. I think that was rather unprofessional of them.

I recommend that any scientist research this is detail. The lack of any subsequent technical defense is quite telling. They didn't just find technical flaws -- Mann's paper was a fraud. The peer review was obviously inadequate. Check here for one summary. [Link: www.technologyreview.com...]

After reading this, you may find yourself joining the growing chorus of skeptics. [Link: epw.senate.gov...]

OK, you are indeed correct. The hockey stick is broken.

That said, it is important to note the conclusion of the excellent article you sent me.

"If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions. Suppose, for example, that future measurements in the years 2005-2015 show a clear and distinct global cooling trend. (It could happen.) If we mistakenly took the hockey stick seriously--that is, if we believed that natural fluctuations in climate are small--then we might conclude (mistakenly) that the cooling could not be just a random fluctuation on top of a long-term warming trend, since according to the hockey stick, such fluctuations are negligible. And that might lead in turn to the mistaken conclusion that global warming predictions are a lot of hooey. If, on the other hand, we reject the hockey stick, and recognize that natural fluctuations can be large, then we will not be misled by a few years of random cooling."

My argument all along has been to take the politics out of the debate.

re: #234 Pythagoras

Discounting Mann's work does not invalidate the other evidence... a great deal of other evidence. My knowledge of carbon concentrations is mostly based on Keeling Curves.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Look at this data from NOAA

[Link: www.esrl.noaa.gov...]

The fact is CO2 concentration is very much going up. The fact is that it does trap IR.

re: #236 ludwigvanquixote

Also there are multiple observers. Many stations around the world are producing consistent Keeling curves.

[Link: scrippsco2.ucsd.edu...]

I actually like P&T's take on this more than their other shows. They are basically saying, hey sure there are issues with the environment, but take a balanced look at things and see if they can be corrected without the looniness that these groups portray. Last night there was a report on the pollution in China and how they could cause the games to be cancelled or harmed in the outdoor events due to massive smog. Yes, there is a huge pollution problem in china, but as sure as we are sitting here, there will be outdoor games...none will be cancelled. It makes for a nice story, but the reality is, its something that needs to be addressed but dont be so alarmed either

re: #239 banjo

I actually like P&T's take on this more than their other shows. They are basically saying, hey sure there are issues with the environment, but take a balanced look at things and see if they can be corrected without the looniness that these groups portray. Last night there was a report on the pollution in China and how they could cause the games to be cancelled or harmed in the outdoor events due to massive smog. Yes, there is a huge pollution problem in china, but as sure as we are sitting here, there will be outdoor games...none will be cancelled. It makes for a nice story, but the reality is, its something that needs to be addressed but dont be so alarmed either

This is very well said.

I have seen this before. I love the idiots who sigh a petition to ban water. My school had a "green fair" a last April. I asked one of the moonbat students about Dihydrogen Monoxide and similar uses to what P&T said. They said that would look into it ad see how harmful it was. They had one poster that aid "use Compact flourestent bulbs to save energy."

re: #236 ludwigvanquixote

That said, it is important to note the conclusion of the excellent article you sent me.

I think you should have posted the last paragraph as well.

A phony hockey stick is more dangerous than a broken one--if we know it is broken. It is our responsibility as scientists to look at the data in an unbiased way, and draw whatever conclusions follow. When we discover a mistake, we admit it, learn from it, and perhaps discover once again the value of caution.

The trouble is, that even today, Michael Mann and Co. are defending the hockey stick graph and the methodology used by attacking any person who disagrees with it.

Another point should be made about the infamous hockey stick graph. It was used as the foundation to rile the masses up that "indeed global warming is a fact," and future claims of AGW were built on top of this. Even thought Dr Mann & Co are still fighting hard to keep "his baby" in the public eye -- it is my opinion that it has fallen the wayside of mainstream debate with the average citizen. Although, it is still a contentious issue with many scientists, it clearly has been proven to me, that this is just one more lie (or faulty science) that has been exposed.

Many other AGW alarmists who also used the HS graph as irrefutable proof of GW --who also demanded that those who were against it, were so wrong that they should not be allowed to publish their findings-- are now claiming that it is, now, not a big deal.

This is the type of hypocrisy that is, in my opinion, rife in the AGW community.

re: #224 LudwigVanQuixote

Note the disclaimer on his remarks!

I'm not sure what the difference in format between the newsletter you posted [hafemeister.cfm] and the other newsletter posted [monckton.cfm].

It looks like they each have the same blurb. So why would one have more credibility over the other?

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

Fucking Brilliant!

re: #242 Webler

The trouble is, that even today, Michael Mann and Co. are defending the hockey stick graph and the methodology used by attacking any person who disagrees with it.

Another point should be made about the infamous hockey stick graph. It was used as the foundation to rile the masses up that "indeed global warming is a fact," and future claims of AGW were built on top of this. Even thought Dr Mann & Co are still fighting hard to keep "his baby" in the public eye -- it is my opinion that it has fallen the wayside of mainstream debate with the average citizen. Although, it is still a contentious issue with many scientists, it clearly has been proven to me, that this is just one more lie (or faulty science) that has been exposed.

Many other AGW alarmists who also used the HS graph as irrefutable proof of GW --who also demanded that those who were against it, were so wrong that they should not be allowed to publish their findings-- are now claiming that it is, now, not a big deal.

This is the type of hypocrisy that is, in my opinion, rife in the AGW community.

There is much hypocrisy on all sides. Respectfully, there is a lot more to carbon concentration data then the hockey stick, which to be honest, was not used in any of the models I referred to earlier or any of the analysis I am basing my discussion on.

I will confess that I was shocked to find out about it's flaws though.

None the less, the Keeling curves are quite real and quite well measured by multiple independent researchers. Please see the links above.

I am saying, and will continue to say, that moonbat science is not science, but then again, neither is the garbage coming out from the other side that tries to claim there is nothing to see.

re: #243 Webler

The entire episode was a matter of a "debate" hosted by the APS.

The difference is that the "real" remarks are well written, scientifically accurate and supported by the APS and the physics community at large, while Monkton's piece is pseudo-scientific gibberish, from a MSM journalist, which never should have been invited in the first place.

The "good" link is there because it rather neatly lays out the argument for why you should believe that there is something to it.

That said, there is a difference between science and policy and there is a difference between science and politics. Trust the consensus of the community for the science before you trust anyone from a political group (on either side) or any journalist.

Simply put, there is no reason for the hysteria of the left. For certain there are political motivations from that quarter and they are co-opting the science for their own agendas. BUT going and hysterically claiming it is all some socialist hoax is equally stupid. There is real evidence that there are real issues and that we are a major contributor to the effect.

Now, I did not say we are the sole cause. I did not say the world is ending. I am saying that we are not helping, that we have had an effect and that it is quite possible we will end up facing repercussions.

I am also not saying that we know everything or that we can model everything or that we have all of the answers. I am saying that what we do have is not all garbage. I am saying that since it is not all garbage, it is equally dangerous to ignore it as it is to go left wing hysterical.

re: #243 Webler

WOW! correction, I just went back and checked that link, that disclaimer was not there a few days ago! I would imagine that this is the APS's way of letting everyone know that the newsletters are simply remarks and not full fledged journal articles. I am now about to seriously question just what is going on at the APS website.

The real honest truth is that the APS has a policy stance. The Shwartz remarks are in line with the findings of many many researchers and the APS in general. The Monkton paper is not.

I would agree that to an outside observer, this looks like a terrible mess.

Unfortunately it is.

Monkton should never ever have been invited in the first place. He does not have the credentials and his remarks are full of holes. To someone who is not a physicist though, we now have two sets of remarks that have been made "equivalent."

It is like the APS had published a defence of evolution and remarks by the Discovery Institute and then put disclaimers on both. What a victory for the Disco guys that would be, they could get to claim legitimization from no less than the APS as if they were actually equally valid sides of a debate.

This whole thing has turned into a fiasco. I have absolutely no idea how it got so messed up. At this point I can say without a doubt that whatever committee that created the "debate" is playing some very messed up politics.

This is a fiasco. I am appalled. This is exactly the kind of political crap that helps nobody.

I always seem to be late to the party, but.....
Even if we assume that there is hysteria about global warming, but it leads us to work harder on replacement of carbon based energy sources, especially oil, then the end result is that it is not such a bad thing.

The House of Saud can then drink their oil, instead of using our money to fund terror. They are not fools, they know that high prices already spur production and research into alternative energy (by the way forget about the hydrogen economy; it takes way too much energy to strip the little O off the H2... its much easier to use just an atom U235, as it it is MUCH larger, and throws off much more energy that it takes to pull it apart than a water molecule... see E=mc2).

As I heard Bandar Bush say: "The Stone Age did not end due to a lack of stones; the technology changed." If we change the technology, the oil age can end and we can use it for the thousand other uses it is much more needed for, instead of burning for our cars.

If all of this leads to a reduction of oil imports then I'm with T.Boone on this....and some of those hippie chicks always looked pretty good to me anyway (none on the video, of course......)

re: #235 ludwigvanquixote

I have said many times that I think the hysteria of the far left is garbage and I do not care for political motivations. That said, I also do not care for the political motivations of the far right either. Neither is science.

re: #236 ludwigvanquixote

My argument all along has been to take the politics out of the debate.

re: #247 LudwigVanQuixote

This is a fiasco. I am appalled. This is exactly the kind of political crap that helps nobody.

[hoping I got your quotes straight] Go Figure...

re: #230 ludwigvanquixote

For a complete debunking of what you just said see... Link to Op-Ed by some David Hafemeister.

Other pubs by some David Hafemeister

- Physics of Societal Issues: Calculations on National Security, Environment, and Energy (Undergraduate Texts in Contemporary Physics) 2007

- Acid Rain: How Serious and What to Do (Occasional Publications) 1986

- Arms Control Verification: The Technologies That Make It Possible 1986

- Nuclear Arms Technologies in the 1990s: Washington, DC 1988

Some guy named David Hafemeister is real apolitical. /sarc off

WRT your link in post #230, an academic exercise trivial in its relation to the real world.

re: #245 LudwigVanQuixote

There is much hypocrisy on all sides. Respectfully, there is a lot more to carbon concentration data then the hockey stick, which to be honest, was not used in any of the models I referred to earlier or any of the analysis I am basing my discussion on.

However, that was not the point I was making. I was adding comment to the last paragraph of the article that you excerpted. Which was ...

A phony hockey stick is more dangerous than a broken one--if we know it is broken. It is our responsibility as scientists to look at the data in an unbiased way, and draw whatever conclusions follow. When we discover a mistake, we admit it, learn from it, and perhaps discover once again the value of caution. [emphasis added]

Dr Mann & Co, won't admit to the flaws in the methodology and what I understand from some very light reading on the subject that there are some new questions coming forth about tree rings, damaged trees, etc.

I suspect you know more than what you are letting on about, because I find it quite strange that a lot of information in this thread is information that you are unfamiliar with - considering this all has been at the forefront of global warming discussion for years.

A comment on your observation that there is "much hypocrisy on all sides." I would have to disagree. The way I see it is there is a full court push to have any laymen, scientist, or a denying teenager raked over the coals for disagreeing with AGW. I don't see so much hatred directed to those who push AGW.

re: #246 LudwigVanQuixote

The difference is that the "real" remarks are well written, scientifically accurate and supported by the APS and the physics community at large, while Monkton's piece is pseudo-scientific gibberish, from a MSM journalist, which never should have been invited in the first place.

You seem to be changing tactics now that I have shown both newsletters came with the same blurb.

Btw, how many members belong to APS?

Has there ever been a vote by members who support AGW or don't support AGW or a third choice, there isn't enough reasonable science to make a proper decision.

If so, what was the vote count?

re: #250 Webler

A comment on your observation that there is "much hypocrisy on all sides." I would have to disagree. The way I see it is there is a full court push to have any laymen, scientist, or a denying teenager raked over the coals for disagreeing with AGW. I don't see so much hatred directed to those who push AGW.

Have you been reading LGF long? Look there are plenty on the right who assume that Climate Science = Gore and therefore must all be hoey. I am no particular fan of Gore. I am arguing against the assessment that all of the sicence = him.

Also, there has been plenty of manuevering in Washington from the right side to cut funding and silence scientists. The political game is ugly on all fronts and helps no-one. Both "sides" play politics. Both are wrong to do so.

re: #251 Webler

You seem to be changing tactics now that I have shown both newsletters came with the same blurb.

Btw, how many members belong to APS?

Has there ever been a vote by members who support AGW or don't support AGW or a third choice, there isn't enough reasonable science to make a proper decision.

If so, what was the vote count?

You missed out on a very long discussion of the whole Monkton thing that I was involved in. I am changing no tactics. I am honestly saying that the additional disclaimer took me by total surprise. It is honestly a fiasco.

There are about 25,000 members of APS give or take a few thousand. I am one of them.

As to the policy position, I assure you that it would not have passed if the bulk of the community did not agree. As to what is currently going on with this Monkton garbage, I honestly do not know.

re: #251 Webler

You seem to be changing tactics now that I have shown both newsletters came with the same blurb.

Btw, how many members belong to APS?

Has there ever been a vote by members who support AGW or don't support AGW or a third choice, there isn't enough reasonable science to make a proper decision.

If so, what was the vote count?

The stance is that we a certain that Humans have had an effect. The debate is on how much of an effect and on what we can do about it if anything.

I do not believe that there was a formal vote. However, you might notice a decided absence of papers from the community condemning the stance.

re: #250 Webler

Dr Mann & Co, won't admit to the flaws in the methodology and what I understand from some very light reading on the subject that there are some new questions coming forth about tree rings, damaged trees, etc.

I suspect you know more than what you are letting on about, because I find it quite strange that a lot of information in this thread is information that you are unfamiliar with - considering this all has been at the forefront of global warming discussion for years.

Actually, I am not omniscient. The global warming discussions I have tend to be in the physics department talking about physics papers. I work in non-linear dynamics and chaos - specifically in matters of atmospheric turbulence. It is related, but not the same thing. That means I follow the climate papers in my spare time and talk to people who are in the field.

Whether you believe me or not, I honestly had not heard about the issues with Mann. When they were pointed out, I acknowledged them immediately. That said, it is also the honest truth that we are not basing present physics on Mann, and that even when he was accepted, he was not the only source of input. Whatever the MSM makes of the importance of things is not necessarily what the scientists are actually writing/talking about.

I repeat that the Keeling curves are real. Would you at least acknowledge that data?

re: #249 PETN Sandwich

[hoping I got your quotes straight] Go Figure...

re: #230 ludwigvanquixote

For a complete debunking of what you just said see... Link to Op-Ed by some David Hafemeister.

Other pubs by some David Hafemeister

- Physics of Societal Issues: Calculations on National Security, Environment, and Energy (Undergraduate Texts in Contemporary Physics) 2007

- Acid Rain: How Serious and What to Do (Occasional Publications) 1986

- Arms Control Verification: The Technologies That Make It Possible 1986

- Nuclear Arms Technologies in the 1990s: Washington, DC 1988

Some guy named David Hafemeister is real apolitical. /sarc off

WRT your link in post #230, an academic exercise trivial in its relation to the real world.

I really do not understand? Are you trying to say that just from the titles of his textbooks, he must be a leftist who is politically doctoring his science to push a secret agenda?

Have you read these books? What about them is scientifically false? Do you think that there are no issues with nuclear proliferation or how to verify treaties? Perhaps you dispute the existence of acid rain? From the title Acid Rain: How Serious and What to Do how do you get that he is a total lefty. Further, even if he were (I honestly do not know his politics), how do you know that means his science is not correct?

Respectfully, your objection is unfair and very tenuous at best.

re: #252, #253, #254, #255 ludwigvanquixote

Have you been reading LGF long? Look there are plenty on the right who assume that Climate Science = Gore and therefore must all be hoey. I am no particular fan of Gore. I am arguing against the assessment that all of the sicence = him.

Also, there has been plenty of manuevering in Washington from the right side to cut funding and silence scientists. The political game is ugly on all fronts and helps no-one. Both "sides" play politics. Both are wrong to do so.

Wow, I get 4 posts back for every 2 posts I make.

There is a big difference between the laymen having an opinion on what they think is the truth about AGW and/or Gore's message -- and those in the scientific community. Those in the science community are working overtime to silence the opinion of those (laymen, and scientists) who speak out against the idea the there is man-made catastrophic global warming -- let a lone man made global warming.

I am honestly saying that the additional disclaimer took me by total surprise.

Okay, accepted.

However, you might notice a decided absence of papers from the community condemning the stance.

That's my point. With the bashing that goes on within the AGW community, and those scientists who don't want to rock the boat -- it does make me wonder if that truly is an honest guide.

I don't think you can say one way or other what the true stance is of the APS members. Lack of papers doesn't equate to agreement.

I repeat that the Keeling curves are real. Would you at least acknowledge that data?

Are they real like Mann's projection on global warming via the infamous hockey stick.

You should check out http://www.climateaudit.org/ -- as you will get a much better discussion from those folks than from me.

They already have some comment/discussion going -- Keeling Curves

re: #256 ludwigvanquixote

I really do not understand? Are you trying to say that just from the titles of his textbooks, he must be a leftist who is politically doctoring his science to push a secret agenda?

Have you read these books? What about them is scientifically false? Do you think that there are no issues with nuclear proliferation or how to verify treaties? Perhaps you dispute the existence of acid rain? From the title Acid Rain: How Serious and What to Do how do you get that he is a total lefty. Further, even if he were (I honestly do not know his politics), how do you know that means his science is not correct?

Your words, not mine. I just pointed out some books written by some guy named "David Hafemeister".

My words were that YOU linked an op-ed by some guy named "David Hafemeister", complete with the vaulted publisher's disclaimer that it means NOTHING. My words were that the op-ed YOU linked was a trivial academic exercise with no relationship with the real world.