Inhofe, the Last Flat Earther

Environment • Views: 5,728

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank attended a meeting of the Senate environment committee this week, and describes Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) as “the last flat-earther:” Washington Sketch: A hostile climate for Sen. Inhofe the warming skeptic.

“Eleven academies in industrialized countries say that climate change is real; humans have caused most of the recent warming,” admitted Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.). “If fire chiefs of the same reputation told me my house was about to burn down, I’d buy some fire insurance.”

An oil-state senator, David Vitter (R-La), said that he, too, wants to “get us beyond high-carbon fuels” and “focus on conservation, nuclear, natural gas and new technologies like electric cars.” And an industrial-state senator, George Voinovich (R-Ohio), acknowledged that climate change “is a serious and complex issue that deserves our full attention.”

Then there was poor Inhofe. “The science is more definitive than ever? You keep saying that because you want to believe it so much,” he said bitterly. He offered to furnish a list of scientists who once believed in climate change but “who are solidly on the other side right now.” The science, he said, “already has shifted” against global-warming theory. “Science is not settled! Everyone knows it’s not settled!”

Inhofe called for more oil drilling. His aides tried to debunk the other senators’ points by passing around papers titled “Rapid Response.” Mid-hearing, Inhofe’s former spokesman, now in the private sector, sent out an e-mail — “Prominent Russian Scientist: ‘We should fear a deep temperature drop — not catastrophic global warming.’ “

Jump to bottom

481 comments
1 CyanSnowHawk  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 10:35:41am

Paging LvQ!

2 Kragar  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 10:36:41am

re: #1 CyanSnowHawk

Paging LvQ!

I trying to figure out how Ojoe will turn this into a reason of plug for the Whigs.

3 reine.de.tout  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 10:37:48am

re: #2 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I trying to figure out how Ojoe will turn this into a reason of plug for the Whigs.

I have this shift.
No plug, but a link.

4 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 10:38:49am

I hear there is a ton of natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico. Hmmm…

5 Ojoe  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 10:40:12am

re: #3 reine.de.tout

Can’t really go from climate change to Whigs.

But here’s a slogan for them:

“Stay Centered. Join the Whigs.”

6 SixDegrees  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 10:40:40am

Nice to see the proponents of global warming offering such careful, nuanced explanations of their position.

7 Kragar  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 10:41:19am

Ignoring the climate change issues, exploring new and cleaner energy sources, fresh water production and transportation and making maximum use of our arable farm land can only help us in the long run.

8 SixDegrees  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 10:41:24am

re: #2 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I trying to figure out how Ojoe will turn this into a reason of plug for the Whigs.

There’s a hair transplant joke in there somewhere…

9 Velvet Elvis  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 10:41:30am

Inhofe reminds me of one of those Japanese soldiers they found 20 years after WWII holed up on some remote Island, not aware that the war was over. The world changed around him and he had no clue. In his head the war was still going on.

10 Ojoe  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 10:42:43am

Whig Website cut/paste:

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE — Reduce dependence on foreign oil by developing practical sources of alternative energy. This will have the simultaneous effect of changing the national security dynamic.


I added the bold.

I guess this can tie in to climate change.

BBL.

11 Kragar  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 10:42:52am

re: #6 SixDegrees

Nice to see the proponents of global warming offering such careful, nuanced explanations of their position.

His next speech is the eloquently written “NEENER NEENER, I’M NOT LISTENING!” soliloquy

12 Sharmuta  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 10:43:02am
An oil-state senator, David Vitter (R-La), said that he, too, wants to “get us beyond high-carbon fuels” and “focus on conservation, nuclear, natural gas and new technologies like electric cars.” And an industrial-state senator, George Voinovich (R-Ohio), acknowledged that climate change “is a serious and complex issue that deserves our full attention.”

What a couple of RINOs!

But seriously- they’re absolutely correct, and it’s a glimmer of hope that a few republicans can and will accept the science. Perhaps they will be able to get some compromises going so we can start working to reduce emissions sooner rather than when it’s too late. God speed to that endeavor.

13 vxbush  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 10:43:51am

re: #5 Ojoe

Can’t really go from climate change to Whigs.

But here’s a slogan for them:

“Stay Centered Connected. Join the Whigs.”

Seems more appropriate, given the synonyms…
/

14 Ojoe  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 10:44:09am

re: #13 vxbush

LOL

15 In Excess  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 10:44:26am

Does new scientific evidence show human activity causes the earth to flaten???

16 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 10:44:58am

re: #15 In Excess

Does new scientific evidence show human activity causes the earth to flaten???

Only when we jump up and down.
/

17 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 10:46:07am

I have to question electric cars. Aren’t they charged with electricity from coal fired plants?

18 Mad Al-Jaffee  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 10:46:36am

re: #8 SixDegrees

There’s a hair transplant joke in there somewhere…

Or a merkin joke.

19 Gus  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 10:47:23am

re: #12 Sharmuta

What a couple of RINOs!

But seriously- they’re absolutely correct, and it’s a glimmer of hope that a few republicans can and will accept the science. Perhaps they will be able to get some compromises going so we can start working to reduce emissions sooner rather than when it’s too late. God speed to that endeavor.

Looks like Vitter and Voinovich will now be added to the Great Tea Party Purge of the GOP.

20 CapeCoddah  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 10:47:35am

re: #17 Cannadian Club Akbar

I have to question electric cars. Aren’t they charged with electricity from coal fired plants?

LOL… And you should see the lead smelting process for battery making!!

21 Soundboard Fez  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 10:48:12am

re: #17 Cannadian Club Akbar

I have to question electric cars. Aren’t they charged with electricity from coal fired plants?

Depends on where you live. Some places, they are charged with electricity from nuclear plants, or gas-fired plants.

I also believe that the emissions from gasoline produces more carbon than the production of electricity to charge a battery, but that’s off the top of my head.

22 Soundboard Fez  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 10:49:04am

re: #19 Gus 802

Looks like Vitter and Voinovich will now be added to the Great Tea Party Purge of the GOP.

Running around with whores — not a problem.

Calling for less pollution — INFIDEL!!

23 CyanSnowHawk  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 10:49:06am

re: #15 In Excess

Does new scientific evidence show human activity causes the earth to flaten???

Probably not, but spin the Isley Brothers “Shout” on the platten and you can get the crowd to flatten.

24 MrSilverDragon  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 10:49:41am

Clearly we need to go steampunk. That’s the wave of the future.

25 Kragar  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 10:51:22am

re: #24 MrSilverDragon

Clearly we need to go steampunk. That’s the wave of the future.

I believe a complex system of ropes and pulleys will be able to support all our needs.

26 StillAMarine  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 10:52:07am

Sorry for the partial repost from a previous thread, but it is germane to the subject:

I have no doubt that global warming is a fact. Pointing to a short term cooling period as evidence against global warming is just as silly as pointing out that Winter will not come, using as evidence that the first week in November is warmer than the last week in October. Of course this sometimes happens, but Winter has always come. Think long term here.

As well, it is also my opinion, based only on what I hear and read, that human activity is responsible for some, but likely not all, of the global warming that we are experiencing. Just what proportion, I cannot say.

Then the issue becomes muddled when we consider the totality of greenhouse gases, with methane being more effective but less prevalent than carbon dioxide, and water vapor which is more prevalent than carbon dioxide. I have even heard that the effect of water vapor in the atmosphere contributes more to global warming than carbon dioxide.

No question that reducing the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere would be a good thing, but one must balance the benefit achieved with the cost and repercussions of reducing it.

27 countrockulot  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 10:52:10am

Global warming is a myth, vaccinations kill you, health care reform calls for death panels, Obama is Kenyan and/or Hawaii is not a state maybe. We don’t have liberal and conservative factions in this country, we have normal human beings and f-ing nutjobs. Why do some segments of the Republican party want to be the party of the nutjobs?

28 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 10:52:42am

What valid reason is there not to find and develop as many available domestic and off shore oil and natural gas reserves as possible?
1. Replace imported fossil fuels with domestic supplies;
2. Replace coal with cleaner oil and gas; and,
3. Export fossil fuels to China, Japan and other developing world suppliers of manufactured goods, in order to reduce the trade deficit and provide domestic employment.
This has NOTHING to do with CC, ACC, AGW, GW, GC, AGC, blah, blah, blah…

29 Sharmuta  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 10:52:45am

re: #19 Gus 802

Looks like Vitter and Voinovich will now be added to the Great Tea Party Purge of the GOP.

The democrats have the Blue Dogs and we have RINOs.

The dems accept that in some districts, a more conservative liberal is the best way to win, so they run a Blue Dog.

Judging from NY 23, it seems “conservatives” are not as tolerant of RINOs!, and think the best way to expand the movement is to pitch those RINOs! under the bus.

Looking at the current make up of Congress and the political landscape- which strategy won elections?

30 StillAMarine  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 10:57:17am

re: #28 Spare O’Lake

Do not forget that the United States gets most of its foreign oil from Canada (think Alberta). I see no reason why the United States should buy oil from nations that hate us (read Saudi Arabia) when we could increase imports from Canada.

31 webevintage  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 10:58:00am

re: #22 Soundboard Fez

Running around with whores — not a problem.

Calling for less pollution — INFIDEL!!

Tea Party Family Values!!!

32 Truth Stick  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 10:58:43am

If I lived in Oklahoma, I would think that the earth was flat too. There’s only a handful of places that you can watch your dog run away for 3 days.

33 Soundboard Fez  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 10:58:49am

re: #30 StillAMarine

We also export quite a lot of what we do produce, as we are importing a lot of what we consume. It’s a very open market.

34 Sharmuta  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 10:59:54am

re: #30 StillAMarine

Do not forget that the United States gets most of its foreign oil from Canada (think Alberta). I see no reason why the United States should buy oil from nations that hate us (read Saudi Arabia) when we could increase imports from Canada.

And Mexico.

35 KingKenrod  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:00:24am

re: #29 Sharmuta

The democrats have the Blue Dogs and we have RINOs.

The dems accept that in some districts, a more conservative liberal is the best way to win, so they run a Blue Dog.

Judging from NY 23, it seems “conservatives” are not as tolerant of RINOs!, and think the best way to expand the movement is to pitch those RINOs! under the bus.

Looking at the current make up of Congress and the political landscape- which strategy won elections?

The Dems have their purges too - look at Joe Lieberman. The Dems only tolerate blue dogs NOW because they got tired of not being in charge of Congress. Eventually, the same thing will happen to the GOP. Trust me, the Dems are going to run out of patience with pro-gun/pro-life members blocking things like card check and the public option.

36 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:01:01am

re: #30 StillAMarine

Personally, I’m in favor of alternate sources.

Here’s one that I put in the spinoff links yesterday, but got largely ignored.
Pilot recycling program turns plastics into oil

At its highest capacity the generator can melt 25 tons of plastic into oil daily in the alternative fuel program run by Envion Inc. of Washington, D.C.

“It’s very simple, we just reverse engineer the plastic,” said Envion chairman and CEO Michael Han. “You take untreated plastic waste, it goes through the generator on a conveyer belt and once the plastic is in the generator, it melts down to oil.”

Oils from the melted plastic range from $1 to $1.50 a gallon, Han said. Han said gasoline companies are some of his biggest customers.

Very interesting concept, IMHO.

37 Gus  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:02:32am

re: #29 Sharmuta

The democrats have the Blue Dogs and we have RINOs.

The dems accept that in some districts, a more conservative liberal is the best way to win, so they run a Blue Dog.

Judging from NY 23, it seems “conservatives” are not as tolerant of RINOs!, and think the best way to expand the movement is to pitch those RINOs! under the bus.

Looking at the current make up of Congress and the political landscape- which strategy won elections?

Seems like the mainstream GOP leadership is open to moderate members. Especially the NRCC. The so called “base” of course is not including the new mythical GOP Tea Partiers and Patriots [sic]. Seeing that many GOP and congressmen are now throwing their hat into the ring for Hoffman it looks like the purge idea is spreading.

The DNC is more open to their version of moderate, Blue Dogs. They’ve made gains around the country and more prominently in Colorado and Montana. That of course is what turned Colorado from a red to purple state. Nationally, I think the future is brightest for moderates.

I don’t understand the purgers. The GOP has always had what they’re calling RINOs in the party.

38 Sharmuta  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:03:32am

re: #35 KingKenrod

The Dems have their purges too - look at Joe Lieberman. The Dems only tolerate blue dogs NOW because they got tired of not being in charge of Congress. Eventually, the same thing will happen to the GOP. Trust me, the Dems are going to run out of patience with pro-gun/pro-life members blocking things like card check and the public option.

If the GOP would kick the theo-cons out, Blue Dogs, Reagan Democrats, and RINOs! would come back to the party, and we could perhaps launch a campaign to take Congress. Perhaps we could even find someone to win the White House with a reasonable rank and file in control of the nomination instead of shrieking kooks. The possibilities are endless if a party would simply start catering to the moderate middle right.

39 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:05:11am

re: #30 StillAMarine

Oil is a fungible commodity. To put it planly the world puts oil into a big pool, then different countries take oil out of the pool. Adjusting supply would have no effect on production levels in any country.

Nice thought though.

40 Gus  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:07:00am

re: #35 KingKenrod

The Dems have their purges too - look at Joe Lieberman. The Dems only tolerate blue dogs NOW because they got tired of not being in charge of Congress. Eventually, the same thing will happen to the GOP. Trust me, the Dems are going to run out of patience with pro-gun/pro-life members blocking things like card check and the public option.

Yeah, but I would ask, why would a Montana Democrat feel compelled to support card check? It’s hard to fathom that the majority of self-identified Democrats would support card check. It would be a mistake for the DNC to undertake such a purge given what the problems that Pelosi and Reid now face.

41 Teh Flowah  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:08:17am

I want to see some more context on George Voinovich’s comment. It seems very much like something an IDer would say. To me, it doesn’t explicitly say that the science is there. The first comment by Lamar Alexander is one people should pay attention to.

Do laypeople really think their intuition can outdo trained scientists and scientific academies?

42 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:09:25am

re: #30 StillAMarine

Do not forget that the United States gets most of its foreign oil from Canada (think Alberta). I see no reason why the United States should buy oil from nations that hate us (read Saudi Arabia) when we could increase imports from Canada.

As a Canadian, I know this very well and agree with you.
The US would presumably prioritize using new domestic supplies to eliminate imports from hostile nations.
And BTW, don’t worry about Canada; if the US reduces its oil and gas imports from Canada, Canada has plenty of thirsty Asian customers just across the Pacific.

43 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:10:01am

re: #41 Teh Flowah

Do laypeople really think their intuition can outdo trained scientists and scientific academies?

They’re politicians, therefore, they think their words are gold.

44 ryannon  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:10:33am

re: #4 Cannadian Club Akbar

I hear there is a ton of natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico. Hmmm…

And untold gazillions-of-tons of methane trapped beneath the permafrost of Siberia.

I sometimes think that we’re so fucked.

45 iceweasel  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:11:03am

I don’t often like Milbank much — he can be very shallow in his reporting and he’s extremely dismissive of blogs and often of alternate media in general— but this was good and I hope people do read the whole article. Also, quite the smackdown at the end there:

(snip) … this failed to cool Inhofe’s temper, and by the time his turn came to question the administration witnesses, Inhofe was so steamed that he used his entire five minutes to vent.

He described the Democrats’ proposal as “the largest tax increase in — in history!” Agitated, his utterances disjointed, Inhofe went on: “Now, I also was — was kind of — I don’t want any of the media to think just because I had to sit here and listen to our good friend Senator Kerry for 28 minutes, that I don’t have responses to everything he said.”

Nobody doubted that Inhofe had a response. The doubt was whether the response would make any sense.

That’s gotta leave a mark.

46 jaunte  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:11:15am

re: #34 Sharmuta

And Mexico.


Some good stats on that, here. Not much room for increase:
eia.doe.gov

47 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:11:49am

In Florida, we can’t drill for oil 250 miles off the coast in the Gulf. Thank goodness China will be drilling less than 90 miles away soon.

48 ryannon  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:12:40am

re: #36 Honorary Yooper

Personally, I’m in favor of alternate sources.

Here’s one that I put in the spinoff links yesterday, but got largely ignored.
Pilot recycling program turns plastics into oil

Very interesting concept, IMHO.

I take back what I said above.

Stuff like this gives me hope.

49 Mad Al-Jaffee  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:13:59am

OT - Most Offensive Halloween Candy:

zug.com

50 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:14:53am

re: #47 Cannadian Club Akbar

In Florida, we can’t drill for oil 250 miles off the coast in the Gulf. Thank goodness China will be drilling less than 90 miles away soon.

Amazing.
Why don’t y’all just slit your economic wrists?

51 StillAMarine  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:15:07am

re: #34 Sharmuta

Regarding the importation of oil …

And Mexico.

True, definitely better to import from Canada and Mexico than from Saudi Arabia or Venezuela. Add a few nuclear power plants and we could get ALL our energy from nations that border us on the North and South.

52 funky chicken  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:16:12am

re: #47 Cannadian Club Akbar

In Florida, we can’t drill for oil 250 miles off the coast in the Gulf. Thank goodness China will be drilling less than 90 miles away soon.

Yeah, because we all know that China has a stellar environmental record.

//

reuters.com

53 StillAMarine  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:16:58am

re: #36 Honorary Yooper

Good grief! Recycling plastic could put Syncrude out of business!

54 Sharmuta  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:17:27am

re: #46 jaunte

Some good stats on that, here. Not much room for increase:
[Link: www.eia.doe.gov…]

Thanks- that’s a great graph. Hard to argue against reducing our consumption when you look at it.

55 Gus  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:17:46am

re: #41 Teh Flowah

I want to see some more context on George Voinovich’s comment. It seems very much like something an IDer would say. To me, it doesn’t explicitly say that the science is there. The first comment by Lamar Alexander is one people should pay attention to.

Do laypeople really think their intuition can outdo trained scientists and scientific academies?

Perhaps not as much as advertised.

Here is Voinovich on Youtube ordered by date. Things get rather heated.

56 drcordell  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:18:34am

I happen to think Dana Milbank is an insufferable egotist and a giant hack parading as a journalist. But I guess every now and then a blind squirrel finds a nut. At least he didn’t pepper his piece with the typical beltway “he said, she said” false equivalency that has completely destroyed the legitimacy of the press.

57 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:19:05am

On the radio today, they said some company is gonna announce there has been another big find in the Gulf. Can’t remember the name. Lemme go look.

58 jaunte  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:19:49am

re: #54 Sharmuta

It’s also a clear indication that Canada and Mexico don’t have enough for us right now if we eliminate imports from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia.

59 StillAMarine  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:20:25am

re: #42 Spare O’Lake

As a Canadian, I know this very well and agree with you.
The US would presumably prioritize using new domestic supplies to eliminate imports from hostile nations.
And BTW, don’t worry about Canada; if the US reduces its oil and gas imports from Canada, Canada has plenty of thirsty Asian customers just across the Pacific.

Very true. Since I get most of my pension from the Government of Alberta, I have a vested interest in seeing the Alberta economy prosper.

Boy, do I ever miss the cross country skiing with the cold wind in my face and the powder under my boards. I do not miss driving in it though.

60 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:20:56am

Ahhh true believers…

I think at this point, I would like to comment on the phenomena of projection.

A person like Inhofe thinks that science is something to be believed in rather than accepted based on evidence. In fact, ID types and climate deniers share this misconception about science.

Since they think that there is a choice to believe in it or not based on faith, then any other scientific argument becomes an article of faith. This is why they so bitterly talk about a religion of Darwin and a religion of global warming.

They see these things as competing dogmas. They see themselves as defenders of their own dogmas and they project onto the advocates of science the same lack of scientific understanding and scientific principle that they themselves employ when shrieking about ID or climate denial.

It is deeply disturbing and ironic.

Fundamentalist religion is always an argument based on authority - hence all of the false lists of “scientists” who disagree with the science. Hence, all of the vain idea that bluster beats mathematics and that talking points replace facts. The mindset that says, “G-d said it (of course it is what they believe G-d said, and let’s not forget there might be other takes on that as well) so it’s good enough for me, that settles it!” is the perfect mindset for the sorts of non-arguments that these clowns make in terms of the science.

Real science as always is about facts and observations. It is about following the data where it leads and accepting truths that are not always comfortable. This is not done because people want uncomfortable truths to be true, but rather because they are convinced by the evidence that this is so. The only authority in science is the data and the analysis of the data.

Of course, this is the opposite of a fundie view, where the only authority is the authority that one grants his preacher and his personal take on the dogma.

This is all a long way of saying that people like Inhofe do not have the mental machinery needed to talk about science in a scientific way. From the start they do not know what it is or how it works and they assume, that science works the same way they do. Because of this, they respond with religious fervor to scientific questions, while mistaking the analysis of data for an article of faith.

It is the grossest failure of our education system that such foolishness persists.

61 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:21:40am

re: #53 StillAMarine

Good grief! Recycling plastic could put Syncrude out of business!

I’m in favor of using all means we can, some of which are carbon-neutral.
I also get news items like the above from the engineering society I belong to. It’s where I get some really neat spinoff links from.

62 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:21:54am

re: #57 Cannadian Club Akbar

How the fuck can a radio station not have their web site updated? Idiots.

63 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:24:17am

re: #41 Teh Flowah

Yes because science has been wrong before; Like when we were told in the late 70’s and early 80’s that human population would grow to a point where there would not be enough food to feed everyone by the year 2000. Well now we have so much food we are using it to make fuel and feed animals.

Also don’t forget about all the “science” behind lobotomies performed by doctors in the 40’s 50’s 60’s and 70’s. How about all the “science” behind getting most of the country drugged up today? Or my favorite all the science behind the universe never beginning in one singular event, rather the universe had always existed. Well that science was replaced by the science of the Big Bang.

Many times science has been proven false by further science and the previous conclusions made were the complete opposite of reality.

I think it is completely understandable why many are very skeptical of any conclusions made by the science community given their track record. Now that is not to say that most science is junk rather some far reaching conclusions in the past have been incorrect and skepticism provides a curb to the impulse of “save the planet from impending doom”.

64 sattv4u2  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:24:37am

re: #54 Sharmuta

Thanks- that’s a great graph. Hard to argue against reducing our consumption when you look at it.

Actually, it’s not

Consider the goods the US produces (and not just for our consumption,, for the entire world) as opposed to Canada and Mexico

To provide those goods you need energy usage. To get workers from place A to place B to work at those places you need energy use. To transport those goods worldwide you need energy usage

65 suchislife  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:27:05am

re: #41 Teh Flowah

Do laypeople really think their intuition can outdo trained scientists and scientific academies?

I don’t get that either. And they often insist that the reason they can’t trust scientists on this is because the issue is so complicated. ??? Makes no sense to me.

66 shutdown  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:27:14am

xkcd.com

leaving this here while i go pick up moody teenage daughter #1

67 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:28:29am

re: #65 suchislife

I don’t get that either. And they often insist that the reason they can’t trust scientists on this is because the issue is so complicated. ??? Makes no sense to me.

Yet the same politicians will tell us we might not understand a bill because we can’t grasp the nuances.

68 MrSilverDragon  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:28:57am

Short day, folks. Hope y’all have a great weekend, and Happy Halloween!

69 StillAMarine  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:30:42am

Most thought-provoking afternoon, but I must get some work done here.

Happy Friday!

70 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:31:33am

I’d also like to add that this is why they are such an unbridled pain in the ass to deal with when talking about science.

If your interlocutor is not a fact or analysis based thinker, then bringing facts and analysis to them will only cause them to spew more dogma. There is no particular cure for that sort of rigidity once it is set in.

Further, they take personal offence at the facts. It is like Satan or Al Gore is talking to them. These are fearful people who live in little fearful worlds.

If you scratch an ID person, the real drive behind them is not that they know the first thing about evolution, it is rather that they think that evolution challenges their religion and will make you into an atheist.

If you scratch an AGW denier, it is not that they know the first thing about AGW, but rather that they see communists and Al Gore coming to take away their stuff. It always comes down to a political debate, and resistance to the idea that they themselves have a duty to be more accepting of the truth - and it’s consequences.

This projection BTW is also reflected in their politics. Why all of the bitter screeching about Obama being a messiah. I sincerely doubt that the typical Obama voter felyt religious about him. However, it is pretty clear that large segments of his opposition feel religious about hating him.

Again, this is not about Obama per se. About as many people who think W was perfect think that Obama is perfect. This is about a certain dogmatic mind that assumes all other minds are just as dogmatic. It produces a level of hurt and anger that would not otherwise be felt.

71 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:33:07am

re: #70 LudwigVanQuixote

Your remarks offend me sir!!
/someone was gonna say it

72 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:33:30am

re: #71 Cannadian Club Akbar

Your remarks offend me sir!!
/someone was gonna say it

I rebuke you!

///

73 drcordell  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:34:03am

re: #70 LudwigVanQuixote

I’d also like to add that this is why they are such an unbridled pain in the ass to deal with when talking about science.

If your interlocutor is not a fact or analysis based thinker, then bringing facts and analysis to them will only cause them to spew more dogma. There is no particular cure for that sort of rigidity once it is set in.

Further, they take personal offence at the facts. It is like Satan or Al Gore is talking to them. These are fearful people who live in little fearful worlds.

If you scratch an ID person, the real drive behind them is not that they know the first thing about evolution, it is rather that they think that evolution challenges their religion and will make you into an atheist.

If you scratch an AGW denier, it is not that they know the first thing about AGW, but rather that they see communists and Al Gore coming to take away their stuff. It always comes down to a political debate, and resistance to the idea that they themselves have a duty to be more accepting of the truth - and it’s consequences.

This projection BTW is also reflected in their politics. Why all of the bitter screeching about Obama being a messiah. I sincerely doubt that the typical Obama voter felyt religious about him. However, it is pretty clear that large segments of his opposition feel religious about hating him.

Again, this is not about Obama per se. About as many people who think W was perfect think that Obama is perfect. This is about a certain dogmatic mind that assumes all other minds are just as dogmatic. It produces a level of hurt and anger that would not otherwise be felt.

Wholeheartedly agree. If you try and talk AGW science to a denier, the first thing that inevitably comes up is “why do you lurve Al Gore?” It’s a political football, not a scientific one.

74 wrenchwench  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:35:48am

re: #68 MrSilverDragon

Short day, folks. Hope y’all have a great weekend, and Happy Halloween!

Hmm, been short days ever since you got married. Correlation? Causation?…

75 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:36:19am

re: #60 LudwigVanQuixote

The way I look at it is Evolution is science Darwinism (the belief that all life evolved from simple matter to complex life by random events) is religion. Temperature change on earth is science, Global Warming (the belief it is man’s fault, the world is going to end, and man is the one who can fix it) is religion.

76 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:36:40am

re: #73 drcordell

Wholeheartedly agree. If you try and talk AGW science to a denier, the first thing that inevitably comes up is “why do you lurve Al Gore?” It’s a political football, not a scientific one.

Yes, because you get to choose your politics. However, you do not get to choose your science.

The thing that these weenies need to get through their little think heads is that their opinions mean nothing in a science context. No-one’s opinion means anything in the face of the data. If that applies to Einstein, it certainly applies to them.

77 Four More Tears  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:40:07am

re: #75 lrsshadow

Darwinism (the belief that all life evolved from simple matter to complex life by random events) is religion.

No. Darwin has nothing to do with the origin of life. Nothing at all. Why do you have to make these things up?

78 Decatur Deb  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:40:52am

re: #40 Gus 802

Yeah, but I would ask, why would a Montana Democrat feel compelled to support card check? (snip)

Because they’ll expect some other Dem to support their
favorite project. Sort of rational, if you look at it.

79 subsailor68  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:41:54am

For the record, I believe that climate change is a real problem, and we need to deal with it.

I also believe in evolution.

And, I’m a firm believer in the need to develop alternative fuels, and to conserve energy.

But I also think Al Gore wants to take away all my stuff. He’s got those “I want all your stuff” shifty little eyes.

Curse you Al Gore! You can’t have my stuff! (Well, I do have a complete set of commemorative plates celebrating the birth of Dolly the cloned sheep. Call me, we’ll talk.)

(Okay, I made the Dolly plate collection stuff up.)

;-)

80 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:42:26am

OT

You have got to see this, gang:

…and the flag was still there.
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has returned an image of the US flag still standing at the Apollo 17 landing site.

No thanks to doofi like Inhofe, btw.

81 Gus  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:42:43am

re: #78 Decatur Deb

Because they’ll expect some other Dem to support their
favorite project. Sort of rational, if you look at it.

True. Party solidarity may come into effect.

82 Baier  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:42:50am

re: #75 lrsshadow

The way I look at it is Evolution is science Darwinism (the belief that all life evolved from simple matter to complex life by random events) is religion.

I can’t think of a religion that has empirical evidence to support its creation theories.

83 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:43:04am

re: #79 subsailor68

Didn’t you get your Obama plates? There was a limited amount…
/

84 Ojoe  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:43:14am

re: #79 subsailor68

LOL

85 drcordell  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:43:27am

re: #75 lrsshadow

The way I look at it is Evolution is science Darwinism (the belief that all life evolved from simple matter to complex life by random events) is religion. Temperature change on earth is science, Global Warming (the belief it is man’s fault, the world is going to end, and man is the one who can fix it) is religion.

FAIL.

86 subsailor68  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:44:07am

re: #83 Cannadian Club Akbar

Didn’t you get your Obama plates? There was a limited amount…
/

LOL!! You betcha! But I ain’t giving ‘em to Al Gore. Get your own Al Gore!

87 MinisterO  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:44:36am

re: #79 subsailor68


But I also think Al Gore wants to take away all my stuff. He’s got those “I want all your stuff” shifty little eyes.

Curse you Al Gore! You can’t have my stuff! (Well, I do have a complete set of commemorative plates celebrating the birth of Dolly the cloned sheep. Call me, we’ll talk.)

LOL, thank you.

88 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:44:47am

re: #82 Baier

I can’t think of a religion that has empirical evidence to support its creation theories.

Try this church.
beerchurch.com

89 Four More Tears  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:45:05am

re: #80 Shiplord Kirel

OT

You have got to see this, gang:

…and the flag was still there.
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has returned an image of the US flag still standing at the Apollo 17 landing site.

No thanks to doofi like Inhofe, btw.

Any chance this’ll get moon-landing deniers to reconsider their position?

90 Baier  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:45:36am

re: #88 Cannadian Club Akbar

Try this church.
[Link: www.beerchurch.com…]

As a home brewer I can appreciate that.

91 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:46:22am

re: #90 Baier

As a home brewer I can appreciate that.

I’ll be over Sunday:)

92 DaddyG  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:46:25am

re: #60 LudwigVanQuixote Your Karma ran over my Dogma.

93 Soundboard Fez  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:46:27am

re: #83 Cannadian Club Akbar

Didn’t you get your Obama plates? There was a limited amount…
/

I spent all my $ on the handpainted Obama coins. I should have diversified and bought a few plates too. Damn!

94 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:46:30am

re: #89 JasonA
Not a chance. If NASA could fake the original landings, and keep half a million co-conspirators and the Soviet military quiet, they could certainly fake these images.
/

95 Gus  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:46:33am

re: #75 lrsshadow

The way I look at it is Evolution is science Darwinism (the belief that all life evolved from simple matter to complex life by random events) is religion. Temperature change on earth is science, Global Warming (the belief it is man’s fault, the world is going to end, and man is the one who can fix it) is religion.

Care to illustrate where Darwin’s theories mentions evolving from “simple matter?” And how in the world does Darwinism constitute a religion?

96 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:46:58am

re: #76 LudwigVanQuixote

Ah yes by Einstein’s research was stifled by the “religious” belief in science at the time that the universe was always there and never created in one event. His equations had lead him to the the dead end of a beginning to the universe many times and he had to start over because of the belief that the universe never could have been created by a singular event.

Without this belief in the science community imagine how far he could have gone with his research.

97 Decatur Deb  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:47:28am

re: #89 JasonA

Any chance this’ll get moon-landing deniers to reconsider their position?

No.

98 lawhawk  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:47:29am

re: #80 Shiplord Kirel


Speaking of lunar excursions and the NASA mission to return men to the moon, it looks like part of the Ares 1-X test was a failure. 2 of 3 parachutes failed to operate as planned, causing a harder than planned impact of the booster into the Atlantic Ocean.

The test was designed to test the launch booster and the parachute systems.

99 Baier  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:47:29am

re: #91 Cannadian Club Akbar

I’ll be over Sunday:)

I’ll tell you what I tell my wife, there is only enough booze for me and the baby.

100 Gus  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:47:34am

re: #85 drcordell

FAIL.

Epic.

/

101 Four More Tears  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:47:51am

re: #94 Shiplord Kirel

Not a chance. If NASA could fake the original landings, and keep half a million co-conspirators and the Soviet military quiet, they could certainly fake these images.
/

ACORN has to fit into this somehow!

/

102 Ojoe  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:47:55am
103 Ojoe  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:48:26am

re: #102 Ojoe

Oops, Dolly not found.

104 Charles Johnson  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:48:27am

re: #75 lrsshadow

The way I look at it is Evolution is science Darwinism (the belief that all life evolved from simple matter to complex life by random events) is religion. Temperature change on earth is science, Global Warming (the belief it is man’s fault, the world is going to end, and man is the one who can fix it) is religion.

So basically, you don’t believe in very much of modern science at all.

105 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:48:59am

re: #75 lrsshadow

The way I look at it is Evolution is science Darwinism (the belief that all life evolved from simple matter to complex life by random events) is religion. Temperature change on earth is science, Global Warming (the belief it is man’s fault, the world is going to end, and man is the one who can fix it) is religion.

Except that that is a word game that is false.

All life did evolves from the simple to the complex. However, it is not a completely random process. There are all sorts of selective processes. People have a hard time with the rules of probabilities, so the foolish are quickly taken in by fantastical “what are the odds” arguments. The fact, and the proper math is, that one a mutation occurs, it will either be favorable or unfavorable - for many different possible reasons.

If it is favorable, then those critters make more babies. This is not random. In fact it is a guarantee.

As to AGW,

We are the cause of it.

Let me repeat, the science is very firmly settled on this.

Here are some smoking guns:

1. Natural processes like Milankovitch cycles etc… take thousands of years to do their thing. The present warming has occurred in the eyeblink of a century. It is still increasing and it is already more dramatic than many past geological events caused by “natural causes.” Further, we can calculate orbital wobbles and anomalies very well. We are actually in a cool period as far as such things are concerned. This has been ruled out. Game over, Done.

2. Not only does the warming coincide with the advent of the industrial age - as is very well shown by thens of thousands of data sets, but we are warming from the inside out. If this were an extraterrestrial effect, as in more solar output, we would heat the atmosphere from the top down.

We see the exact opposite. The Earth is not getting more heat from the top, rather, more heat is getting trapped at the bottom, by the CO2 we have been emitting. The Earth is trapping heat at the bottom, where the greater CO2 concentrations are, not heating from the top.

3. Of course CO2 is a GHG. Of course it traps and re-emits IR. The fact of this was established in the 1880’s the explanation for why came with QM in the 1920’s. Of course if you have more of it in your atmosphere, it must get warmer. Even though it did not drive all of the past climate cycles on Earth. It is certainly driving this one. We can see the direct increase in emissions and concentration by spectral analysis and the warming in this present climate change is in lock step.

Again, game over, done.

NO the only religion are those who refuse to see the data and look at the simple plain facts. Those are the deniers, not the scientists.

106 subsailor68  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:49:00am

re: #93 Soundboard Fez

I spent all my $ on the handpainted Obama coins. I should have diversified and bought a few plates too. Damn!

An investment in Chia Obama may also have been a good way to broaden your portfolio. I mean, take a look at today’s market for the original Chia Pet.

Oh wait…

forget I mentioned it.

107 lawhawk  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:49:23am

re: #89 JasonA

No. The moon landing troofers will not disavow their nonsensical conspiracy theories even as video of the Apollo 17 ascent shows the same tracks as the new imagery.

Youtube Video

108 Ojoe  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:49:27am
109 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:49:32am

re: #82 Baier

how about the “Big Bang Theory” I think that would provide empirical evidence to just about all the religions who believe the universe was created in one event.

110 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:49:38am

re: #98 lawhawk

Speaking of lunar excursions and the NASA mission to return men to the moon, it looks like part of the Ares 1-X test was a failure. 2 of 3 parachutes failed to operate as planned, causing a harder than planned impact of the booster into the Atlantic Ocean.

The test was designed to test the launch booster and the parachute systems.

The thingy that crashed wasn’t reusable.

111 Gus  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:49:59am

re: #97 Decatur Deb

No.

“The LRO photgraphs are all part of the fraud! It was all part of the plot to keep the sheeple under control by Big Government and to promote NASA and their AGW schemes!”

//

112 subsailor68  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:50:14am

re: #103 Ojoe

Oops, Dolly not found.

Dolly will never go away, Dolly will never go away, Dolly will never go away again!

113 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:50:16am

re: #92 DaddyG

Your Karma ran over my Dogma.

I love that game… Tell me you know Illuminatus…

114 Soundboard Fez  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:50:26am

re: #106 subsailor68

An investment in Chia Obama may also have been a good way to broaden your portfolio. I mean, take a look at today’s market for the original Chia Pet.

Oh wait…

forget I mentioned it.

Sigh. So much tacky kitsch, so little disposable income.

115 DaddyG  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:50:51am

re: #2 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I trying to figure out how Ojoe will turn this into a reason of plug for the Whigs.

That one is easy.

The party that doesn’t force me to choose between denying overwhelming scientific evidence or using that evidence to redistribute my country’s wealth to the third world so they can pollute in previously unheard of volumes.

116 Ojoe  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:51:28am

re: #112 subsailor68

Dolly Parton, an argument for the existence of God. IMHO.

117 Randall Gross  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:51:50am

re: #104 Charles

So basically, you don’t believe in very much of modern science at all.

With the apocalyptic nihilism infesting the religious right atm it’s mach’s nicht if the science is right, there’s no future anyway. This is another reason the Dems have stolen the future: nobody in the Republican party can see beyond the next five years.

118 anie  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:51:51am

re: #79 subsailor68

I agree. I believe that AGW is a real problem. I believe in evolution. I am also a theologian. I don’t think these things are incompatible with one another. Religion tells us things about God, not biology or climate science.

119 subsailor68  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:52:37am

re: #116 Ojoe

Dolly Parton, an argument for the existence of God. IMHO.

LOL! She’s the very definition of intelligent design.

120 Decatur Deb  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:52:50am

re: #111 Gus 802

“The LRO photgraphs are all part of the fraud! It was all part of the plot to keep the sheeple under control by Big Government and to promote NASA and their AGW schemes!”

//

They’re building NASA camps. We have one in Alabama.

spacecamp.com

121 abolitionist  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:53:11am

re: #108 Ojoe

Earthy, yes; flat no.

122 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:53:34am

re: #120 Decatur Deb

They’re building NASA camps. We have one in Alabama.

[Link: www.spacecamp.com…]

Are those like FEMA camps?
/

123 Ojoe  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:53:46am

re: #121 abolitionist

ROFLMAO

124 Gus  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:54:08am

re: #122 Cannadian Club Akbar

Are those like FEMA camps?
/

I’ve seen the NASA coffins!

//

125 DaddyG  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:54:42am

re: #113 LudwigVanQuixote

I love that game… Tell me you know Illuminatus…

Sorry I don’t. I just rememberd the cute saying. As far as video games go I am of the pong generation.

126 Baier  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:54:42am

re: #109 lrsshadow

how about the “Big Bang Theory” I think that would provide empirical evidence to just about all the religions who believe the universe was created in one event.

I bet there are many incidences that science and religion converge, or can be made to converge, but that doesn’t mean science supports religion.

127 Decatur Deb  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:54:56am

re: #122 Cannadian Club Akbar

Are those like FEMA camps?
/

Yes, but the gruel is freeze-dried.

128 Gus  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:55:18am

re: #120 Decatur Deb

They’re building NASA camps. We have one in Alabama.

[Link: www.spacecamp.com…]

Neat. I tell you, when I was a kid that would have been fantastic to go to.

129 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:55:38am

re: #104 Charles

No I just don’t believe that all scientific conclusions are correct and science has been wrong in the past. If you want to believe that all life is just a random series of lucky events that happened in the universe go ahead. That would be a belief.

Now if you want to talk about evolution that is a different story. There is plenty of evidence that life does “evolve” but to take that nugget of information and stretch it to explain everything about how life began that is where science becomes a religion.

130 Randall Gross  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:56:00am

More proof that Charles is right about ID — ID==YEC

pandasthumb.org

131 simoom  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:56:19am

Milbank should add Rep Joe Barton to his “Flat Earther” list.

Barton, I think, had the funniest (or maybe saddest) anti-AGW congressional moment when he question Energy Secretary Steven Chu, tweeted about the exchange,

Participating n climate change hearing. I asked energy secretary where oil in alaska came from. answer puzzles-from continental plate shift

put up Youtube video of it titled, “Energy Secretary puzzled by simple question”,
Youtube Video then tweeted a second time to promote the above video:

I seemed to have baffled the Energy Sec with basic question - Where does oil come from? Check out the video


The Guardian had decent write up of the indecent here:
Climate sceptic ‘baffles’ US energy secretary Steven Chu

The article also included a couple more congressional Joe Barton climate quotes:

I believe that Earth’s climate is changing, but I think it’s changing for natural variation reasons. And I think mankind has been adopting, or adapting, to climate as long as man has walked the Earth. When it rains we find shelter. When it’s hot, we get shade. When it’s cold, we find a warm place to stay. Adaptation is the practical, affordable, utterly natural reflex response to nature when the planet is heating or cooling, as it always is.

and:

Wind is God’s way of balancing heat. Wind is the way you shift heat from areas where it’s hotter to areas where it’s cooler. That’s what wind is. Wouldn’t it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up? Now, I’m not saying that’s going to happen, Mr Chairman, but that is definitely something on the massive scale. I mean, it does make some sense. You stop something, you can’t transfer that heat, and the heat goes up. It’s just something to think about.
132 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:57:17am

re: #125 DaddyG

Sorry I don’t. I just rememberd the cute saying. As far as video games go I am of the pong generation.

Actually it was even more nerdy that that, it was a tabletop card game.

You created conspiracies and tried to dominate the world.

133 Gus  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:57:24am

re: #129 lrsshadow

No I just don’t believe that all scientific conclusions are correct and science has been wrong in the past. If you want to believe that all life is just a random series of lucky events that happened in the universe go ahead. That would be a belief.

Now if you want to talk about evolution that is a different story. There is plenty of evidence that life does “evolve” but to take that nugget of information and stretch it to explain everything about how life began that is where science becomes a religion.

Evolution does not describe “how life began.” No one in the field uses evolution to describe “how life began.”

134 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:58:44am

re: #129 lrsshadow

No I just don’t believe that all scientific conclusions are correct and science has been wrong in the past. If you want to believe that all life is just a random series of lucky events that happened in the universe go ahead. That would be a belief.

Now if you want to talk about evolution that is a different story. There is plenty of evidence that life does “evolve” but to take that nugget of information and stretch it to explain everything about how life began that is where science becomes a religion.

Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact.
Gravity is a theory. Also a fact!

And the word “religion” does not mean what you think it means.

135 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:00:30pm

re: #132 LudwigVanQuixote

Actually it was even more nerdy that that, it was a tabletop card game.

You created conspiracies and tried to dominate the world.

My partner always won with Discordia. Alllways. We stopped playing when he built a deck none of us had any answer to. ;_;

136 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:00:37pm

re: #129 lrsshadow

No I just don’t believe that all scientific conclusions are correct and science has been wrong in the past. If you want to believe that all life is just a random series of lucky events that happened in the universe go ahead. That would be a belief.

Now if you want to talk about evolution that is a different story. There is plenty of evidence that life does “evolve” but to take that nugget of information and stretch it to explain everything about how life began that is where science becomes a religion.

Actually, evolution does not know how the first replicators arose. It also does not address the question. It picks up after that event.

As to how that happened. It is still a very open question.

As to the AGW, again the science is very well settled. It is not wrong. Popular media accounts of science is often wrong, the consensus of the entire legitimate scientific community as backed by the data and the evidence is not.

Why not look at the actual evidence. In my reply to you. I gave you several smoking guns. Could you please tell me why they are false?

137 DaddyG  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:00:49pm

Faith in a higher power and belief in scientific theory are not mutually exclusive.

138 DaddyG  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:01:19pm

re: #132 LudwigVanQuixote

Actually it was even more nerdy that that, it was a tabletop card game.

You created conspiracies and tried to dominate the world.

Sounds fun.

139 Randall Gross  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:01:26pm

re: #129 lrsshadow

You don’t even understand the science you are discounting. While random mutations contribute to the processes of evolution, it’s not random. You misunderstand completely the central concept.

it’s not Random Selection, it’s Natural Selection. As a whole the process is not random, that’s why you have several separate evolutionary branches replicating same functionality over time: wings, salt handling mechanisms, etc.

140 Soundboard Fez  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:01:33pm

re: #131 simoom

Please tell me that the stuff about the wind is some kind of parody. Please.

141 Gus  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:02:07pm

re: #133 Gus 802

Began being the key word here. When I think of the beginning I would think that the Big Bang Theory and the Higgs Boson would apply.

142 Leonidas Hoplite  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:02:34pm

OT
We’re Governed by Callous Children

The biggest threat to America right now is not government spending, huge deficits, foreign ownership of our debt, world terrorism, two wars, potential epidemics or nuts with nukes. The biggest long-term threat is that people are becoming and have become disheartened, that this condition is reaching critical mass, and that it afflicts most broadly and deeply those members of the American leadership class who are not in Washington, most especially those in business.

It is a story in two parts. The first: “They do not think they can make it better.”

And here is the second part of the story. While Americans feel increasingly disheartened, their leaders evince a mindless … one almost calls it optimism, but it is not that.

It is a curious thing that those who feel most mistily affectionate toward America, and most protective toward it, are the most aware of its vulnerabilities, the most aware that it can be harmed. They don’t see it as all-powerful, impregnable, unharmable. The loving have a sense of its limits.

When I see those in government, both locally and in Washington, spend and tax and come up each day with new ways to spend and tax—health care, cap and trade, etc.—I think: Why aren’t they worried about the impact of what they’re doing? Why do they think America is so strong it can take endless abuse?

Read the whole thing

143 anie  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:02:38pm

re: #134 WindUpBird

And the word “religion” does not mean what you think it means.

Why is this such an ongoing problem. It seems pervasive on the right. Words have meanings. Even words like “religion”, “Marxism”, “fascism.” It seems to me that what people usually mean when talking about the last two is actually “totalitarianism.” But the conflation of two words that really denote something different drives me crazy.

144 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:02:51pm

re: #135 WindUpBird

My partner always won with Discordia. Alllways. We stopped playing when he built a deck none of us had any answer to. ;_;

I always played the servants of Cthulu. It was my Lovecraft reading phase. I beat Discordia - Hail Eris, Hell yes! - a couple of times with benefit concerts and Texas. My biggest problem was always the Networks.

145 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:02:51pm

re: #60 LudwigVanQuixote


A person like Inhofe thinks that science is something to be believed in rather than accepted based on evidence. In fact, ID types and climate deniers share this misconception about science.

Since they think that there is a choice to believe in it or not based on faith, then any other scientific argument becomes an article of faith. This is why they so bitterly talk about a religion of Darwin and a religion of global warming.

OTOH it seems to me that basing scientific conclusions on historical data collected from poorly controlled settings, over very short periods of time, does require a bit of faith. I mean a mere 30 years of satellite data just seems a bit thin to permit extrapolation with such scientific certainty and to conclude with such certainty that the observed changes are man made.
To me it is easy to see that anyone who argues that we are definitely in a cooling trend based on the last 2 or 3 years of data is a huckster. But having said that, are those who have concluded that we are definitely in a predictable and catastrophic man-made warming trend based on only 30 years data, necessarily on much firmer ground?
This, and not religion, is what feeds my own lingering reluctance to accept these newly announced AGW findings as the “gospel truth” or as scientifically proven fact.

146 aliencam  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:03:10pm

re: #41 Teh Flowah


Do laypeople really think their intuition can outdo trained scientists and scientific academies?

but these are POLITICIANS! Scientists are just nerds and geeks, they don’t know how the “real world” works.

147 DaddyG  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:05:01pm

re: #136 LudwigVanQuixote

Actually, evolution does not know how the first replicators arose…

Some young teenage proteins got together and started dirty dancing which made their more conservative Amino Acid Parents lipid.

148 DaddyG  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:05:53pm

re: #140 Soundboard Fez

Please tell me that the stuff about the wind is some kind of parody. Please.


He’s a congressman. They are experts in making wind from hot air.

149 subsailor68  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:06:04pm

re: #140 Soundboard Fez

Please tell me that the stuff about the wind is some kind of parody. Please.

Well, someone did rewrite the lyrics to “They Call the Wind Maria”:

Away out here they got a name
For rain and wind and fire
The rain is rain, the fire is fire,
And they call the wind …wind.

150 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:07:03pm

re: #133 Gus 802

How about all the atheists who are self describe “Darwinist” who believe Darwin proved life started from simple matter therefor god doesn’t exist? Sounds like a religion calling itself science to me.

151 Soundboard Fez  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:07:57pm

re: #148 DaddyG

He’s a congressman. They are experts in making wind from hot air.

Threadwinner! We can all go home now.

152 lawhawk  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:08:21pm

re: #136 LudwigVanQuixote

Replicators? You just had to go there…

Youtube Video

153 Ojoe  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:08:49pm

re: #145 Spare O’Lake

There are other evidences relating to the climate puzzle which go far back; dendro-chronologies and ice cores to name two examples.

154 Killgore Trout  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:09:14pm

re: #142 Leonidas Hoplite

Beck was ranting about selfish and greedy youth earlier in the week too. As Republicans become more exclusive and out of touch the keep creating new enemies. It’s the only thing that gets them excited these days. New ideas are too scary, imaginary enemies are much safer and more fun.

155 Bagua  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:09:17pm

re: #105 LudwigVanQuixote

[…]

As to AGW,

We are the cause of it.

Let me repeat, the science is very firmly settled on this.

[…]

False. This wording is a leap of faith, not science.

The correct statement is “We are very likely the cause of it.”

With very likely defined as >90%.

IPCC Summary for Policymakers

156 Soundboard Fez  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:09:18pm

re: #150 lrsshadow

How about all the atheists who are self describe “Darwinist” who believe Darwin proved life started from simple matter therefor god doesn’t exist? Sounds like a religion calling itself science to me.

Where do you find such people? That sounds a bit — no, a lot — like an ICR or AIG strawman.

Actual scientists don’t say that.

157 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:09:25pm

re: #139 Thanos

ok so then are you saying that Evolution has a engineering or intelligent effect of mutation? Otherwise it would just be a series of random mutations with the best mutation for creature being selected by natural events.

158 Decatur Deb  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:09:51pm

re: #136 LudwigVanQuixote

(snip)
As to the AGW, again the science is very well settled. It is not wrong. Popular media accounts of science is often wrong, the consensus of the entire legitimate scientific community as backed by the data and the evidence is not.
(snip)

The anti-science interests are playing the courtroom “expert witness”
game. The goal is not to discover truth, but to create reasonable doubt
in the minds of the electorate.

159 Ojoe  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:10:13pm

re: #154 Killgore Trout

Yesterday on the radio Glen Beck suggested to artists that they cut off their ears.

160 Randall Gross  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:10:24pm

re: #150 lrsshadow

How about all the atheists who are self describe “Darwinist” who believe Darwin proved life started from simple matter therefor god doesn’t exist? Sounds like a religion calling itself science to me.

Straw man. You confuse evolution with cosmology, a typically escape mechanism. You can neither prove nor disprove god, Science is based on what you can prove. Now please try again.

161 DaddyG  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:10:52pm

re: #150 lrsshadow

How about all the atheists who are self describe “Darwinist” who believe Darwin proved life started from simple matter therefor god doesn’t exist? Sounds like a religion calling itself science to me.


This discussion is confusing two mutually esclusive things. I don’t give much credence to a scientist who discounts God because he can’t measure Him but I also don’t respect a man’s religion if it requires him to blindly discount evidence that is before his face.

In fact the two extremes are suffering from the same disease of selective knowledge.

162 simoom  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:10:52pm

re: #131 simoom

The Guardian had decent write up of the indecent here:

Err, that should have been “incident” (my lazy use of the spell-checker caused that I think :P).

163 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:10:58pm

re: #142 Leonidas Hoplite

Oh Peggy Noonan. Predictably flowery as always. 9_9 Peggy, If you think “Pharma” is such a bad word, perhaps you should tell the actual pharmaceutical industry to stop using it.

And maybe we’d think of the Chamber of Commerce as something other than rats when they start accepting AGW science.

164 jaunte  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:11:03pm

re: #150 lrsshadow

How about all the atheists who are self describe “Darwinist” who believe Darwin proved life started from simple matter therefor god doesn’t exist? Sounds like a religion calling itself science to me.

That description reminds me of the story of the blind men and the elephant.
wordinfo.info

165 abolitionist  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:11:10pm

re: #150 lrsshadow

Darwin specifically stated in his famous book that his theory does *not* address questions concerning the beginnings of life.

166 Sharmuta  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:11:12pm

re: #150 lrsshadow

How about all the atheists who are self describe “Darwinist” who believe Darwin proved life started from simple matter therefor god doesn’t exist?

What about the Pope who thinks life started from simple matter except that God does exist?

167 Soundboard Fez  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:11:34pm

re: #162 simoom

Err, that should have been “incident” (my lazy use of the spell-checker caused that I think :P).

It works either way.

168 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:11:46pm

re: #145 Spare O’Lake

OTOH it seems to me that basing scientific conclusions on historical data collected from poorly controlled settings, over very short periods of time, does require a bit of faith. I mean a mere 30 years of satellite data just seems a bit thin to permit extrapolation with such scientific certainty and to conclude with such certainty that the observed changes are man made.

Well there is a lot more to it than that. First off the fact that we have seen so much change in a “mere 30 years” is a very big indicator, that this is not some other process - particularly when we know the out put of the sun has not varied enough to cause it and that the time scale is to short to be an orbital variation.

Again if this were naturally caused, there would have to be some other natural cause available. Orbital variations are the primary drivers of many past change events. We are currently in a cool period as far as that is concerned.

Further, there are lots of things that we know really really well with a lot less than 30 years data. Special relativity was confirmed fully within a few years for instance.

You aslo can not escape the reality that CO2 really is a GHG and that we really have dumped gigatons of it into the atmosphere. The only ludicrous idea is that it would somehow do nothing - particularly when we already knew that trace amounts of it in the atmosphere keep us about 60 degrees warmer than we would be without it.

To me it is easy to see that anyone who argues that we are definitely in a cooling trend based on the last 2 or 3 years of data is a huckster.

Or rather that is wishful thinking talking. This really is real. Again look at the smoking guns I have listed in the previous post, # 105.

But having said that, are those who have concluded that we are definitely in a predictable and catastrophic man-made warming trend based on only 30 years data, necessarily on much firmer ground?

Actually we have thousands of years worth of data to look at. We use a lot more than just satellites. This too confirms that we are causing the present warming.

This, and not religion, is what feeds my own lingering reluctance to accept these newly announced AGW findings as the “gospel truth” or as scientifically proven fact.

Gospel no. Scientific fact, yes.

169 Decatur Deb  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:11:54pm

re: #153 Ojoe

There are other evidences relating to the climate puzzle which go far back; dendro-chronologies and ice cores to name two examples.

Varve analysis. (I knew I’d get to use that after 40 yrs.)

170 Summer Seale  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:12:38pm

re: #150 lrsshadow

How about all the atheists who are self describe “Darwinist” who believe Darwin proved life started from simple matter therefor god doesn’t exist? Sounds like a religion calling itself science to me.

Even Dawkins doesn’t say that. He just says that Evolution, for him, proves that God is highly unlikely. He doesn’t say it explains how life began. He makes a very big point of saying that evolution never states how life actually began.

You can stop with the right wingnut talking points now. We’ve already heard and countered them all, thank you. But if you’re lucky, you might get some wonderful consolation prizes at the door.

171 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:13:12pm

re: #150 lrsshadow

How about all the atheists who are self describe “Darwinist” who believe Darwin proved life started from simple matter therefor god doesn’t exist? Sounds like a religion calling itself science to me.

If you can find a jerkoff athiest who thinks he can prove “God doesn’t exist”, well, wow. You’ve just discovered the internet. Totally irrelevant.

172 DaddyG  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:13:13pm

re: #164 jaunte

That description reminds me of the story of the blind men and the elephant.
[Link: www.wordinfo.info…]

…and then the Elephant said “whoa buddy, that’s not my trunk!”

173 Gus  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:13:35pm

re: #150 lrsshadow

How about all the atheists who are self describe “Darwinist” who believe Darwin proved life started from simple matter therefor god doesn’t exist? Sounds like a religion calling itself science to me.

Darwinism didn’t come about for the purpose of proving the non-existence of God. And I speak as an atheist. Atheist can upon their own free will use Darwin’s theories to make a philosophical point on their own behalf. So when you say, “religion calling itself science” it’s more a matter of a philosophy using science to make a point. However, using Darwin to attempt to disprove of God is not a valid route.

174 Ojoe  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:13:52pm

re: #166 Sharmuta

OK time to post this again:

Pope Benedict has referred to the debate between creationists and supporters of evolutionary theory as an “absurdity”:

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”
On the other hand, there are certain questions that evolutionary theory can never answer: “Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, ‘Where does everything come from?’” Christians, thus, can learn truth from science, but scientists must learn to accept the limits of their own work. No scientific investigation can ever prove that God does not exist, or that He did not create the world, or even that man is only the sum of his physical parts.
Link.

175 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:14:18pm

re: #150 lrsshadow

How about all the atheists who are self describe “Darwinist” who believe Darwin proved life started from simple matter therefor god doesn’t exist? Sounds like a religion calling itself science to me.

I have never met such a person in my life, and Darwin never addressed the origins of life, AFAIK.

176 Ojoe  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:15:15pm

re: #169 Decatur Deb

Varves are sediment layers, right? I think I remember that from reading some geology books.

177 Randall Gross  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:15:33pm

re: #157 lrsshadow

ok so then are you saying that Evolution has a engineering or intelligent effect of mutation? Otherwise it would just be a series of random mutations with the best mutation for creature being selected by natural events.

Being selected by natural events means “not random” Evolution doesn’t occur much in static environments where nothing ever changes. So you have Sharks who haven’t changed much since ancient times because their niches always have existed somewhat the same somewhere in the ocean. You have Tuatara’s who go through an amazing amount of random mutation who have stayed pretty much the same because their environment doesn’t change.
You can see environments affecting evolution in historic times however with changes in environment that gulls have undergone, do a google on “Ring Species”.

178 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:16:07pm

re: #82 Baier

I can’t think of a religion that has empirical evidence to support its creation theories.

Some of them try. It’s always embarrassing.

179 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:16:46pm

re: #155 Bagua

False. This wording is a leap of faith, not science.

The correct statement is “We are very likely the cause of it.”

With very likely defined as >90%.

IPCC Summary for Policymakers

Bagua, I am not interested in getting into this semantic debate with you.

The IPCC statement that you quote was deeply watered down in order to gain wider acceptance from the various entities - not all scientific - involved with it.

If you do not believe that we are definitely the source and the cause of the present warming, then refute the smoking guns listed in #105.

I repeat. We are 100% certain the primary driver of the present warming.

As a scientist I will give we are 90% certain that we are the only driver worth being taken into account. I give the last 90% because there is some evidence that solar variations are having a very small effect. However, no-one believes that they are the primary driver.

I repeat. 100% certain, we are the primary driver of the present trend.

180 acwgusa  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:17:21pm

re: #105 LudwigVanQuixote

Except that that is a word game that is false.

All life did evolves from the simple to the complex. However, it is not a completely random process. There are all sorts of selective processes. People have a hard time with the rules of probabilities, so the foolish are quickly taken in by fantastical “what are the odds” arguments. The fact, and the proper math is, that one a mutation occurs, it will either be favorable or unfavorable - for many different possible reasons.

If it is favorable, then those critters make more babies. This is not random. In fact it is a guarantee.

As to AGW,

We are the cause of it.

Let me repeat, the science is very firmly settled on this.

Here are some smoking guns:

1. Natural processes like Milankovitch cycles etc… take thousands of years to do their thing. The present warming has occurred in the eyeblink of a century. It is still increasing and it is already more dramatic than many past geological events caused by “natural causes.” Further, we can calculate orbital wobbles and anomalies very well. We are actually in a cool period as far as such things are concerned. This has been ruled out. Game over, Done.

2. Not only does the warming coincide with the advent of the industrial age - as is very well shown by thens of thousands of data sets, but we are warming from the inside out. If this were an extraterrestrial effect, as in more solar output, we would heat the atmosphere from the top down.

We see the exact opposite. The Earth is not getting more heat from the top, rather, more heat is getting trapped at the bottom, by the CO2 we have been emitting. The Earth is trapping heat at the bottom, where the greater CO2 concentrations are, not heating from the top.

3. Of course CO2 is a GHG. Of course it traps and re-emits IR. The fact of this was established in the 1880’s the explanation for why came with QM in the 1920’s. Of course if you have more of it in your atmosphere, it must get warmer. Even though it did not drive all of the past climate cycles on Earth. It is certainly driving this one. We can see the direct increase in emissions and concentration by spectral analysis and the warming in this present climate change is in lock step.

Again, game over, done.

NO the only religion are those who refuse to see the data and look at the simple plain facts. Those are the deniers, not the scientists.

The deniers are only part of the problem. People, by and large, are not proactive. Arizona will have to have beachfront property before something is really done.

181 Ojoe  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:17:49pm

re: #179 LudwigVanQuixote

Better we are the driver than nature, more chance of “correcting” it.

182 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:17:59pm

re: #116 Ojoe

Dolly Parton, an argument for the existence of God. IMHO.

“Honey, it takes a lot of money to look this cheap.”

183 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:18:03pm

re: #156 Soundboard Fez

Well I think this is what has a lot of people concerned is this stretch by scientific materialists and atheist who are using the science of evolution to push an atheistic belief system upon people.

Now I know there is the argument that: “well that is not the theory of evolution” Unfortunately you have to judge based on the effect of practice. Until the practices are balanced you will continue to see a push for whole sale creationist theory to become mainstream.

184 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:19:19pm

re: #158 Decatur Deb

The anti-science interests are playing the courtroom “expert witness”
game. The goal is not to discover truth, but to create reasonable doubt
in the minds of the electorate.

Of course. It is a wedge strategy.

From Luntz to the Heartland institute to the Disco Institute, you see the same tactics outlined in the same way. It was a trend started with the tobacco companies.

It preys on the stupidity, laziness and ignorance of the masses. It rightfully assumes that people are arrogant enough to take their own half baked opinions over actually learning something.

185 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:19:49pm

re: #137 DaddyG

Faith in a higher power and belief in scientific theory are not mutually exclusive.

In fact, like chocolate and peanut butter, they complement one another, and create a richer experience of life.

;)

186 Gus  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:19:50pm

re: #183 lrsshadow

You’re fear mongering and making huge logical leaps.

187 Ben Hur  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:20:03pm

re: #180 acwgusa

The deniers are only part of the problem. People, by and large, are not proactive. Arizona will have to have beachfront property before something is really done.

Otisville?!?

OTISVILLE?!?!?!?!!!11?!?!?

188 Randall Gross  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:20:11pm

re: #183 lrsshadow

So are you recommending that atheists who “proselytize” be silenced? Your use of “scientific materialism” pretty much identifies you as an acolyte of ID and Discovery Institute btw.

189 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:20:16pm

re: #180 acwgusa

The deniers are only part of the problem. People, by and large, are not proactive. Arizona will have to have beachfront property before something is really done.

Actually, Arizona will not flood. However it gets over 80% of its water from snow melts. They will become a Sahara like desert.

190 Ojoe  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:20:38pm

re: #182 SanFranciscoZionist

Dolly saying that, then singing.

191 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:20:41pm

re: #175 SanFranciscoZionist

I should introduce you to three of my cousins

192 Ben Hur  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:20:54pm

re: #189 LudwigVanQuixote

Actually, Arizona will not flood. However it gets over 80% of its water from snow melts. They will become a Sahara like desert.

OMG.

Arizona will become desert?!

/

193 Decatur Deb  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:20:59pm

re: #176 Ojoe

Varves are sediment layers, right? I think I remember that from reading some geology books.

Yeah, from very quiet lakes.

In 1959 our Bio teacher told the class: “You will never forget the term
“fibrovascular bundle”. Worked

194 subsailor68  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:21:04pm

I think evolution was best exemplified by early cave men, who famously said,

“Get me a long stick with a sharp piece of flint on the end. Enough of this - let’s ‘hit that saber-toothed tiger’ with this rock shit.”

And so man evolved. Well, at least the ones not eaten by saber-toothed tigers that is.

195 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:21:06pm

re: #183 lrsshadow

Well I think this is what has a lot of people concerned is this stretch by scientific materialists and atheist who are using the science of evolution to push an atheistic belief system upon people.

Now I know there is the argument that: “well that is not the theory of evolution” Unfortunately you have to judge based on the effect of practice. Until the practices are balanced you will continue to see a push for whole sale creationist theory to become mainstream.

Ummm could you please address 105?

Seriously, that is the science.

196 jaunte  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:21:16pm

re: #183 lrsshadow

this stretch by scientific materialists and atheist who are using the science of evolution to push an atheistic belief system upon people.


This is backwards. The belief system push is not coming from ‘scientific materialists’.

197 acwgusa  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:21:18pm

re: #189 LudwigVanQuixote

Actually, Arizona will not flood. However it gets over 80% of its water from snow melts. They will become a Sahara like desert.

I know Arizona wouldn’t flood, I just wanted to use the Arizona Beachfront line.

198 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:21:53pm

re: #159 Ojoe

Yesterday on the radio Glen Beck suggested to artists that they cut off their ears.

After listening to Beck on the radio for a while, I could see them wanting to rupture their eardrums, but it’s less painful to just turn off the radio.

199 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:23:14pm

re: #183 lrsshadow

Well I think this is what has a lot of people concerned is this stretch by scientific materialists and atheist who are using the science of evolution to push an atheistic belief system upon people.

You are making this up. Where’s the stretch? Where’s the evidence of this? Where’s any evidence whatsoever that any scientist of any renown is pushing an “atheistic belief system”?

200 Randall Gross  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:23:25pm

re: #183 lrsshadow

We are well aware of the Wedge Strategy to destroy and discredit empirical science of all sorts, not just evolution here. That’s why it’s humorous to see you holding forth on an AGW thread.

201 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:23:26pm

re: #186 Gus 802

No both sides are fear mongering and making huge leaps.

202 Summer Seale  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:24:16pm

re: #183 lrsshadow

Well I think this is what has a lot of people concerned is this stretch by scientific materialists and atheist who are using the science of evolution to push an atheistic belief system upon people.

Now I know there is the argument that: “well that is not the theory of evolution” Unfortunately you have to judge based on the effect of practice. Until the practices are balanced you will continue to see a push for whole sale creationist theory to become mainstream.

I disagree completely with your assessment of Atheists in general. But even if you’re right, at least we don’t go around saying you’re going to burn in hell forever and be tortured for all eternity for not believing the way we do.

203 Randall Gross  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:24:29pm

re: #201 lrsshadow

Negative 127 karma, I don’t think you are convincing anyone here.

204 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:25:43pm

re: #191 lrsshadow

I should introduce you to three of my cousins

I’d rather not meet them, if it’s all the same to you. Have you tried to explain to them that they misinterpret Darwin’s work?

205 Bagua  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:25:50pm

re: #179 LudwigVanQuixote

Bagua, I am not interested in getting into this semantic debate with you.

The IPCC statement that you quote was deeply watered down in order to gain wider acceptance from the various entities - not all scientific - involved with it.

If you do not believe that we are definitely the source and the cause of the present warming, then refute the smoking guns listed in #105.

I repeat. We are 100% certain the primary driver of the present warming.

As a scientist I will give we are 90% certain that we are the only driver worth being taken into account. I give the last 90% because there is some evidence that solar variations are having a very small effect. However, no-one believes that they are the primary driver.

It is not “semantics” it is science, the IPCC represents the current consensus on AGW, they are extremely clear in their definitions, they do not play word games.


I repeat. 100% certain, we the faithful are the primary driver of the present trend.

I fixed your conclusion for you, it is important to distinguish between science and religion when discussing science and religion.

206 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:26:04pm

re: #202 Summer

Yah I would have to agree. I think that any body from any faith or no faith who is a good person and has not done evil will get to go to heaven.

207 Randall Gross  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:26:40pm

Why don’t you just come out and say what you want to say? We all know you want to go to Science and Darwin=Hitler, Satan, Godless Communism, evil and bad.

208 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:27:35pm

re: #188 Thanos

So are you recommending that atheists who “proselytize” be silenced? Your use of “scientific materialism” pretty much identifies you as an acolyte of ID and Discovery Institute btw.

Maybe not. He might be a Madame Blavatsky theosophic acolyte!

(google is fun)

209 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:27:45pm

re: #204 SanFranciscoZionist

Not to much, I don’t want to get into a big argument over the issue. One of them does like to engage in good debate though which is nice.

210 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:29:27pm

re: #202 Summer

I disagree completely with your assessment of Atheists in general. But even if you’re right, at least we don’t go around saying you’re going to burn in hell forever and be tortured for all eternity for not believing the way we do.

No, but too many atheists just go around calling believers morons and idiots.

211 Gus  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:30:32pm

re: #201 lrsshadow

No both sides are fear mongering and making huge leaps.

Let’s see. You’re argument is that atheists use Darwinism to attempt to prove that God does not exist. Darwinism, being a science of sorts, is therefore a religion because of your assumption that it is linked to atheism.

Thus you conclude that science is sometimes like a religion. Therefore, AGW, being a product of science is similarly a religion and subject to scrutiny and skepticism that religions deserve. The latter of which contradicts your contempt for atheism since you’re criticizing AGW and science in general based on your presumed observation that “science is sometimes a religion.” So you go back to square one.

Looks like circular logic to me.

212 Bagua  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:31:18pm

re: #195 LudwigVanQuixote

And note Ludwig, that you do not accept the IPCC scientific consensus.

Inhofe does not accept the IPCC scientific consensus.

I accept the IPCC scientific consensus.

QED my correction is science based, your assertion and Inohofe’s assertion is faith based.

213 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:32:21pm

re: #206 lrsshadow

Yah I would have to agree. I think that any body from any faith or no faith who is a good person and has not done evil will get to go to heaven.

What recognized religion(s) give(s) that?

214 Soundboard Fez  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:32:33pm

re: #188 Thanos

So are you recommending that atheists who “proselytize” be silenced? Your use of “scientific materialism” pretty much identifies you as an acolyte of ID and Discovery Institute btw.

Actually, I think he’s recommending that scientists be silenced, because strawman atheists use science to proselytize. Or something.

215 really grumpy big dog johnson  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:32:48pm

re: #48 ryannon

I take back what I said above.

Stuff like this gives me hope.

Yes, absolutely irrefutable evidence that we should make more plastics (out of oil) so that we can make more oil.

BTW, ask your briliant scientists some day about what percentage of global warming is caused by man compared to the amount caused by natural processes.

I’ve never been able to get a sane answer on that. For some reason, it seems reasonable to me to ask…

216 Gus  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:34:02pm

re: #214 Soundboard Fez

Actually, I think he’s recommending that scientists be silenced, because strawman atheists use science to proselytize. Or something.

AGW, it’s an Atheist conspiracy!

//

217 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:34:14pm

re: #210 Spare O’Lake

No, but too many atheists just go around calling believers morons and idiots.

And collect katanas, wear snap-brim fedoras, read dogeared copies of The Fountainhead and work in IT. :D

Seriously, no belief system has a monopoly on douchebaggery. The flavor of douchebaggery is different, but it’s usually present. Less so with Deists, which I am. We just barely have an opinion, maaan. “God exists. Other than that…hell if I know. Pass me that Xbox controller.”

218 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:35:31pm

re: #212 Bagua

And note Ludwig, that you do not accept the IPCC scientific consensus.

Inhofe does not accept the IPCC scientific consensus.

I accept the IPCC scientific consensus.

QED my correction is science based, your assertion and Inohofe’s assertion is faith based.

You are not reading, and you are getting insulting.

The IPCC is not just a scientific entity. A number of political concerns about the language of the report - not the science presented - but rather in terms of the language used to describe the certainties. Actually most climate scientists were pissed off at the politics even there.

Why not look this up. I challenge you to do some research on what the actual consensus is before you open your mouth and insult people.

In the mean time, refute what is in 105. If you can not, then we are dealing with the certainty that we are the primary driver.

219 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:36:07pm

re: #188 Thanos

Ok for this post and others. I am not part of the Discovery Institute and I do think they are just as bad as those on the other side who would incorrectly use science in the same manner to push an agenda.

Everyone is entitled to their own belief. It is my observation that religion or belief is formed by someone pushing fact into a broader opinion. One simple example is the push in the past that the universe was never formed in one single event. This lead to all kinds of marginalizing of scientist who came up with a different conclusion.

It is that effect that is the problem and I think both science and faith would be best served by Faith sticking to faith issues and science should stick to hard fact and well supported theory. It is when theories are accepted as fact without solid empirical evidence, that science suffers and so does the progress of man.

220 Sharmuta  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:37:51pm

re: #219 lrsshadow

It is when theories are accepted as fact without solid empirical evidence, that science suffers and so does the progress of man.

Can you name one of these theory that are “are accepted as fact without solid empirical evidence”?

221 Cineaste  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:41:50pm

re: #129 lrsshadow

No I just don’t believe that all scientific conclusions are correct and science has been wrong in the past. If you want to believe that all life is just a random series of lucky events that happened in the universe go ahead. That would be a belief.

Now if you want to talk about evolution that is a different story. There is plenty of evidence that life does “evolve” but to take that nugget of information and stretch it to explain everything about how life began that is where science becomes a religion.

So what scientific principles do you believe? I mean, I believe in gravity. I have seen that if I drop a ball out my window it falls. If I throw my TV out the window it falls. I feel pretty confident that if I toss my cat out the window, she’ll fall too… Is that religion because I extrapolated from one set of evidence to predict another?

222 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:43:45pm

re: #205 Bagua

I fixed your conclusion for you, it is important to distinguish between science and religion when discussing science and religion.

OK now you are back to being a jerk.

Bagua, I would prefer not to have to fight with you, but you really just can’t help yourself.

This is not a matter of faith.

The science is clear that we are the primary driver. It is 100% clear.

Insulting me or the science by calling it faith is uncalled for and false.

You are not in the community. I am. I tell you what the consensus is, not the other way around. But you don’t need to take my word for it, you could actually start reading the papers before opening your mouth.

You are not a physicist. I am. You do not need to just take the explanations I give at face value. You could actually think them trhough. I have listed three smoking guns. Refute them or shut up.

Most importantly, you do not read the actual papers and look at the actual data. I do. Again, if you did actually know what you were talking about, rather than arrogantly claiming false things without a clue, you would know that there are smoking guns without me having to tell you.

So again. If you do not refute the facts in 105, you must conclude, that we are the driver.

If we were not, why is the atmosphere heating from the bottom up? Why is this happening where all the CO2 we dump tends to hang out?

If it were caused by solar variations, why has there been no marked solar variation sufficient to account for any but the smallest fraction of the changes we see (and even that is under strong debate)?

Do you think that the all the CO2 is doing nothing?

Why are we warming when as far as orbital variations are concerned, we should be cooling?

There has not been a significant increase in volcanic activity to account for the increased CO2 and more over, if it were, there would be sharp jumps in the Keeling curves. We do not see that.

So Bagua, what is left in your “expert” opinion that is not us?

223 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:44:06pm

re: #220 Sharmuta

Can you name one of these theory that are “are accepted as fact without solid empirical evidence”?

In the past, it happened may times.
1. The earth is flat.
2. The earth is the centre of the solar system.
3. Masturbation causes hairy palms.

224 Bagua  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:44:32pm

re: #218 LudwigVanQuixote

You are not reading, and you are getting insulting.

Wrong, I am not “getting insulting” I am disputing your assertion with logic and references. To be clear, I am respectfully taking issue with one of your arguments.

Note that Inohofe also got upset when he heard contrary opinions, read the article that was posted, it makes Inohofe look weak and emotional and faith based in the rejection of science, you should avoid following his lead in this.

My criticism stands, your reply is to cast further aspersions on the IPCC report, thus you confirm my assertion that you reject the IPCC scientific consensuses whereas I agree with it.

225 abolitionist  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:44:37pm

re: #221 Cineaste

If you throw a helium filled balloon out your window, I predict that it won’t fall.
/heretic

226 DaddyG  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:44:49pm

Its in the evidence maaan! Let’s face it some serious crap went down in the known universe about 14 billion years ago and we’ve been moving ever since. How exactly that correlates with an English translation of a Greek translation of a history rich with symbolism written by a Jew a very long time ago - I can’t say. But I have my own ideas and neither of them involve pitting God against science.

227 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:46:00pm

re: #220 Sharmuta

Lobotomies by the Psychiatric community in the 40’s 50’s 60’s and 70’s.

Blood letting in the 1800’s by “doctors”

Population growth will cause mass starvation by the year 2000

Global Warming is going to destroy life on earth and man is at fault and man is the only one who can fix it

The first three above have been proven by science to now be incorrect. I wonder what the last one will look like in 10-20 years.

228 Cineaste  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:46:19pm

re: #223 Spare O’Lake

In the past, it happened may times.
1. The earth is flat.
2. The earth is the centre of the solar system.
3. Masturbation causes hairy palms.

To be precise the first two were suppositions and hypotheses that were untested. Nobody ever presented solid empirical evidence of either the earth being flat (ie: noone ever sailed off the edge) or that the solar system revolved around the Earth (people built dioramas of what they thought the system looked like but there was no evidence behind it).

229 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:46:24pm

re: #213 Spare O’Lake

What recognized religion(s) give(s) that?

What does that mean?

230 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:46:54pm

re: #224 Bagua

Bagua respond to 105 and 222. It is a fact and a certainty that we are the primary driver. The evidence is in and you are wrong.

Quoting your misunderstandings about what IPCC is and is not is getting old. It is like talking to a tape recorder with you.

And yes calling the facts I bring faith is a deep insult. Continuing on this tact is an insult. So please, stop the foolishness, learn the science and until you do, shut up.

231 Sharmuta  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:47:17pm

re: #227 lrsshadow

I think you don’t understand what “theory” means in science.

232 Cineaste  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:47:19pm

re: #225 abolitionist

If you throw a helium filled balloon out your window, I predict that it won’t fall.
/heretic

You believe in witchcraft or some other dark art!

233 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:47:42pm

re: #221 Cineaste

So what scientific principles do you believe? I mean, I believe in gravity. I have seen that if I drop a ball out my window it falls. If I throw my TV out the window it falls. I feel pretty confident that if I toss my cat out the window, she’ll fall too… Is that religion because I extrapolated from one set of evidence to predict another?

No, but if you took the evidence that all these things are attracted to the earth, therefore being air doesn’t fall it must not have mass. This would be incorrect but was a scientific belief in the past.

234 DaddyG  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:48:19pm

re: #227 lrsshadow You aren’t seriously going to discount 21st century physics and climatology because of errors in 19th century medicine and 20th century psychiatry?

235 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:49:11pm

re: #223 Spare O’Lake

In the past, it happened may times.
1. The earth is flat.
2. The earth is the centre of the solar system.
3. Masturbation causes hairy palms.

Yeah, but isn’t there a difference between “real” theories using the scientific method, and theories that the scary dudes in the red robes are peddling?

236 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:49:19pm

re: #231 Sharmuta

I do, does the rest of the people? It would seem that science is plagued with Theory morphing into belief and fact. Which later is proven wrong.

237 Soundboard Fez  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:49:54pm

re: #233 lrsshadow

No, but if you took the evidence that all these things are attracted to the earth, therefore being air doesn’t fall it must not have mass. This would be incorrect but was a scientific belief in the past.

Jesus has an army of invisible angels to pull things to the ground.

/

238 DaddyG  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:49:56pm

re: #213 Spare O’Lake

What recognized religion(s) give(s) that?

Universal Unitarianism comes close IIRC

239 Bagua  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:50:26pm

re: #222 LudwigVanQuixote

OK now you are back to being a jerk.

Bagua, I would prefer not to have to fight with you, but you really just can’t help yourself.

Wrong, as I explained, I am disputing one of your assertions which is counter to the scientific consensus. If you can not defend your position without becoming emotional and getting into personal attacks then that is your problem not mine. It rather gives support to my assertion that you are basing your “certainty” on beliefs, not science.

It is well known that people get upset when their beliefs are challenged. Science and reason do not mix well with emotions and beliefs.

My view on this is the consensus view, it could be wrong, but it is based upon current science.

240 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:51:41pm

re: #234 DaddyG

You aren’t seriously going to discount 21st century physics and climatology because of errors in 19th century medicine and 20th century psychiatry?

Your not seriously going to believe that global warming is caused by people and will end life on the earth given that the human race is still very bad at predicting weather only a week in advance? Let alone trying to predict weather on a global scale for the next 100 years.

241 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:51:47pm

re: #236 lrsshadow

I do, does the rest of the people? It would seem that science is plagued with Theory morphing into belief and fact. Which later is proven wrong.

You do understand theories can also be facts, right? There is the fact of evolution, the observable. And then there’s the theory, which is the scientific explanation.

242 Cineaste  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:52:30pm

re: #227 lrsshadow

Lobotomies by the Psychiatric community in the 40’s 50’s 60’s and 70’s.

Blood letting in the 1800’s by “doctors”

Population growth will cause mass starvation by the year 2000

Global Warming is going to destroy life on earth and man is at fault and man is the only one who can fix it

The first three above have been proven by science to now be incorrect. I wonder what the last one will look like in 10-20 years.

Let’s run through our options:

1) AGW doesn’t exist and we do nothing - no cost, no harm - win
2) AGW doesn’t exist and we do something - some cost, no harm - neutral
3) AGW does exist and we do something - some cost, less harm - win
4) AGW does exist and we do nothing - no cost, huge harm - big loss

There’s only one scenario which has enormous risk for us as a civilization and we can avoid it - why shouldn’t we be cautious? You give your kids the polio vaccine and yet the likelihood they would ever contract it in the modern world is nearly zero but you do it out of an abundance of caution.

243 DaddyG  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:52:58pm

re: #233 lrsshadow

No, but if you took the evidence that all these things are attracted to the earth, therefore being air doesn’t fall it must not have mass. This would be incorrect but was a scientific belief in the past.


This doesn’t mean that current climatology is in error. Can you address the errors in the current climatological science that lead you to believe that man is not effecting global temperatures and climate?

Full disclosure I am a man of very strong faith in God, a sceptic and I feel that AGW is being used by watermelons (Green on the outside red on the inside) as political fodder. But I can’t discount the evidence that we are doing things that have an impact onthe environment that we can prevent. To what degree I don’t know?

244 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:53:01pm

re: #227 lrsshadow

Lobotomies by the Psychiatric community in the 40’s 50’s 60’s and 70’s.

Blood letting in the 1800’s by “doctors”

Population growth will cause mass starvation by the year 2000

Global Warming is going to destroy life on earth and man is at fault and man is the only one who can fix it

The first three above have been proven by science to now be incorrect. I wonder what the last one will look like in 10-20 years.

Scientists have come to incorrect conclusions in the past. At the same time, their work has created amazing advances that allow you and I to live in a kind of health and luxury unachievable at any other time in history.

Bloodletting is a pre-scientific practice, btw, and scientific advances may well have averted the predicted starvations. Please look up “Norman Borlaug” and “dwarf wheat”.

245 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:54:20pm

re: #240 lrsshadow

Your not seriously going to believe that global warming is caused by people and will end life on the earth given that the human race is still very bad at predicting weather only a week in advance? Let alone trying to predict weather on a global scale for the next 100 years.

Just because you don’t understand the science doesn’t mean the science is arbitrary.

246 DaddyG  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:55:25pm

re: #240 lrsshadow

Your not seriously going to believe that global warming is caused by people and will end life on the earth given that the human race is still very bad at predicting weather only a week in advance? Let alone trying to predict weather on a global scale for the next 100 years.


No. I never said that and you are arguing absurd extremes. I do think we would be better off reducing dependence on foreign oil and investing in current nuclear technologies to try to alleviate the negative effects of burning carbon based fuels. I am not a go back to the caves kind of guy however.

A word to the wise you may want to stick around and read some more, get to know the Lizards and their viewpoints before engaging in any more reductio ad absurdum with them.

247 recusancy  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:56:03pm

re: #240 lrsshadow

Do you agree that there is such thing as a Greenhouse Effect? Do you believe that the gases in our atmosphere have an effect on temperatures and therefore climate? This is testable so you can’t claim that it’s extrapolating some small evidence into something larger.

248 Bagua  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:56:23pm

re: #230 LudwigVanQuixote

Bagua respond to 105 and 222. It is a fact and a certainty that we are the primary driver. The evidence is in and you are wrong.

Quoting your misunderstandings about what IPCC is and is not is getting old. It is like talking to a tape recorder with you.

And yes calling the facts I bring faith is a deep insult. Continuing on this tact is an insult. So please, stop the foolishness, learn the science and until you do, shut up.

Again, “deep insult” “foolishness” “shut up” are all emotional responses. I will not engage on this level, they suggest you are arguing from beliefs, not reason.

My allegation is that you are misunderstanding the IPCC and disputing it, you have said so clearly above.

This is my point, you are incorrect in stating 100% certainty, simple and clear. To go off on 7 different directions from there is to debate with the StrawBagua, not I.

My point stands, and it does represent the scientific consensus. You may disagree with the scientific consensus, and may also be correct, that is your position, not mine.

249 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:56:25pm

re: #229 SanFranciscoZionist

Believers believe heaven is for believers.
I was asking for examples of religions which teach that non-believers go to heaven just for acting nice.

250 Cineaste  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:56:29pm

re: #244 SanFranciscoZionist

Please look up “Norman Borlaug” and “dwarf wheat”.

Absolutely! That changed everything when it comes to the sustainable level of population on the globe.

251 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:56:41pm

re: #227 lrsshadow

So in the past, people believed some crazy stuff, and now that means you deny established mainstream science. Comparing AGW to BLOODLETTING. Reeeally.

You may as well not board a modern jetliner because there was a time in the past where airplanes were dangerous and experimental and made of canvas.

252 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:56:56pm

re: #239 Bagua

Wrong, as I explained, I am disputing one of your assertions which is counter to the scientific consensus. If you can not defend your position without becoming emotional and getting into personal attacks then that is your problem not mine. It rather gives support to my assertion that you are basing your “certainty” on beliefs, not science.

It is well known that people get upset when their beliefs are challenged. Science and reason do not mix well with emotions and beliefs.

My view on this is the consensus view, it could be wrong, but it is based upon current science.


So in your “logical” and “scientific” analysis, could you refute the evidence that makes us 100% certain?

Right, you are just being obnoxious. Please stop the arrogant word games. You are simply stubbornly refusing to admit you are wrong. It is 100% certain that we are the driver. I repeat 100% certain. Until you do look at the science, and you see, that the evidence really is in that we are the primary driver, with 100% certainty, you are simply making unsubstantiated pontifications that are not worth teh time to further respond to.


Refute the following:

If we were not, why is the atmosphere heating from the bottom up? Why is this happening where all the CO2 we dump tends to hang out?

If it were caused by solar variations, why has there been no marked solar variation sufficient to account for any but the smallest fraction of the changes we see (and even that is under strong debate)?

Do you think that the all the CO2 is doing nothing?

Why are we warming when as far as orbital variations are concerned, we should be cooling?

There has not been a significant increase in volcanic activity to account for the increased CO2 and more over, if it were, there would be sharp jumps in the Keeling curves. We do not see that.

So Bagua, what is left in your “expert” opinion that is not us? If you can not refute that, you must conclude that we are the driver.

253 DaddyG  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:57:05pm

re: #237 Soundboard Fez

Jesus has an army of invisible angels to pull things to the ground.

/


IIRC the Savior is more of a people person than a thing person.

254 Cineaste  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 12:59:25pm

re: #249 Spare O’Lake

Believers believe heaven is for believers.
I was asking for examples of religions which teach that non-believers go to heaven just for acting nice.

Judaism has no mandate that non-Jews become Jews or believe in the same belief structure to be in God’s grace. Judaism allows that all people can go to heaven, just that the Jews have a specific relationship to God that is different (*note, people often misconstrue Jewish theology to mean that being “chosen” is a preferred status in God’s eyes, that is not the case, just a specific set of responsibilities.)

255 Silvergirl  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:00:38pm

re: #251 WindUpBird

OT, but wondering if you’ve read The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle.

256 Decatur Deb  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:00:58pm

re: #249 Spare O’Lake

Believers believe heaven is for believers.
I was asking for examples of religions which teach that non-believers go to heaven just for acting nice.

Catholic theology admits that possibility, but sets the bar very high.
Medieval art includes images of Saint Plato and Saint Aristotle. There
is a church in Venice named “San Moise”. (Holy Moses!!!)

257 Randall Gross  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:01:08pm

re: #219 lrsshadow

Yet you repeat their agitprop and verbiage in your posts almost word for word. Since Discovery Institute has a long history of lieing, you make it hard for me to take you at your word.

258 DaddyG  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:01:20pm

re: #249 Spare O’Lake

Believers believe heaven is for believers.
I was asking for examples of religions which teach that non-believers go to heaven just for acting nice.


We Mormons believe that all people are judged according to their own laws, but that it will be necessary for all to eventually accept the whole truth and live accordingly. It’s hard to explain but there are gradations of Heaven in our cosmology and good people who aren’t “believers” still receive a good reward, just not the highest reward unless they gain a greater faith. The outer darkness stuff is reserved for those who knowingly reject the truth that is revealed to them.

I think the unitarians are a come one come all kind of group, but I can’t really speak for them (not having been one).

259 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:03:28pm

re: #249 Spare O’Lake

Believers believe heaven is for believers.
I was asking for examples of religions which teach that non-believers go to heaven just for acting nice.

Cineaste has already addressed this, but Judaism is one. And the Catholic Church is open to the idea.

260 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:03:54pm

re: #219 lrsshadow

OK great so you are not part of the Disco Institute. How about we talk the actual science?

You have yet to respond to the evidence that we are the cause of the warming.

I would like you to please address this.

Refute the following:

If we were not, why is the atmosphere heating from the bottom up? Why is this happening where all the CO2 we dump tends to hang out?

If it were caused by solar variations, why has there been no marked solar variation sufficient to account for any but the smallest fraction of the changes we see (and even that is under strong debate)?

Do you think that the all the CO2 is doing nothing?

Why are we warming when as far as orbital variations are concerned, we should be cooling?

There has not been a significant increase in volcanic activity to account for the increased CO2 and more over, if it were, there would be sharp jumps in the Keeling curves. We do not see that.

261 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:04:28pm

re: #242 Cineaste

You not correct how about the current condition of enacting global warming initiatives;

Global warming is believed to be a fact, we will set up another government, sideline all kinds of industry, spend more money on global warming efforts in a year than all other efforts to protect the environment combined for the entire history of mankind. Set up a regulatory body to trade carbon credits larger than any market ever created by mankind.

Then it turns out we actually have global cooling due to the effects of the sun or the temperature doesn’t change. The regulatory body will implode cause a financial collapse world wide beyound anything previously experianced and with no money to do anything and an environment completely neglected due to the focus on global warming what will we do then?

If you want to be intellectually honest don’t say that global warming efforts are like having people separate their trash for recycling. The global warming effort will dwarf the cost of any effort mankind has ever undergone. It will cost dearly in resources, lives, and the environment.

262 Bagua  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:04:37pm

re: #252 LudwigVanQuixote

So in your “logical” and “scientific” analysis, could you refute the evidence that makes us 100% certain?

Right, you are just being obnoxious. Please stop the arrogant word games. You are simply stubbornly refusing to admit you are wrong. It is 100% certain that we are the driver. I repeat 100% certain. Until you do look at the science, and you see, that the evidence really is in that we are the primary driver, with 100% certainty, you are simply making unsubstantiated pontifications that are not worth teh time to further respond to.
[…]
.

Again Ludwig, repeat your assertion over and over again, that does not make it correct. I understand you assert 100% certainty, whereas I accept the IPCC scientific consensus which does not state 100% certainty.

If you consider the scientific consensus to be “unsubstantiated pontifications” then you are on weak legs. I cite the IPCC as my substantiations, I rest my case.

I deleted […] all your straw man arguments and calls to authority as they are irrelevant to the very clear and well sourced point I am making.

263 Gus  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:04:46pm

re: #227 lrsshadow

Lobotomies by the Psychiatric community in the 40’s 50’s 60’s and 70’s.

Blood letting in the 1800’s by “doctors”

Population growth will cause mass starvation by the year 2000

Global Warming is going to destroy life on earth and man is at fault and man is the only one who can fix it

The first three above have been proven by science to now be incorrect. I wonder what the last one will look like in 10-20 years.

So you take two discarded archaic medical practices, add one 1970s style ecological theory, lump them in with AGW and you have come to the conclusion that AGW is equal in it’s invalidity and furthermore invalid? This not taking into account the AGW science fomr NOAA or NASA?

264 Bagua  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:07:46pm

re: #260 LudwigVanQuixote

I have a dinger also Ludwig, my points are rational, pertinent, and reason based. We are discussing the topic, this does not warrant your down dinging or emotional response. I had hoped we had moved beyond that.

265 recusancy  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:08:55pm

re: #261 lrsshadow

Wow… And you’re complaining about OTHER people making assumptions with no empirical evidence?

266 Randall Gross  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:10:01pm

re: #227 lrsshadow

Population growth will cause mass starvation by the year 2000

That was a correct prediction as evidenced by the fact that people were already starving when it was made. Planning and Science prevented that from coming true. Norman Borlaug created the Green Revolution through genetically modifed crops, and safe birth control methods were provided world wide.

267 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:10:10pm

re: #262 Bagua

And you pointedly avoided all the science that makes us 100% certain. PLease strop whining and changing the issue. Either we are certain of this or we are not. I have told you why we are certain. NOw you can try to adress this, or you can continue with the politically motivated preamble to IPCC that many scientists were infuriated with. Again. IPCC has some very good science in it, but it was softened in terms of its language for political reasons.

Also, as far as the science in IPCC is concerned, it does not represent consensus on a number of points. It is well known that it did not take the Siberian bog or non-linear ice melts into account. It is the consensus of the community that IPCC was low ball. This has been covered here many times.

Just repeating that IPCC is the consensus with know understanding of what the consensus is, particularly when I am explaining all the actual science to you again and again, is frankly stupid Bagua. How about you check your ego at the door and look up the science?

Why not go look that up, do some actual research and stop talking out of your bottom?

And in the mean time, you can address the science.

If you don’t cer to, the only one making a faith based argument is you. But of course you are too arrogant to see that.

268 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:12:28pm

PIMF

re: #267 LudwigVanQuixote

And you pointedly avoided all the science that makes us 100% certain. Please strop whining and changing the issue. Either we are certain of this or we are not. I have told you why we are certain. Now you can try to adress this, the actual science, or you can continue with the politically motivated preamble to IPCC that many scientists were infuriated with. Again. IPCC has some very good science in it, but it was softened in terms of its language for political reasons.

Also, as far as the science in IPCC is concerned, it does not represent consensus on a number of points. It is well known that it did not take the Siberian bog or non-linear ice melts into account. It is the consensus of the community that IPCC was low ball. This has been covered here many times.

Just repeating that IPCC is the consensus without knowing what the consensus actually is and no understanding of what the consensus is, particularly when I am explaining all the actual science to you again and again, is frankly stupid Bagua. How about you check your ego at the door and look up the science?

Why not go look that up, do some actual research and stop talking out of your bottom?

And in the mean time, you can address the science.

If you don’t cer to, the only one making a faith based argument is you. But of course you are too arrogant to see that.

269 Bagua  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:12:34pm

re: #252 LudwigVanQuixote

[…]

Refute the following:

[…]

Do you think that the all the CO2 is doing nothing?
[…]

I just highlight one of your arguments to StrawBagua as example:

Answer, I most certainly never said “that all the CO2 is doing nothing.” In fact, the IPCC scientific consensus is quite clear in giving a >90% likelihood that the CO2 is a primary driver of the warming.

Why persist is making straw man arguments? I never alleged any of the things you list nor does the IPCC.

270 Randall Gross  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:12:37pm

re: #261 lrsshadow

I knew you would get to the apocalyptic nihilism round eventually.

271 Cineaste  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:13:10pm

re: #258 DaddyG

We Mormons believe that all people are judged according to their own laws, but that it will be necessary for all to eventually accept the whole truth and live accordingly. It’s hard to explain but there are gradations of Heaven in our cosmology and good people who aren’t “believers” still receive a good reward, just not the highest reward unless they gain a greater faith. The outer darkness stuff is reserved for those who knowingly reject the truth that is revealed to them.

I think the unitarians are a come one come all kind of group, but I can’t really speak for them (not having been one).

So what’s with Mormons posthumously converting & baptising Jews?

272 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:14:21pm

re: #269 Bagua

Blah blah blah… try taking the arguments together. Your style of denbate lacks substance.

It is not a straw argument in science to bring the actual science Bagua. I am sorry it hurts your pride to be wrong.

273 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:15:57pm

re: #269 Bagua

In any case I’m done with you until you talk actual science. You do not know what the consensus is, you do not speak for the consensus.

Repeating yourself over and over does not make your misconceptions less false.

This is a boring and stupid waste of time until you can look at the facts.

274 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:17:18pm

re: #247 recusancy

Yes I do believe that the overwhelming evidence does show that CO2 can act as a GHG. I think my main point is we have a lot of things that are showing the possibility of some impact by man kind on global climate. Where I differ is the belief that there is a catastrophe on the horizon unless we fix this. I also differ with the narcissistic belief that man can control nature.

I think we should take steps to improve our environment. However the current push of global warming remediation initiatives are so over the top with minimal to no impact on the perceived problem that it looks like complete hysteria.

We currently have serious environmental problems that have been proven to cause major negative impact on life on earth for which we have been able to remedy with great success when we take action.

PCB cleanup, Arsenic Cleanup, Clean water, Storm water remediation, wetland rehabilitation, forest rehabilitation, and many others. It has been proven that if we don’t do something about these conditions soon it will negatively effect life on earth. Some even speculate it could end life for higher forms of life particularly PCB contamination’s generational mutation of sexual organs in high mammalian life forms.

275 Bagua  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:17:24pm

re: #267 LudwigVanQuixote

And you pointedly avoided all the science that makes us 100% certain. PLease strop whining and changing the issue. Either we are certain of this or we are not. I have told you why we are certain. NOw you can try to adress this, or you can continue with the politically motivated preamble to IPCC that many scientists were infuriated with. Again. IPCC has some very good science in it, but it was softened in terms of its language for political reasons.

Also, as far as the science in IPCC is concerned, it does not represent consensus on a number of points. It is well known that it did not take the Siberian bog or non-linear ice melts into account. It is the consensus of the community that IPCC was low ball. This has been covered here many times.

Just repeating that IPCC is the consensus with know understanding of what the consensus is, particularly when I am explaining all the actual science to you again and again, is frankly stupid Bagua. How about you check your ego at the door and look up the science?

Why not go look that up, do some actual research and stop talking out of your bottom?

And in the mean time, you can address the science.

If you don’t cer to, the only one making a faith based argument is you. But of course you are too arrogant to see that.

Ludwig, I have highlighted the emotional content, again, this suggests your beliefs are being challenged. Please avoid this as we know this leads to argument through insult, instead of reason.

You are in a group that is “furious” with the IPCC scientific consensus.

I am in the group that accepts the IPCC scientific consensus.

More words mean less.

276 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:18:12pm

re: #261 lrsshadow

Yes yes blah blah blah…

Actually, Global Warming is observed to be happening.

Now would you care to address any of the actual science or are you just going to continue spewing the same political slogans.

There are several smoking guns that lead us to know that we are the cause of the current warming trend. I have listed them several times. Would you care to address them. Simply ignoring science does not make it go away.

277 b_sharp  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:18:22pm

re: #17 Cannadian Club Akbar

I have to question electric cars. Aren’t they charged with electricity from coal fired plants?

It may be time to open up a number of gerbil farms.

278 Bagua  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:22:25pm

re: #272 LudwigVanQuixote

Blah blah blah… try taking the arguments together. Your style of denbate lacks substance.

It is not a straw argument in science to bring the actual science Bagua. I am sorry it hurts your pride to be wrong.

It is not science to make straw man arguments such as suggesting that I am saying the CO2 does nothing. Not engaging your straw man arguments is not a logical fallacy, rather it is reason.

My “pride” is not hurt Ludwig and I’m not at all offended or upset, that’s your department. :)

This exchange further proves that your orthodoxy on your own personal AGW theory can not tolerate any dissent, even when that dissent represent the true scientific consensus.

It is a reasonable conclusion that you are arguing from faith and beliefs, not science. This is not an insult, rather it is an observation. Scientists are human as well.

279 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:22:47pm

re: #263 Gus 802

Lobotomies: “Moniz advised extreme caution in using lobotomy, and felt it should only be used in cases where everything else had been tried. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work on lobotomy in 1949. He retired early after a former patient paralyzed him by shooting him in the back. ” Well he got the Nobel Prize for it, does that make it correct then?

Now we look back at these practices and say how stupid that was. Because we now know much more then we did before. I wonder how Global Warming is going to play out in 10-20 years when we know more about climate, the sun, atmospherics, etc.

280 b_sharp  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:24:14pm

re: #30 StillAMarine

Do not forget that the United States gets most of its foreign oil from Canada (think Alberta). I see no reason why the United States should buy oil from nations that hate us (read Saudi Arabia) when we could increase imports from Canada.

Before you do, can you wait until the price goes up (or do something to force it up)? We loves our ‘Merican money.

281 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:25:48pm

re: #275 Bagua

And yet you refuse to look at any of the reasons or the science there. You continue with your false claims about what the concensus is, and you falsely put yourself into the group of scientists who actually know enough to have an opinion. Your arrogance knows no bounds.

Again, I have clearly laid out why IPCC was low ball and I have discussed the political language that was inserted over the objections of the scientific community.

I have clearly laid out why the community, which you are not a part of, and you do not speak for, is certain why we are the primary driver. You do not adress that. That is the actual science.

For someone who thinks they know science, you talk a lot about everything but the science Bagua. Yes, that is insulting. In fact it makes you into an arrogant fool.

It is also late 2009 and not 2007 BTW, that consensus has gotten even more firm in the past two years, but again, you do not know that.

So once again, on to the science, the only thing that matters,
There are numerous smoking guns that it is us, and further other causes have been ruled out. This is fact. The analysis has been done. I wasted time explaining it to you and you refuse to even look at the science.

You have yet to refute any of that, but you simply repeat yourself.

Bagua, you do not know what you are talking about. It is embarrassing. I am tired of it. I don’t care about how you classify anything. You claim we are not 100% certain the man is the primary driver. I have told you why we are. So look at the science or shut up. It only makes you an ass.

282 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:26:28pm

re: #276 LudwigVanQuixote

That’s not the point, see original post that I was replying to.

The point is that Global Warming Initiatives are not some simple easy effort like making toast. It will cost us more than anything else we have done on this earth. It shouldn’t be sold as an inexpensive effort. That would be false.

283 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:26:40pm

re: #264 Bagua

I have a dinger also Ludwig, my points are rational, pertinent, and reason based. We are discussing the topic, this does not warrant your down dinging or emotional response. I had hoped we had moved beyond that.

If you both have dingers to ding each other with, does that make you homodinguals?

284 b_sharp  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:27:27pm

re: #32 Truth Stick

If I lived in Oklahoma, I would think that the earth was flat too. There’s only a handful of places that you can watch your dog run away for 3 days.

I live in south central S’katchewan. If I look out my second floor window with a pair of binocs, I can still see my damn dog heading East even after two years. (He seems to stop and check his p-mail quite often).

285 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:29:03pm

re: #278 Bagua

And yet we are in the business of making accurate predictions. Not everything is as mushy headed as you think it is. How about you stop making speeches without scientific substance and look at the actual facts?

Care to go there for once?

I don’t even know why I am bothering with you. You are too arrogant to look at the facts and too prideful to admit you are wrong. You complian that I am orthodox and all sorts of other insulting things when I have given you the scientific reasons for why you are wrong.

Done.

There is no getting through to you. It is like that with all blowhards who think they know things that in reality they do not.

286 recusancy  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:29:13pm

re: #274 lrsshadow

Yes I do believe that the overwhelming evidence does show that CO2 can act as a GHG. I think my main point is we have a lot of things that are showing the possibility of some impact by man kind on global climate. Where I differ is the belief that there is a catastrophe on the horizon unless we fix this. I also differ with the narcissistic belief that man can control nature.

I think we should take steps to improve our environment. However the current push of global warming remediation initiatives are so over the top with minimal to no impact on the perceived problem that it looks like complete hysteria.

We currently have serious environmental problems that have been proven to cause major negative impact on life on earth for which we have been able to remedy with great success when we take action.

PCB cleanup, Arsenic Cleanup, Clean water, Storm water remediation, wetland rehabilitation, forest rehabilitation, and many others. It has been proven that if we don’t do something about these conditions soon it will negatively effect life on earth. Some even speculate it could end life for higher forms of life particularly PCB contamination’s generational mutation of sexual organs in high mammalian life forms.

So you agree with the science behind global warming and that it is real. Good. Then I would assume that you agree that we are putting carbon into the atmosphere at unprecedented rates so therefore we would be the primary cause.

You just don’t believe that the earth warming will have any negative catastrophic effect on humans? So every time in the earth’s past, when climate abruptly changed, life moved on as usual? No cataclysmic extinctions or anything??

287 DaddyG  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:30:56pm

re: #271 Cineaste

So what’s with Mormons posthumously converting & baptising Jews?

We provide proxy ordinances for our ancestors who we believe will have the choice to accept them or not. Some of our members got carried away and did ordinances for those not of their lineage - that was wrong and we removed those names from our records. We are instructed not to do that without permission from living relatives.

There are those who claim we are doing it on the sly becaue this pops up every now and then, but errors are more a function of sloppy record keeping and overzealous individuals not following our Church rules. If errors are found they are corrected.

288 Cineaste  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:31:54pm

re: #279 lrsshadow

Lobotomies: “Moniz advised extreme caution in using lobotomy, and felt it should only be used in cases where everything else had been tried. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work on lobotomy in 1949. He retired early after a former patient paralyzed him by shooting him in the back. ” Well he got the Nobel Prize for it, does that make it correct then?

Now we look back at these practices and say how stupid that was. Because we now know much more then we did before. I wonder how Global Warming is going to play out in 10-20 years when we know more about climate, the sun, atmospherics, etc.

To be fair - there are still certain types of epilepsy that can only be mitigated by surgical intervention in the brain. Without the foundational work done on brain surgery it would not be possible. The wonderful thing about science is that it can build on itself. Religion, sadly, doesn’t…

289 Cineaste  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:32:33pm

re: #282 lrsshadow

That’s not the point, see original post that I was replying to.

The point is that Global Warming Initiatives are not some simple easy effort like making toast. It will cost us more than anything else we have done on this earth. It shouldn’t be sold as an inexpensive effort. That would be false.

documentation?

290 DaddyG  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:33:17pm

re: #279 lrsshadow

Lobotomies: “Moniz advised extreme caution in using lobotomy, and felt it should only be used in cases where everything else had been tried. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work on lobotomy in 1949. He retired early after a former patient paralyzed him by shooting him in the back. ” Well he got the Nobel Prize for it, does that make it correct then?

Now we look back at these practices and say how stupid that was. Because we now know much more then we did before. I wonder how Global Warming is going to play out in 10-20 years when we know more about climate, the sun, atmospherics, etc.

Lobotomy is still an accepted treatement for some illneses as is the use of medical leaches for wound care. (Of course that is entirely irellevant and a complete non sequitor to climate science).

However, you may want to paint with a smaller brush.

291 b_sharp  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:33:19pm

re: #51 StillAMarine

Regarding the importation of oil …

True, definitely better to import from Canada and Mexico than from Saudi Arabia or Venezuela. Add a few nuclear power plants and we could get ALL our energy from nations that border us on the North and South.

Funny you should mention that. There is a big push (and an equal sized push-back) to build a nuke here in SK with the intent of selling excess power to the US. I think it is a hell-uv-a good idea.

292 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:35:31pm

re: #265 recusancy

see original post that I was responding to. I was only trying to point out that global warming initiatives were not negligible in cost as was being asserted in post 242 (“some cost, no harm “)

293 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:38:34pm

re: #290 DaddyG

NOAA or NASA

I was responding to an earlier post in which the poster was trying to assert because we get the data from NOAA or NASA on global climate then we should accept it as fact. My response is lobotomy doctor got the Nobel Peace Prize, was he correct?

294 Bagua  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:39:38pm

re: #285 LudwigVanQuixote

Ludwig, your denunciation of the IPCC scientific consensus because it is 2 years later is your position, not mine. You represent a small, activist, faith based group of extremists, I represent the scientific consensus.

I accept that the consensus may be wrong and I may be wrong, you angrily assert that you can only be right and the IPCC scientific consensus must be wrong.

My position is flexible and reason based, yours is inflexible and dogmatic, faith based

All of your insults and repetitions of your it is 100% certain canards do nothing to support you assertion.

295 Cineaste  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:42:32pm

re: #287 DaddyG

We provide proxy ordinances for our ancestors who we believe will have the choice to accept them or not. Some of our members got carried away and did ordinances for those not of their lineage - that was wrong and we removed those names from our records. We are instructed not to do that without permission from living relatives.

There are those who claim we are doing it on the sly becaue this pops up every now and then, but errors are more a function of sloppy record keeping and overzealous individuals not following our Church rules. If errors are found they are corrected.

I know it’s wrong but it’s persistent. Didn’t you guys accidentally baptize Obama’s dead mother?

Also, the problem is a little more persistent than you’re letting on.

296 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:42:42pm

re: #289 Cineaste

here you go enjoy; the good stuff starts around page 38;

unfccc.int

297 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:43:30pm

re: #293 lrsshadow

NOAA or NASA

I was responding to an earlier post in which the poster was trying to assert because we get the data from NOAA or NASA on global climate then we should accept it as fact. My response is lobotomy doctor got the Nobel Peace Prize, was he correct?

Oh for crying out loud.

You have claimed that we are not the cause of the present warming. I have seen you posts on the other thread as well.

I have given you all of the smoking gun evidence you would need to see that yes indeed, we know that we are the cause. You continue to obfuscate and ignore the science.

This is why you are called a denier. It is like talking to a fundie. In fact given you disparagement of Darwin you like likely are a fundie, however, I still have some hope that you can be reasoned with.

If you understand that we are causing the current warming - and we are, there is not doubt - despite the fact that some would like to claim we are only greater than 90% certain, we can move on to the consequences.

Also, not all Christians are fundies. I respect Christians, they are not closed minded idiots.

Fundies on the other hand are.

So will you look at the science and talk rationally, or is there no point in trying to give you the facts, because you will not look at them?

298 DaddyG  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:44:46pm

re: #293 lrsshadow

NOAA or NASA

I was responding to an earlier post in which the poster was trying to assert because we get the data from NOAA or NASA on global climate then we should accept it as fact. My response is lobotomy doctor got the Nobel Peace Prize, was he correct?

You are still comparing medical science (which is complex and not always predictable especially when it comes to psychiatry) of the last century with climate science (which is more readily observable) of this century. In addition the observations of one doctor (even a Nobel Prize winning doctor) are not as substancial as the consensus of many NOAA and NASA scientsists and their observations.

It doesn’t matter a bit to the price of carbon credits in China. Speaking of which while I don’t dispute man’s effect on the environment I do question the extent (I think Ludwig’s predictions are too dire) and I don’t trust the politicos to use the information repsonsibly (Al Gore).

299 MinisterO  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:45:07pm

re: #134 WindUpBird

Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact.
Gravity is a theory. Also a fact!

re: #221 Cineaste

So what scientific principles do you believe? I mean, I believe in gravity.

Why do people still believe this crap? I get so sick of the gravity alarmists preaching about stuff falling. Gravity is only a theory.

300 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:45:33pm

re: #288 Cineaste

…The wonderful thing about science is that it can build on itself. Religion, sadly, doesn’t…

Are you sure about that. You should read the Bible straight through and then the Koran straight through.

301 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:48:14pm

re: #294 Bagua

OK you are now officially being an idiot. I repeat. We know , not gues, not think, we know, that we are the primary driver because:

1. We are heating from the bottom up and not the top down.

2. The current warming is in step with CO2 emissions.

3. The current warming started with the industrial age.

4. Orbital variations, volcanic emissions and solar variation have been ruled out conclusively. In fact, we are warming in a period where the orbital variations should be cooling us and the sun has a very slightly lower output than usual.

5. We see the direct rise in concentrations of CO2 and we know we are the one’s dumping it into the atmosphere. We can calculate that this must raise temperatures because QM and thermodynamics are still true.

Now that is the science. It adds up to 100% certainty that we are the cause of the warming.

If you are the flexible and logical one, then take those points together and stop trying to front that you are being anything other than a blow hard.

302 b_sharp  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:48:39pm

re: #63 lrsshadow

Yes because science has been wrong before; Like when we were told in the late 70’s and early 80’s that human population would grow to a point where there would not be enough food to feed everyone by the year 2000. Well now we have so much food we are using it to make fuel and feed animals.

Bad choice of example.

Predictions are not prophecies. Within each scientific prediction there is alway the condition, whether implicit or explicit, that the prediction should hold if conditions remain the same. If conditions change, such as in this case where technology improved food production, the prediction does not become false. Only if you assume it was some kind of prophecy can you complain that it didn’t come true.

Some prediction’s purpose is to stimulate human action so that the predicted event does not happen.

Oh, you might want to check the numbers of famine victims over the past 40 years.

303 Cineaste  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:48:53pm

re: #296 lrsshadow

here you go enjoy; the good stuff starts around page 38;

[Link: unfccc.int…]

Those are a list of proposals but I don’t see the end of the world there. Take off the tinfoil hat, the black helicopters aren’t outside your door. Can you show me where in that document it says we will have global economic collapse that you predicted in your statement?

304 DaddyG  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:50:26pm

re: #295 Cineaste

I know it’s wrong but it’s persistent. Didn’t you guys accidentally baptize Obama’s dead mother?

Also, the problem is a little more persistent than you’re letting on.

From the link.

“The offering of baptism to our deceased ancestors is a sacred practice to us and it is counter to Church policy for a Church member to submit names for baptism for persons to whom they are not related,” said spokeswoman Kim Farah in an emailed statement. “The Church is looking into the circumstances of how this happened and does not yet have all the facts. However, this is a serious matter and we are treating it as such.”

Anyone can submit a name for ordinance work and the people working the libraries are volunteers. I’m not saying they are all moby’s or that it isn’t an institutional problem that people are submitting names they aren’t directly related too.
Some Jewish coverts are baptising those who they are descended from and that I believe is the remaining sticking point with some. We do believe that despite the ordinances being done it is something the departed can accept or reject it is not compulsary.

I agree that it is wrong to do if there is no family relationship and see how it can be quite offensive. The Church officials and the vast majority of the membership do not condone these unauthorized actions. There are efforts underway to safeguard this from happening but we are working with a vast number of people who do Geneaology.

305 recusancy  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:51:03pm

re: #294 Bagua

Are you seriously arguing this because the panel put in the word “likely”. As Ludwig said, everyone knows it was because of political lobbying by the countries involved.

306 Cineaste  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:51:26pm

re: #300 lrsshadow

Are you sure about that. You should read the Bible straight through and then the Koran straight through.

um… correct me if I’m wrong but the Qu’ran was finished sometime in early 7th Century. Most theological evolution stopped there. Sure there are different sects but it’s still all built on some foundational beliefs that don’t evolve very much.

307 Silvergirl  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:53:24pm

re: #295 Cineaste

I know it’s wrong but it’s persistent. Didn’t you guys accidentally baptize Obama’s dead mother?

Also, the problem is a little more persistent than you’re letting on.

Maybe one of those renegade Democrat Mormons did it. Harry Reid?

308 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:53:59pm

re: #305 recusancy

Are you seriously arguing this because the panel put in the word “likely”. As Ludwig said, everyone knows it was because of political lobbying by the countries involved.

Yes that is what he is seriously doing. He is also claiming to speak for the consensus as if he knew what it was.

309 b_sharp  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:54:23pm

re: #79 subsailor68

But I also think Al Gore wants to take away all my stuff. He’s got those “I want all your stuff” shifty little eyes.

Now what was it George Carlin said about ‘stuff’?

310 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:55:33pm

re: #297 LudwigVanQuixote

ok buddy, I have looked at the evidence many times and it does indicate a possible cause and effect. I would submit that we have been down this road many times in the past with science and guess what, science in the future shows that previous conclusions were not only wrong but the opposite of reality.

I am not here to say it is all a bunch of fried bollocks, I do however believe that the jump to a frame of mind where; it is all man’s fault, man is the only one who can fix it, and if we don’t do anything we are going to have catastrophic consequences possibly ending life on earth is a big stretch from some kernels of fact from climate data.

311 Cineaste  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:57:35pm

re: #304 DaddyG

From the link.

“The offering of baptism to our deceased ancestors is a sacred practice to us and it is counter to Church policy for a Church member to submit names for baptism for persons to whom they are not related,” said spokeswoman Kim Farah in an emailed statement. “The Church is looking into the circumstances of how this happened and does not yet have all the facts. However, this is a serious matter and we are treating it as such.”

Anyone can submit a name for ordinance work and the people working the libraries are volunteers. I’m not saying they are all moby’s or that it isn’t an institutional problem that people are submitting names they aren’t directly related too.
Some Jewish coverts are baptising those who they are descended from and that I believe is the remaining sticking point with some. We do believe that despite the ordinances being done it is something the departed can accept or reject it is not compulsary.

I agree that it is wrong to do if there is no family relationship and see how it can be quite offensive. The Church officials and the vast majority of the membership do not condone these unauthorized actions. There are efforts underway to safeguard this from happening but we are working with a vast number of people who do Geneaology.

I appreciate that. I still find it unsavory to convert someone to your belief system posthumously. Especially someone who died because of their religion. If the threat of death didn’t cause them to reject their beliefs I don’t know why a descendant years later should do it on their behalf.

312 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 1:58:26pm

re: #301 LudwigVanQuixote

5. We see the direct rise in concentrations of CO2 and we know we are the one’s dumping it into the atmosphere.

Now that is the science. It adds up to 100% certainty that we are the cause of the warming.

If you are the flexible and logical one, then take those points together and stop trying to front that you are being anything other than a blow hard.

What you mean to tell me that only humans are the cause of CO2 in the atmosphere?

313 Randall Gross  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 2:01:01pm

Ludwig, kudos to you, you certainly have a lot more patience with DI/Heartland shills than I do. Thanks for keeping a cool head and continuing to try to convince.

314 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 2:01:12pm

re: #310 lrsshadow

Actually no.

The scientific consensus, particularly in the hard science is almost never overturned once the data is in.

Further, when things have been overturned, it has been an expansion and a modification to what was already known, not a refutation of everything that came before.

The ultra-violet catastrophe, may have ushered in QM, but it did not overturn classical electromagnetism. Einsteinian gravity may have reworked Newton’s equations, but Newton is still right in the absence of relativistic effects.

The evidence is in. We are causing the warming. Nothing new is going to come and change that.

Here is why:

1. We are heating from the bottom up and not the top down.

2. The current warming is in step with CO2 emissions.

3. The current warming started with the industrial age.

4. Orbital variations, volcanic emissions and solar variation have been ruled out conclusively. In fact, we are warming in a period where the orbital variations should be cooling us and the sun has a very slightly lower output than usual.

5. We see the direct rise in concentrations of CO2 and we know we are the one’s dumping it into the atmosphere. We can calculate that this must raise temperatures because QM and thermodynamics are still true.

Now that is the science. It adds up to 100% certainty that we are the cause of the warming.

315 recusancy  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 2:01:14pm

re: #312 lrsshadow

What you mean to tell me that only humans are the cause of CO2 in the atmosphere?

No. Only humans are the cause of the RISE in C02 to climate changing levels.

316 Cineaste  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 2:01:45pm

re: #310 lrsshadow

ok buddy, I have looked at the evidence many times and it does indicate a possible cause and effect. I would submit that we have been down this road many times in the past with science and guess what, science in the future shows that previous conclusions were not only wrong but the opposite of reality. .

But haven’t we also been down the road that found out that we were right about things many times too? How do you know this isn’t one of those? Are you willing to take the risk?

317 b_sharp  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 2:01:56pm

re: #95 Gus 802

Care to illustrate where Darwin’s theories mentions evolving from “simple matter?” And how in the world does Darwinism constitute a religion?

Actually…

All it would take would be imperfect replicators subject to selection to start life, so it may very well be that Darwin’s theories can be applied to simple life.

I’m just saying.

318 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 2:02:09pm

re: #313 Thanos

Ludwig, kudos to you, you certainly have a lot more patience with DI/Heartland shills than I do. Thanks for keeping a cool head and continuing to try to convince.

Lol, this is a strange inversion. I have tried very very hard to to curb my temper here.

Thanks for noticing. There is only so much stupid one can take though.

319 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 2:05:07pm

re: #312 lrsshadow

What you mean to tell me that only humans are the cause of CO2 in the atmosphere?

I am saying categorically and for the record, that only humans have dumped enough CO2 into the atmosphere to cause the effects we are seeing.

I am saying categorically and for the record that it was human action that polluted the oceans and deforested the land to an extent where the capacity to scrub CO2 was drastically lowered. We did this while dumping more CO2 into the atmosphere at unprecedented rates.

So in terms of what matters, we are the ones doing this.

320 DaddyG  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 2:06:02pm

That is why I agree fully that the proxy ordinances for Holocaust victims who died for their faith are particularly offensive. Those who submit them should be more aware of how others will feel.

If it helps any we see offering these ordinances as something we do to unify our families who we love and provide a way for them to accept the blessings we enjoy if they so choose.

I’m pretty sure most of the offensive submissions are done by overzealous people who think they are doing well but aren’t really looking at it from the perspective as someone who died for their faith. That is not much of an excuse however as we cannot plead from ignorance.

I am a true believing convert to the LDS Church but I will readily admit to us having the normal allotment of boneheads.

321 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 2:07:34pm

re: #306 Cineaste

Not there is much evolution with in the books contained in the bible particularly the Old Testament. The bible was not written in one sitting it is a serious of books that were written overtime and show an evolution of how god deals with humans on earth and what justice means amongst people on earth.

Obviously you could say in evolution terms that Judaism had genetic modifications into Christianity and Islam. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam also had internal genetic modifications over time into all the different groups with-in each primary group. It is still going on today with new groups forming.

I would agree that some fundamental base remained the same, but that would be like saying a duck, hawk, fox, and lizard all have a skull, backbone, and rib cages.

322 DaddyG  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 2:07:52pm

re: #311 Cineaste

I’m catching a bus not ignoring the conversations. Thanks for your understanding! Have a great weekend.

323 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 2:13:30pm

re: #322 DaddyG

Actually, the predictions are not just mine at all…
Please review the following:

Youtube Video

That is about sea level. Then we can talk about crops and water supplies.

324 lurking faith  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 2:15:21pm

re: #183 lrsshadow

Well I think this is what has a lot of people concerned is this stretch by scientific materialists and atheist who are using the science of evolution to push an atheistic belief system upon people.

Now I know there is the argument that: “well that is not the theory of evolution” Unfortunately you have to judge based on the effect of practice. Until the practices are balanced you will continue to see a push for whole sale creationist theory to become mainstream.

And until fewer Christian sects insist loudly that evolution is incompatible with their religion and is merely another belief system, those of us who understand the scientific method will push back. Science and faith are separate, and are not mutually exclusive.

When I hear the deliberate falsehoods and willful ignorance spouted by the ID and YEC crowd, I can’t help but have a certain amount of sympathy for those non-Christians who have contempt for the brains of the faithful. Also contempt for the hypocrisy inherent in using underhanded tactics and sometimes maligning decent people in an attempt to get their way.

How can a person refuse to take an honest look at the evidence and still consider himself an honest person? And how in the world did the creation story in Genesis become more important to some people than all the remaining teachings in the Bible, so that it is the one thing that above all must be taken literally, even though it contradicts itself?

As for me, I prefer to hold to the tradition of Christian thinkers who promoted and applied reason as a wonderful tool for understanding the workings of the world. God gave us brains; should we not use them? Jesus had very cutting things to say about those who refuse to use their gifts, you know.

/rant off

BTW, I hate to post and run, but I have an obligation.

325 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 2:15:55pm

re: #314 LudwigVanQuixote


Here is why:

1. We are heating from the bottom up and not the top down.

2. The current warming is in step with CO2 emissions.

3. The current warming started with the industrial age.

4. Orbital variations, volcanic emissions and solar variation have been ruled out conclusively. In fact, we are warming in a period where the orbital variations should be cooling us and the sun has a very slightly lower output than usual.

5. We see the direct rise in concentrations of CO2 and we know we are the one’s dumping it into the atmosphere. We can calculate that this must raise temperatures because QM and thermodynamics are still true.

Now that is the science. It adds up to 100% certainty that we are the cause of the warming.

So you are telling me that all of our data sets on ice, solar activity, Rotational Position of the earth, atmospheric temperature, CO2 levels for the last 100,000 years; predictions of future effects, and our ability to mitigate this impact are 100% accurate? Furthermore the our understanding of all circumstances surrounding climate on earth have been discovered and fully understood so that we can run 100% accurate modeling in computers to predict the future.

Kind of sounds like a “leap of faith” to me.

326 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 2:19:38pm

re: #279 lrsshadow

Lobotomies: “Moniz advised extreme caution in using lobotomy, and felt it should only be used in cases where everything else had been tried. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work on lobotomy in 1949. He retired early after a former patient paralyzed him by shooting him in the back. ” Well he got the Nobel Prize for it, does that make it correct then?

Now we look back at these practices and say how stupid that was. Because we now know much more then we did before. I wonder how Global Warming is going to play out in 10-20 years when we know more about climate, the sun, atmospherics, etc.

In the meantime, let’s go with your gut. Much more sensible way to run things.

//come on, please. Psychiatry was hardly a science until the late 20th century. Repeatedly harping on lobotomies is not going to help your case.

327 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 2:19:43pm

re: #324 lurking faith

Yep that is why I think a clear line needs to be drawn between those items that belong in faith/philosophy and those that belong in science. Unfortunately we have had nuts on both sides since the beginning of time who try to explain everything in the world one way or the other.

328 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 2:22:20pm

re: #326 SanFranciscoZionist

I wonder if some one will make the argument in 20 years “hey come on in 2010 they knew nothing about the climate on a global scale, you can’t bring up global warming hysteria in the 2010’s as an argument now”

329 recusancy  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 2:23:18pm

re: #325 lrsshadow

So you just don’t believe in science. Period. Nothing is 100%. No model ever is, of anything. Arguing that a model has to be 100% is either ignorance or a purposeful tactic to throw a red herring to other ignoramuses.

330 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 2:23:57pm

re: #306 Cineaste

um… correct me if I’m wrong but the Qu’ran was finished sometime in early 7th Century. Most theological evolution stopped there. Sure there are different sects but it’s still all built on some foundational beliefs that don’t evolve very much.

Tell it to the Second Vatican Conference.

331 Cineaste  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 2:25:17pm

re: #325 lrsshadow

So you are telling me that all of our data sets on ice, solar activity, Rotational Position of the earth, atmospheric temperature, CO2 levels for the last 100,000 years; predictions of future effects, and our ability to mitigate this impact are 100% accurate? Furthermore the our understanding of all circumstances surrounding climate on earth have been discovered and fully understood so that we can run 100% accurate modeling in computers to predict the future.

Kind of sounds like a “leap of faith” to me.

I think that’s the core of your error. You assume that every one of those issues must be understood in its entirety or we shouldn’t do anything. But that runs against the idea that the preponderance of all the evidence points in particular directions. If one of those turns out to be off in some way there are a multitude of other data points that we can look at.

Again, by your overly-simplistic reasoning, we should not believe in gravity. After all, we still can’t fully explain it, can we? Maybe it is the devil holding our toes to keep us from ascending to heaven!

ooga-booga! Happy Halloween!

332 Cineaste  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 2:26:15pm

re: #330 SanFranciscoZionist

Tell it to the Second Vatican Conference.

Fair enough but I would still argue that the theological knowledge wasn’t building on itself, they simply decided to change some practices.

333 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 2:26:45pm

re: #325 lrsshadow

So you are telling me that all of our data sets on ice, solar activity, Rotational Position of the earth, atmospheric temperature, CO2 levels for the last 100,000 years; predictions of future effects, and our ability to mitigate this impact are 100% accurate? Furthermore the our understanding of all circumstances surrounding climate on earth have been discovered and fully understood so that we can run 100% accurate modeling in computers to predict the future.

Kind of sounds like a “leap of faith” to me.

NO, I am telling you that we know those listed things for certain. I am telling you that if you follow the logic of what they imply we are for certain causing the warming.

Now you can call that what ever you wish.

Or, you could look at the actual science that allows us to make these claims and stop trying to plug your ears.

I have not lied to you. Why not look at the actual peer reviewed papers that give the data and the analysis for these things?

Take the claim that we are heating from the bottom up and not the top down. We know this from ground, sea, air, and satellite based measurements. Hundreds of thousands of them actually taken year after year by dozens of satellites, tens of thousands of balloons and aircraft, tens of thousands of ocean and land based sensors and even submarines.

They all tell a consistent story.

Why not look into it?

While you are at it, google the words Keeling Curve.

The evidence is in. Try to look at it.

334 Cineaste  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 2:27:45pm

re: #328 lrsshadow

I wonder if some one will make the argument in 20 years “hey come on in 2010 they knew nothing about the climate on a global scale, you can’t bring up global warming hysteria in the 2010’s as an argument now”

True, true. I mean look at how we look back at Louis Pasteur and that silly nonsense with germs… And Edison & Tesla and that absurd mishagos with “electricity”. Those ideas are nuts!

Thank god time conquered science…

335 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 2:29:30pm

re: #328 lrsshadow

You are becoming tiresome.

You have managed to say in twenty different ways that you will not look and you will not think.

Lalalala you can’t hear us. How charming.

There is little point in attempting reasoning with fundies.

336 Right Brain  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 2:30:20pm

The percentile of physicists who are skeptical about AGW at this point is probably near identical to the percentile of physicists who were skeptical about Newtonian physics in 1904.

337 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 2:31:38pm

re: #325 lrsshadow

So you are telling me that all of our data sets on ice, solar activity, Rotational Position of the earth, atmospheric temperature, CO2 levels for the last 100,000 years; predictions of future effects, and our ability to mitigate this impact are 100% accurate? Furthermore the our understanding of all circumstances surrounding climate on earth have been discovered and fully understood so that we can run 100% accurate modeling in computers to predict the future.

Kind of sounds like a “leap of faith” to me.

Do you propose that we ignore all scientific findings because we might be wrong, and just figure that the melting ice thing will probably work out?

338 martinsmithy  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 2:32:19pm

What I find pleasantly surprising is that many of Inhofe’s GOP colleagues are showing some common sense on the issue of global warming.

Maybe there is hope for the party after all …

339 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 2:32:54pm

re: #328 lrsshadow

I wonder if some one will make the argument in 20 years “hey come on in 2010 they knew nothing about the climate on a global scale, you can’t bring up global warming hysteria in the 2010’s as an argument now”

But we do know about climate on a global scale. Do you understand why we’re drawing a distinction between hard sciences and psychiatric medicine?

340 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 2:32:56pm

re: #329 recusancy

ug see the quoted box he said “100% certainty” that is what I was talking about. To say we know man is the sole cause for CO2 increases in the atmosphere is not true and to to say the model is 100% accurate is also not true.

Man it has taken all this time for science to start to understand the physics behind atomic structures. They are only now really beginning to understand the underlying harmonics in sub-subatomic particles. Once they come to the full realization of this it will only close only one question while posing a large series of exponentially complex questions to be answered.

We are only scratching the surface on being able to understand climate on a small scale let alone trying to understand it on a global scale.

341 Cineaste  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 2:36:56pm

re: #340 lrsshadow

and thus we should do nothing…

We know that burning coal releases mercury. We find that fish in rivers have higher mercury levels when they are in a certain distance to coal-fired power plants. We see that people who eat too much mercury get sick. Too bad we don’t have 100% proof that those coal-fired plants are doing harm to people…

Your logic would mean throwing up your hands and waiting. My logic says that we can reduce the risk, improve the plants, reduce their emissions.

342 recusancy  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 2:45:36pm

re: #340 lrsshadow

So you’re saying maybe the increase in co2 is coming from some super sekrit mysterious thing that we don’t know about because science hasn’t gotten there yet? That even though we put tons and tons of carbon into the air every second it must, no has to be something else. Occam’s razor my friend. Quit trying to see what you want to see.

343 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 2:50:09pm

re: #333 LudwigVanQuixote

Look I am not plugging my ears and saying you will never change my mind. What I am saying is we really only have accurate data from the last 40-60 years, we have only gotten serious about the study of weather since the 1940’s, we only understand a minute amount of what weather and climate means on a global scale.

In the global scale of things it would be like showing you a book and letting you read 3 pages out of 3 million and then asking you to draw a conclusion. We don’t know for sure, we can only speculate, yes, yes, yes, there is plenty of raw data. It is the interpretation of that data that I question.

344 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 2:53:28pm

re: #341 Cineaste

See now why can’t it just be like that. “hey we may have a problem here, maybe we should take some economical steps to mitigate a potential problem”

But what I am hearing is “hey we have a looming catastrophe for which science has proven irrefutably to be man made and we can fix it but it will cost trillions and kill many people to fix it, but it is much better then the entire world devoid of life”

345 recusancy  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 2:58:29pm

re: #344 lrsshadow

But what I am hearing is “… it will cost trillions and kill many people to fix it, but it is much better then the entire world devoid of life”

Then you need to get your ears fixed. Nobody is saying that. That’s what you want everyone to say so that you can more easily dismiss it. So that’s what you hear.

346 Cineaste  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 2:58:48pm

re: #344 lrsshadow

See now why can’t it just be like that. “hey we may have a problem here, maybe we should take some economical steps to mitigate a potential problem”

But what I am hearing is “hey we have a looming catastrophe for which science has proven irrefutably to be man made and we can fix it but it will cost trillions and kill many people to fix it, but it is much better then the entire world devoid of life”

Again - documentation (I know, I know, documentation is painfully close to science but help us out?):

Cost trillions?
Kill many people?

And who is saying it will be a world devoid of life? We’re talking about changes of several degrees. It would see entire regions made uninhabitable, droughts and floods, etc… but nobody legitimate is saying that global warming will wipe out all life on earth. Stop responding to the boogey-men in your head!

But to your first point - what do you propose we do? What are nice reasonable steps?

347 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:01:11pm

re: #342 recusancy

I keep hearing that there are no scientist who propose that the climate change could be natural. Well at least no scientist who worked for NASA and have a PHD in the field. Is this your belief also?

348 freetoken  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:03:04pm

re: #344 lrsshadow

Depending upon how significantly we perturb the climate system, the changes could lead to many millions of people dying due to losses in agriculture… and the companions of starvation are disease and wars.

That doesn’t mean the Earth is void of life.

It means that the lives of many people become much worse.

It is a moral question: what responsibility do you have to your fellow man?

349 [deleted]  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:05:33pm
350 freetoken  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:05:35pm

re: #347 lrsshadow

I keep hearing that there are no scientist who propose that the climate change could be natural.

That is not what the science is saying. Please go read the literature that summarize the the findings.

There are many causes and many effects. Human actions have become the dominant causes of recent changes, but they are not the only ones.

351 freetoken  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:06:32pm

re: #349 Catracks

Hey… and AGW flounce…

The heat must have gotten to him.

352 lostlakehiker  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:07:09pm

re: #105 LudwigVanQuixote

Except that that is a word game that is false.

All life did evolves from the simple to the complex. However, it is not a completely random process. There are all sorts of selective processes. People have a hard time with the rules of probabilities, so the foolish are quickly taken in by fantastical “what are the odds” arguments. The fact, and the proper math is, that one a mutation occurs, it will either be favorable or unfavorable - for many different possible reasons.

If it is favorable, then those critters make more babies. This is not random. In fact it is a guarantee.

As to AGW,

We are the cause of it.

Let me repeat, the science is very firmly settled on this.

Here are some smoking guns:

snip


3. Of course CO2 is a GHG. Of course it traps and re-emits IR. The fact of this was established in the 1880’s the explanation for why came with QM in the 1920’s. Of course if you have more of it in your atmosphere, it must get warmer. Even though it did not drive all of the past climate cycles on Earth. It is certainly driving this one. We can see the direct increase in emissions and concentration by spectral analysis and the warming in this present climate change is in lock step.

Again, game over, done.

NO the only religion are those who refuse to see the data and look at the simple plain facts. Those are the deniers, not the scientists.


Footnote: “lock step” in scientific circles means an agreement as close as could reasonably be expected. To propagandists against AGW, “lock step” means literally lock step. It means far closer than could reasonably be expected. This is why we see this triumphant war dance by denialists every time there’s a cold snap. In their understanding of “lock step”, every last year should be warmer than the one before. They have no patience with the kind of lock step that a roulette wheel with 20 slots for black, 20 for red, and one thin “house” slot generates. Inexorably, totaled over thousands of spins, the house wins, and he who plays red, loses. Or black. But by denialist logic, a run of a half-dozen reds in a row proves that there is not, after all, that little green slot.

That’s why real scientists insist on looking at the big picture rather than cherry picking arguments like But What About the Early Snow last October in Poohawken, West Nowhere?

353 recusancy  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:07:54pm

re: #347 lrsshadow

I keep hearing that there are no scientist who propose that the climate change could be natural. Well at least no scientist who worked for NASA and have a PHD in the field. Is this your belief also?

Hu?? I’m sure you could find a few. None reputable.

354 Cineaste  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:16:12pm

nice - that was the first time I’ve seen a flounce in person!

355 Cineaste  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:17:15pm

re: #347 lrsshadow

I keep hearing that there are no scientist who propose that the climate change could be natural. Well at least no scientist who worked for NASA and have a PHD in the field. Is this your belief also?

I know - it sucks having to listen to people with educations. But do go on, tell us what your cousin Bucky ‘who knows about these things’ told you…

356 Bagua  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:17:41pm

re: #305 recusancy

Are you seriously arguing this because the panel put in the word “likely”. As Ludwig said, everyone knows it was because of political lobbying by the countries involved.

I am absolutely “seriously”arguing that it is not the case that the IPCC deliberately misstated the scientific consensus to pander to politics.

The IPCC is very clear and very specific in defining the language they use in their report on the scientific consensus. Perhaps they will change this in the next report, but for now this is the consensus. And notice that they say “very likely” which equals > 90%, they do not say the term they identify as >99%. They most definitely do not use Certain 100% as “everyone knows” that would be contrary to science.

In IPCC statements “most “ means greater than 50%, “likely” means at least a 66% likelihood, and “very likely” means at least a 90% likelihood.

Are you seriously arguing that when they used the term likely indicating a 66% likelihood that was also distorted by politics?

The IPCC also states The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%. This is highly supportive of the theory that man is causing the global warming that has been observed, it is not however 100% certainty.

357 freetoken  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:18:54pm

re: #355 Cineaste

I know - it sucks having to listen to people with educations.

Um…er…

358 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:19:15pm

re: #346 Cineaste

But to your first point - what do you propose we do? What are nice reasonable steps?

I think we should focus solely on dual purpose endeavors in anything relating to climate change remediation. For example; 1) forest rehabilitation provides more plants to consume CO2, 2) start building nuclear power plants to replace gas and coal fire plants whole sale and regulate electrical pricing to provide very cheap power, this will help curb CO2 created by heating appliances in homes and businesses (furnaces, stoves, dryers, etc) and it will obviously stop CO2 emissions from the replaced power plants along with the pollutants, 3) set up garbage burning facilities in every major city to mitigate methane off-gassing from garbage composting and provide additional heat and power to the cities (this was done in Minneapolis at the HERC facility wwwa.co.hennepin.mn.us ), 4) provide a reward grant system for new technological breakthroughs, like the X-prize system to help with further breakthroughs, 5) focus on R&D for nuclear technology and export nuclear power generation equipment and knowledge to other countries to curb numerous problems with other forms of power generation, 6) Permanently set aside large tracks of agricultural land that cannot be developed. 7) Help train developing countries on good practices in urban, civil, agricultural, and industrial development.

These are just a few I can name.

359 freetoken  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:20:12pm

re: #356 Bagua

If I remember correctly, news reports at the time said that the Chinese delegate refused to go along with stronger language. If that is true, the next time around expect for a stronger statement as it appears the Chinese have changed their stance.

360 lostlakehiker  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:21:09pm

re: #344 lrsshadow

See now why can’t it just be like that. “hey we may have a problem here, maybe we should take some economical steps to mitigate a potential problem”

But what I am hearing is “hey we have a looming catastrophe for which science has proven irrefutably to be man made and we can fix it but it will cost trillions and kill many people to fix it, but it is much better then the entire world devoid of life”

We can mitigate it and it won’t cost an insane amount. Building the Hoover dam or the Empire State building cost lives. Our college football weekends cost at least one life each, because somewhere, somebody dies on the highway who would not have been traveling had there been no games. We do accept a very few fatalities, just so life can have enough zest that dying is unwelcome.

Proposal: First mitigation: don’t write any more federal flood insurance for big, expensive homes and structures in what figures to become underwater real estate down the road. That way, there won’t be nearly as much stuff we have to kiss goodbye when the time comes.

Second mitigation: build our homes and offices and factories to be more efficient. This step costs less than nothing, because over the useful lifespan of the structure, these improvements more than pay for themselves.

Third mitigation: build many nuclear power plants and replace our coal fired plants as they wear out with nuclear. This, too, can be economical, if we can just get the regulatory harpies out of the way. France has a safe design. Use it. We will save lives because mining coal costs lives, and breathing coal ash costs lives.

Fourth mitigation: build wind and solar. This isn’t free. Not yet. It will pay off as we move along the learning curve. We all know that right now, we’re robbing the future. To do so is stupid, and to do the opposite and provide for the future, is wise and good and noble. Since it’s our own future, it’s also good solid self-interest.

Now we get to the problematic part. Do we outlaw the use of coal and oil? Forthwith? Even if we did, we’d have to enforce that law globally to make it stick. This is a recipe for war, and an open-ended and nasty war it would be. Do we get treaties signed requiring reductions in use of these fuels? Many will sign, but few will abide by the promises they made when signing. We know this, because hardly anybody lived up to their Kyoto Accord promises.

The things we would have to do, to skate free entirely and see zero negative consequences directly attributable to AGW, are just too dangerous or drastic. We cannot escape getting hurt some by AGW. What we can do is prepare now by tapping the brakes, so that when the collision with reality comes, it’s more of a fender bender and less of a goodbye shirley smashup.

With some good R&D programs, we can put ourselves in a position to make a massive move into wind and solar, and make it with technology that’s efficient enough that it pays its own way.

361 Bagua  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:24:26pm

re: #301 LudwigVanQuixote

OK you are now officially being an idiot. I repeat. We know , not gues, not think, we know, that we are the primary driver because:
[…]

As always Ludwig, you rely on tiresome insults which do nothing to help your position.

Yes I know that you assert “we know” as you’ve said that repeatedly. But who is this “we” paleface? As you dismiss the scientific consensus then that “we” must be a partisan group.

Note also that stronger IPCC would not go from >90% to 100%, the next step is >99%.

The evidence is compelling, but certainty is not justified scientifically, that is a belief, not science.

362 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:24:32pm

re: #356 Bagua

I

am absolutely “seriously”arguing that it is not the case that the IPCC deliberately misstated the scientific consensus to pander to politics.

Shows what you know:

climatesciencewatch.org

Before the 23-page Summary for Policymakers of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientific assessment of climate change impacts was approved for publication on April 6, a “Final Draft” by the lead-author scientists had to be revised and approved line-by-line in negotiations with government representatives from around the world. During a lengthy and contentious session, with interventions by government representatives from the United States, China, Saudi Arabia, and other countries, numerous edits were made to the scientists’ draft prior to final joint approval by scientists and diplomats. Numerous changes appear clearly to have the effect of “toning down” the scientists’ own draft language on likely damaging impacts of climate change. Climate Science Watch has obtained a copy of the scientists’ embargoed “Confidential Draft in preparation for Final Government Review,” i.e., the unedited draft, and posts it here as a public service. (See Details)

The IPCC is very clear and very specific in defining the language they use in their report on the scientific consensus. Perhaps they will change this in the next report, but for now this is the consensus.

No it is not and no it never was. How many times do you need to be told this?

And notice that they say “very likely” which equals > 90%, they do not say the term they identify as >99%. They most definitely do not use Certain 100% as “everyone knows” that would be contrary to science.

No pontificating like you do without looking at the science is what is contrary to science.

Are you seriously arguing that when they used the term likely indicating a 66% likelihood that was also distorted by politics?

I am seriously arguing that you are being willfully ignorant. How about you take the time to address the actual science. We are certain. 100% certain that we are the primary driver, for the reasons outlined which you inexplicably refuse to acknowledge. Bringing the actual science is not a straw man, no matter how much you prevaricate and try to obfuscate.

363 recusancy  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:25:19pm

re: #358 lrsshadow

All those things do sure sound expensive. I have no idea what your position is on any of this. You agree with the science behind global warming. You feel we should do something damn the expenses (per your last post). What are you arguing?

364 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:26:03pm

re: #361 Bagua

Read the next post and learn something for once.

The address the actual science and how we know for certain that we are indeed the primary driver.

OK. One rule of these discussions is to actually look at the science and not be so incapable of seeing when you are wrong.

365 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:26:26pm

Anyway, I have to go now. Have a good weekend all!

366 Bagua  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:26:28pm

re: #359 freetoken

If I remember correctly, news reports at the time said that the Chinese delegate refused to go along with stronger language. If that is true, the next time around expect for a stronger statement as it appears the Chinese have changed their stance.

Please cite the news report so that I can address it. I don’t know what part of the IPCC they were claiming was toned down. I would be surprised if it was on the basic science, I suspect it was more to do with the projection of impact.

367 [deleted]  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:27:28pm
368 MinisterO  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:27:28pm

re: #335 LudwigVanQuixote

There is little point in attempting reasoning with fundies.

The Fundie Filter transforms reasonable arguments into absolute (and obviously false) ones that are easily dismissed. All modern fundies come equipped with this feature.

Hold them at arms length. If you engage close up you’ll spend all your time arguing that you didn’t in fact say what the fundie says you said. It’s like fighting a tar baby.

369 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:27:33pm

re: #359 freetoken

If I remember correctly, news reports at the time said that the Chinese delegate refused to go along with stronger language. If that is true, the next time around expect for a stronger statement as it appears the Chinese have changed their stance.

Yes that would be the truth, but somehow Bagua can’t hear it when told 20 times. Of course, he is an expert on what the consensus is.

370 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:27:53pm

re: #353 recusancy

oh so there would not be someone who has a PHD in meteorology and has lead the team at NASA as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites.

That would be Dr Roy Spencer who has said;

“The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might well be the result of….the climate system itself! Because small, chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that is necessary to cause climate change. You don’t need the sun, or any other ‘external’ influence (although these are also possible…but for now I’ll let others work on that). It is simply what the climate system does. This is actually quite easy for meteorologists to believe, since we understand how complex weather processes are. Your local TV meteorologist is probably a closet ’skeptic’ regarding mankind’s influence on climate.

Climate change — it happens, with or without our help.”

Huh sounds like a reputable scientist who is from the field of study for which we are talking who has A DISSENTING VIEW ON GLOBAL WARMING BEING MAN MADE.

Well it would seem that not all reputable scientist who have studied this are in agreement that global warming is man made.

371 Bagua  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:28:02pm

re: #364 LudwigVanQuixote

Read the next post and learn something for once.
[…]

Which next post, you mean on the front page?

372 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:28:28pm

re: #366 Bagua

I just gave you one.

I can find more, but Shabbos is coming. You really are being an ass.

373 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:28:50pm

re: #371 Bagua

No I mean the one with the language toned down in IPCC.

374 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:29:08pm

Sundown out.

375 Bagua  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:29:20pm

re: #369 LudwigVanQuixote

Yes that would be the truth, but somehow Bagua can’t hear it when told 20 times. Of course, he is an expert on what the consensus is.

I’m sorry, but some vague memory of a MSM article is not the “truth” in my book. Please cite the source and what it said specifically.

376 freetoken  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:29:37pm

re: #370 lrsshadow

Invoking Spencer around here will likely get you derision, as he is a creationist.

377 recusancy  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:30:45pm

re: #370 lrsshadow

He’s an ID’er. Got anybody more credible?

378 Bagua  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:30:53pm

re: #373 LudwigVanQuixote

No I mean the one with the language toned down in IPCC.

OK thanks, you mean your comment #262, I’ll read it through and consider it before posting.

379 freetoken  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:32:06pm

re: #375 Bagua

LVQ gave you a link to Climatesciencwatch.

The Summary for Policy-makers, by its nature, is as much political as scientific. The Scientific Basis summarized the science. Policy Makers are of course politicians.

380 Bagua  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:36:29pm

re: #379 freetoken

LVQ gave you a link to Climatesciencwatch.

The Summary for Policy-makers, by its nature, is as much political as scientific. The Scientific Basis summarized the science. Policy Makers are of course politicians.

Yes agreed, I’ll read through that report and respond. To be clear you are stating that they toned down the statement that I am challenging? Or other statements to do with predicted future impacts?

My statement is limited to the “very likely >90%” that man is the primary cause of the currently observed warming. Not the various long range models and such.

381 Cineaste  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:38:10pm

re: #370 lrsshadow


Well it would seem that not all reputable scientist who have studied this are in agreement that global warming is man made.

Ok - that’s one.

I see your one and answer you with a few hundred:

ucsusa.org

382 freetoken  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:38:45pm

re: #380 Bagua

If my memory is serving me correctly this afternoon… the reason they went with the 90% statement and not the 99% one is because the Chinese delegate refused to budge. If I had time I would google it… but I don’t… got to run.

383 recusancy  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:42:09pm

re: #381 Cineaste

Ok - that’s one.

He’s an intelligent design nut.

384 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:43:34pm

re: #363 recusancy

In incremental steps it will not have one hundredth the cost of global warming initiatives.

If we spent only 1 trillion dollars we could build 40 nuclear power plants in every state in the nation. Global warming efforts will cost that in the first few years. It would take us almost 10 years to build the nuclear power plants.

Initial estimates state that Global warming efforts could cost 1-2% of GDP or more that would be some where between 100-500 billion dollars per year for the US.

385 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:44:38pm

re: #377 recusancy

oh ok who else is on the “black list” because they believe in something else?

386 Cineaste  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:46:32pm

re: #383 recusancy

noted - I’m just acknowledging that he is a scientist. Just not one I trust…

387 freetoken  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:46:57pm

re: #385 lrsshadow

Creationists are derided here because they don’t accept evidence of the real world, not because of some mystical or political “blacklist”.

388 Cineaste  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:47:14pm

re: #385 lrsshadow

well I think if people don’t believe in evolution then it’s fair to question their scientific credibility, no?

389 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:47:30pm

re: #385 lrsshadow

oh ok who else is on the “black list” because they believe in something else?

If they believe in lunatic mumbo-jumbo, they are not credible. It’s really quite simple.

390 Cineaste  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:48:43pm

re: #384 lrsshadow

again - what’s the insane, multi-trillion-dollar-baby-killing methods you think people are advocating to curb global warming?

Heck, you’ve mentioned a number of great ideas - why would you support those if you don’t believe in global warming? You kind of have to make up your mind…

391 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:50:52pm

re: #387 freetoken

oh you wouldn’t happen to has some links then of his nuttiness rants to prove your point that he is a nut and should be marginalized. He seems to be doing well as far as these guys are concerned: “Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE.”

392 Bagua  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:52:44pm

re: #382 freetoken

If my memory is serving me correctly this afternoon… the reason they went with the 90% statement and not the 99% one is because the Chinese delegate refused to budge. If I had time I would google it… but I don’t… got to run.

OK, let’s look that up, but note that either way it confirms my basic point that to speak of 100% certainty is incorrect. 99% does not equal 100%.

393 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:54:52pm

re: #392 Bagua

OK, let’s look that up, but note that either way it confirms my basic point that to speak of 100% certainty is incorrect. 99% does not equal 100%.

Scientific certainty or political certainty? If it were in China’s best interests as a nation to claim that all babies come from Tau Ceti, they’d do it. And then it wouldn’t be a 100% certainty that they come from human women. 8-)

394 Cineaste  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:55:09pm

re: #391 lrsshadow

oh you wouldn’t happen to has some links then of his nuttiness rants to prove your point that he is a nut and should be marginalized. He seems to be doing well as far as these guys are concerned: “Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE.”

Um - that quote was written by Dr. Roy Spencer…

395 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:56:25pm

I mean, why would China have any reason to push back against established AGW science?


thinking…thinking…

396 recusancy  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:58:04pm
397 freetoken  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:58:39pm

re: #391 lrsshadow

Here’s one:

uncommondescent.com

398 Cineaste  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 3:59:30pm

re: #391 lrsshadow

oh you wouldn’t happen to has some links then of his nuttiness rants to prove your point that he is a nut and should be marginalized. He seems to be doing well as far as these guys are concerned: “Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE.”

Oh - and links to his nuttiness? Here you go…

the Bible is by far the most accurate and best-substantiated ancient book known to man. It truthfully portrays actual historical events and has been faithfully copied by scribes over the centuries so that what we have today in the Bible is, to a very high degree (within a percentage point or two), known beyond a shadow of a doubt to be the same as was originally written down by the authors.

Now this we know as completely false. Heck, the bible most Americans read is in ENGLISH and was edited by King James… In every version, the apostles don’t even agree on whether Judas turned in Jesus.

399 MinisterO  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 4:01:10pm

re: #381 Cineaste

If we’re throwing around lists of scientists, let us not forget
Project Steve, with over 11,000 PhD scientists named “Steve” signing the following statement:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to “intelligent design,” to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation’s public schools.

400 Cineaste  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 4:02:34pm

re: #399 MinisterO

If we’re throwing around lists of scientists, let us not forget
Project Steve, with over 11,000 PhD scientists named “Steve” signing the following statement:

Nice - though, to be fair, it’s 1,100 scientists named Steve, not 11,000.

401 MinisterO  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 4:02:47pm

re: #370 lrsshadow

That would be Dr Roy Spencer

He’s no Steve.

402 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 4:04:04pm

re: #398 Cineaste

Now this we know as completely false. Heck, the bible most Americans read is in ENGLISH and was edited by King James… In every version, the apostles don’t even agree on whether Judas turned in Jesus.

I happened to see it with my own eyes, thank you very much!

Youtube Video

403 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 4:05:10pm

re: #390 Cineaste

ok didn’t you read the Copenhagen draft I linked to earlier, they want hundreds of billions from developed countries every year to be paid into a Global Government. Here is the link again unfccc.int

Here is an article from the BBC saying global warming efforts could cost much and have no effect on CO2 levels, furthermore it could also lead to a collapse of “carbon trading market” causing another collapse of the global economy. news.bbc.co.uk

Here is an article on the cost as an argument to spend it now because global warming will cost us more in the future were it is stated that “The former World Bank chief economist said that models used in the report demonstrate that it would cost as little as 1% of global GDP every year to keep global warming to manageable levels.” here is the link transatlantic.sais-jhu.edu here is the link for the US GDP at 13.84 Trillion flagcounter.com
one percent or more of GDP plus the payments to the Coppenhagen Treaty Global Government could see costs of 100 billion to 500 billion a year for our economy.

The point I am trying to make is that that cost to tackle global warming will be the most expensive single effort that man kind has ever undertaken. It will cause other life and safety issues to suffer to include shelter, health care, and other environmental concerns because we will be spending so much on this one effort.

404 MinisterO  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 4:05:43pm

re: #400 Cineaste

You’re right. I misread the The Steve-o-meter.

405 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 4:12:17pm

re: #403 lrsshadow


That bbc link is an article by Martin Livermore, a lobbyist and extremist think-tank shill. He is what we might charitably call a total liar.

406 Usually refered to as anyways  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 4:13:17pm
407 recusancy  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 4:13:20pm

re: #403 lrsshadow

Here’s the guy who wrote that BBC opinion piece.

408 recusancy  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 4:17:06pm

re: #403 lrsshadow

The point I am trying to make is that that cost to tackle global warming will be the most expensive single effort that man kind has ever undertaken. It will cause other life and safety issues to suffer to include shelter, health care, and other environmental concerns because we will be spending so much on this one effort.

Well… Ya… It’s not going to be easy. That’s no reason to deny the science though. Buck up. With struggle comes innovation and progress.

409 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 4:18:02pm

re: #396 recusancy

re: #397 freetoken

he said “If the public school system insists on teaching evolution as a theory of origins, in the view of many a religious activity, why is it discriminating against the only other theory of origins, intelligent design?” in the article both of you listed. Sounds like he is inline with everyone here. If evolution is to be taught as theory of origins then it is no longer science and it is a religious belief.

Doesn’t seem to be a nut to me. I think that if you are going to teach evolution as how all life began on earth, well then I think you are stepping into a belief system of faith and no longer in the realm of science.

410 Cineaste  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 4:19:49pm

re: #403 lrsshadow

ok didn’t you read the Copenhagen draft I linked to earlier, they want hundreds of billions from developed countries every year to be paid into a Global Government. Here is the link again [Link: unfccc.int…]

Here is an article from the BBC saying global warming efforts could cost much and have no effect on CO2 levels, furthermore it could also lead to a collapse of “carbon trading market” causing another collapse of the global economy. [Link: news.bbc.co.uk…]

There is no reference to a “Global Government” in that document.

As for the “article” from the BBC: that is an opinion piece, not a piece of reporting and it includes such ridiculous statements as:

1998 remains the warmest year on record, and since then there has been no discernable upward trend.

That canard has been roundly refuted.

411 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 4:21:20pm

re: #410 Cineaste

ok so then you accept that report stating that 1% of GDP is what it will cost to mitigate global warming?

412 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 4:24:21pm

re: #409 lrsshadow

re: #397 freetoken

he said “If the public school system insists on teaching evolution as a theory of origins, in the view of many a religious activity, why is it discriminating against the only other theory of origins, intelligent design?” in the article both of you listed. Sounds like he is inline with everyone here. If evolution is to be taught as theory of origins then it is no longer science and it is a religious belief.

Doesn’t seem to be a nut to me. I think that if you are going to teach evolution as how all life began on earth, well then I think you are stepping into a belief system of faith and no longer in the realm of science.

Let’s see. On one hand. Science! On the other hand: made-up gobbledy-gook by far-right-wing-dominionsts!

You have no evidence that public schools are teaching evolution as an exclusive theory of origins. Origins are not part of it. They teach it evolution as fact. Because it is a fact. it is plainly observable, and the evidence for it is overwhelming.

What you’re doing here is a combination of moving goal posts, false equivalency, and making stuff up.

413 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 4:25:08pm

re: #408 recusancy

Ok then so admit this will cost more than anything ever done in the history of man?

If we tackle this issue the way the global warming crowd wants it will lead to the deaths of many people and cost us all dearly, but in the mind of a global warmer this is worth it because it will only be worse if we do nothing.

Stop trying to sell this as a cheep easy thing to do.

414 Cineaste  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 4:25:36pm

re: #411 lrsshadow

ok so then you accept that report stating that 1% of GDP is what it will cost to mitigate global warming?

I’m sorry? Is that in reference to something I wrote?

415 recusancy  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 4:26:31pm

re: #409 lrsshadow

Sounds like he is inline with everyone here. If evolution is to be taught as theory of origins then it is no longer science and it is a religious belief.

Doesn’t seem to be a nut to me. I think that if you are going to teach evolution as how all life began on earth, well then I think you are stepping into a belief system of faith and no longer in the realm of science.

What??? hahaha… That’s exactly not inline with most everyone here. Your a creationist too hu?

416 Cineaste  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 4:27:28pm

re: #413 lrsshadow

Ok then so admit this will cost more than anything ever done in the history of man?

If we tackle this issue the way the global warming crowd wants it will lead to the deaths of many people and cost us all dearly, but in the mind of a global warmer this is worth it because it will only be worse if we do nothing.

Stop trying to sell this as a cheep easy thing to do.

First: nobody is saying cheap & easy

Second: where are you getting the gobbledygook that it will be the most expensive endeavor in the history of man and that it will kill people. That ain’t in the document you keep pointing at…

417 recusancy  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 4:31:06pm

re: #413 lrsshadow

Putting a price on carbon or making a market for it will not ‘cost lives’ or be the most expensive thing ever. Quit exaggerating this into epic proportions. Your doing the same thing your claiming the ‘global warmers’ are doing.

418 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 4:40:02pm

re: #412 WindUpBird

Well the public school I went to sure did teach that all life evolved from a pre-mortial soup that had a spark of lightning hit it to create simple life that evolved into all life on earth.

And here are some links;

pewforum.org

Here is one that states how to teach the origin of life in classrooms from the NY Government.
google.com

419 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 4:42:36pm

re: #415 recusancy

so you think all life began from nothing and evolution took it from there huh? and you think it is ok to teach origins of life to explain how life began in a public school classroom?

What happened to Darwinism doesn’t explain how life got started, evolution doesn’t explain how life got started,

yet that is exactly how it is being taught in the classroom.

420 Cineaste  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 4:44:38pm

re: #418 lrsshadow

Well the public school I went to sure did teach that all life evolved from a pre-mortial soup that had a spark of lightning hit it to create simple life that evolved into all life on earth.

Well clearly you didn’t study very hard. It’s primordial. What the heck is “mortial” and how can you be before it?

421 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 4:49:43pm

re: #417 recusancy

once again read the data and you tell me what singular effort was ever undertaken by man kind that cost the world economy 1% of GDP or more?

And yes it will cost lives because we will not have as much money for health care, the cost of living will go up, people will lose jobs, less money will be available for research and development of health care, food will cost more, and so will transportation. It will cause many people to die.

422 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 4:51:24pm

re: #420 Cineaste

what ever you can pick apart anything to distract from the point if you want to. Let see I have written thousands of words today and I spell one wrong. So therefor in your mind all the other facts don’t matter.

423 recusancy  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 4:59:30pm

re: #418 lrsshadow

Dude… It says this in that .doc you linked to: “Finally, scientists do not necessarily agree on the exact origin of life.”

424 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 5:13:26pm

re: #423 recusancy

That’s right some scientists believe a space ship came down and “seeded” the planet, some believe that maybe a meteor with some life left on it in a dormant state “seeded” the planet. Some believe that lightning hit some clay and boom we had life. Some believe other crazy stuff not based at all in science.

Religion should stay our of science and science should stay out of religion.

425 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 5:19:03pm

re: #177 Thanos

Ok isn’t exactly what I am saying or do you differ on the initial mutations as being random events which are weeded out by the environmentre: #177 Thanos

Being selected by natural events means “not random” Evolution doesn’t occur much in static environments where nothing ever changes. So you have Sharks who haven’t changed much since ancient times because their niches always have existed somewhat the same somewhere in the ocean. You have Tuatara’s who go through an amazing amount of random mutation who have stayed pretty much the same because their environment doesn’t change.
You can see environments affecting evolution in historic times however with changes in environment that gulls have undergone, do a google on “Ring Species”.

?

426 Bagua  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 5:25:05pm

re: #393 WindUpBird

Scientific certainty or political certainty? If it were in China’s best interests as a nation to claim that all babies come from Tau Ceti, they’d do it. And then it wouldn’t be a 100% certainty that they come from human women. 8-)

Scientific certainty.

427 Cineaste  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 5:25:11pm

re: #425 lrsshadow

Ok isn’t exactly what I am saying or do you differ on the initial mutations as being random events which are weeded out by the environmentre: #177 Thanos

?

I don’t think you understand evolution. It’s about things “evolving” from other things. Evolution does not claim to explain the origin of life itself. It picks up once life exists and explains how that life evolves into different beings over time.

428 [deleted]  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 5:25:17pm
429 lrsshadow  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 5:26:24pm

re: #427 Cineaste

I don’t think you understand evolution. It’s about things “evolving” from other things. Evolution does not claim to explain the origin of life itself. It picks up once life exists and explains how that life evolves into different beings over time.

Then why is it being taught in classrooms as the origin of life? Shouldn’t they just stick to the science behind evolution?

430 Cineaste  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 5:31:47pm

re: #429 lrsshadow

Then why is it being taught in classrooms as the origin of life? Shouldn’t they just stick to the science behind evolution?

I don’t think it’s being taught as the ‘origin’ of life. The primordial soup & bolt of lightening is a scientific theory, and subject to a great deal of debate. Evolution picks up once there is the most rudimentary life form and takes things from there. Things evolve from one state to another.

431 Dark_Falcon  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 5:33:24pm

re: #428 lrsshadow

Insulting Charles on his own blog is a quick way to lose your account. Your hostile post is also setting off the meter:

Youtube Video

432 Ian MacGregor  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 5:35:37pm

re: #60 LudwigVanQuixote

It will be interesting to see with El Nino developing in the Pacific, if we start seeing record breaking years again. If it happens, it will help to move people to toward taking AGW seriously.

I take exception to your statement that people who do not support global warming base that on belief and not observation. People look at the weather over the last decade and see little change, perhaps some cooling. They then question the projections about warming.

Instead of attacking such people as uneducated, would it not be better to in fact educate them. They are not beyond hope and in a democracy, the education of such people is a must for policies to slow AGW and mitigate its effects to be successful.

433 Cineaste  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 5:39:28pm

re: #432 Ian MacGregor

Instead of attacking such people as uneducated, would it not be better to in fact educate them. They are not beyond hope and in a democracy, the education of such people is a must for policies to slow AGW and mitigate its effects to be successful.

Consider yourself educated.

434 b_sharp  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 5:40:55pm

re: #183 lrsshadow

Well I think this is what has a lot of people concerned is this stretch by scientific materialists and atheist who are using the science of evolution to push an atheistic belief system upon people.

Now I know there is the argument that: “well that is not the theory of evolution” Unfortunately you have to judge based on the effect of practice. Until the practices are balanced you will continue to see a push for whole sale creationist theory to become mainstream.

Let me know when you finally catch that straw man you’re are chasing.

435 Varek Raith  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 5:44:11pm

re: #428 lrsshadow

You don’t get the ‘negativity’ towards your posts? Right. You openly insult Charles in that post. You distort the science behind AGW and evolution. You don’t bother to learn what others far more knowledgeable on the subject post. This is why some are ‘negative’ towards you.

re: #432 Ian MacGregor

It will be interesting to see with El Nino developing in the Pacific, if we start seeing record breaking years again. If it happens, it will help to move people to toward taking AGW seriously.

I take exception to your statement that people who do not support global warming base that on belief and not observation. People look at the weather over the last decade and see little change, perhaps some cooling. They then question the projections about warming.

Instead of attacking such people as uneducated, would it not be better to in fact educate them. They are not beyond hope and in a democracy, the education of such people is a must for policies to slow AGW and mitigate its effects to be successful.

In theory, I agree with your post. In practice, it seems, we have a large group of politicians and citizens who absolutely refuse to be educated on this matter.

436 Decatur Deb  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 6:12:42pm

re: #431 Dark_Falcon

Insulting Charles on his own blog is a quick way to lose your account. Your hostile post is also setting off the meter:


Falcon!!!
Butthurt?, butthurt? If this thing takes off, YOU’RE going in there with the
sodd’n tranquilizers.

437 Jimash  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 6:22:02pm

Of course. We will all be “educated”.
And never mind the actual observations and the real numbers, and the fact that the whole gambit is a political position, not unlike those that went before it.

I know that the AGW alarmists will scoff and call me all kinds of moron.
But: link
How do you explain the extreme deviation between the precious models
and the actual satellite observations ?
Are Lord Monckton’s numbers and prof Lindzens research inaccurate ?

438 [deleted]  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 6:22:41pm
439 MinisterO  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 6:45:07pm

re: #437 Jimash

Are Lord Monckton’s numbers and prof Lindzens research inaccurate ?

Probably. Monckton has been known to just make shit up. He’s not really a “Lord”, nor is he a scientist.

440 Jimash  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 6:59:53pm

OK.
Not a “Real Lord” only a Viscount and “peer”.
Fine , pick that nit any way you want.

But what about the facts, the ERBE sattellite observations ?
Is Prof. Lindzen, also not a “real Professor ” ?
I think he is.
So, you’ve smeared the messenger, Bully for you, how about the message?
boston.com

441 Jimash  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:01:34pm
442 MinisterO  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:06:11pm

re: #438 Jimash

Does this tabloid quality crap look like science to you?

443 b_sharp  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:16:11pm

re: #440 Jimash

OK.
Not a “Real Lord” only a Viscount and “peer”.
Fine , pick that nit any way you want.

It isn’t a nitpick, it goes to his credibility.


But what about the facts, the ERBE sattellite observations ?
Is Prof. Lindzen, also not a “real Professor ” ?
I think he is.
So, you’ve smeared the messenger, Bully for you, how about the message?
[Link: www.boston.com…]

Tell you what, since Moncton has dozens upon dozens of errors in his work, and Lindzen’s work has been rejected by the majority of scientists working on climate, grab one point each from them and let us debunk it for you. Try to pick what you believe is the most compelling point.

444 Jimash  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:21:11pm

Really,
Professor Lindzen’s analysis of the ERBE data and it’s disconnectedness
from the predictions and models is just “Tabloid crap” to you.
I am not getting it.
It is clear that CO2 is a “Trace gas”.
It is clear that the SUN drives the climate of Earth.
It is similarly clear that the inexorable temperature rise and sea-level rise
and all the fuss about the Ice and Polar bears is so much hogwash.
Just as it is an outright lie that the climate is or has been in any sense “stable” in some quantifiable or reliable way.
Now, the satellite observations from the ERBE satellite disprove some of the so-called settled consensus opinions derived from MODELS that are quite apparent;y flawed compared to the real data on the fundamental issue of how much heat the Earth radiates back into space and how much the CO2 affects that.
But that’s just the tabloid crap talking.

mit.edu

Science !

445 Jimash  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:29:05pm

Ok that’s my one point.
My one multi-faceted point is that the estimates of how much heat is trapped and not radiated bak to space due to the extra CO2 are completely wrong according to the actual recorded data, as reported in a peer reviewed paper published in a scientific publication.
This large error in the effects of the CO2 in the atmosphere and what the atmosphere is doing should ring some alarm bell for you no ?
I am no scientist.
I can’t read the math and can’t make much of the charts.
But its blazingly obvious that the UN models are all bassackwarsd (sic) on this crucial point compared to the observations.

446 Bagua  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:59:19pm

re: #362 LudwigVanQuixote

I am seriously arguing that you are being willfully ignorant. How about you take the time to address the actual science. We are certain. 100% certain that we are the primary driver, for the reasons outlined which you inexplicably refuse to acknowledge. Bringing the actual science is not a straw man, no matter how much you prevaricate and try to obfuscate.

OK, I read through the link you supplied to the double sekrit IPCC Scientists Final Report that the evil Chinese and US haggled over. Guess what? Not a single mention of 100% certainty, none, zero, zip, nada. Instead they define their terms exactly as I have represented them.

Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence, Extremely likely > 95%, Very likely > 90%, Likely > 66%, More likely than not > 50%, Very unlikely < 10%, Extremely unlikely < 5%.

The following terms have been used to express confidence in a statement:

Very high confidence At least a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct, High confidence About an 8 out of 10 chance, Medium confidence About a 5 out of 10 chance, Low confidence About a 2 out of 10 chance, Very low confidence Less than a 1 out of 10 chance.

That’s it. All the haggling was over the levels of partial certainty as defined above, mostly in the areas of future impacts based upon models, which is irrelevant to my point. 100% certainty is never mentioned as even being considered.

On the key claim of :

Many natural systems, on all continents and in some oceans, are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases [very high confidence].

Very high confidence is 9 out of 10 chance, 90%

Another key claim:

At the global scale the anthropogenic component of warming over the last three decades has had a discernible influence on many physical and biological systems [high confidence].

Again: Very high confidence is 9 out of 10 chance, 90%

Even the activist Climateark website, which is cited by the climatesciencewatch.org article you listed states.

The first report, released in February, characterized global warming as a runaway train that is irreversible, but that can be moderated by societal changes. That report said, with more than 90 percent confidence, that the warming is caused by humans, and its conclusions were widely accepted because of the years of accumulated scientific data supporting it.

Well there it is again, “more than 90 percent confidence”, not more than 95% confidence and not 99% confidence and definitely not 100% certainty.

In contrast, the second report was more controversial because it tackled the more uncertain issues of the precise effects of warming and the ability of humans to adapt to it.

Thus the second report is more controversial because it deals with “the more uncertain issues of the precise effects of warming and the ability of humans to adapt to it.” This is where the US and others haggled over the degrees of probability, 100% certainty is not mentioned anywhere, nor was that even an issue of contention.

447 Bagua  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 8:00:01pm

Cont…
The report states that the observed increase in the global average temperature was “very likely” due to man-made greenhouse gas emissions

And we know from the very clear IPCC language that Very likely > 90%, again, not 100% certain, not even virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence, nor even extremely likely > 95%.

So you can chunter on about 100% certainty as much as you like, but don’t claim that this is the True Science™ accepted by the consensus, it is not.

You can call me an idiot, jerk, stupid, and so forth again and again, but it is clear that the actual science supports my position, not yours.

QED your position Ludwig is belief based and exaggerates the science and mine is science based and accurate. Clearly you are on thin ice as far as scientific credibility.

448 Bagua  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 8:17:22pm
449 Bagua  Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:22:31pm

I see the stealth dingbat “goddamnedfrank” has been hard at work, nothing to say, no counter point, just stone the unfaithful monkey eh?

450 lrsshadow  Sat, Oct 31, 2009 11:20:02am

ok I guess I just don’t get what you guys are saying should be taught in School;

Should we teach that life came from a series theories that are being debated now, lightning in mud, space ships or meteors “seeding” the planet? (this is what I was taught in the 1980’s at my school)

Should evolution be taught only? (evolution and not origin of life)

Should we teach everything from Muslim, Judaism, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Origin of life theories, and the great flying spaghetti monster?

Help me out here where do you guys stand?

451 Sharmuta  Sat, Oct 31, 2009 11:23:49am
452 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Oct 31, 2009 3:41:11pm

re: #447 Bagua

Bagua, there is the major point that you refuse to think through the presented evidence of why it is certain that we are the driver of the current shift.

Your aspersions about my scientific credibility and your false claims about your own understanding are not helped by the fact that you refuse to look at the evidence and actually discuss the science.

So here it is one more time:

Why is the atmosphere heating from the bottom up? Why is this happening where all the CO2 we dump tends to hang out? The whole point of this of course is that if there were something extraterrestrial causing the warming, colar variation or cosmic rays or whatever, the atmosphere would be heating from the outside in. Instead of that, we see it warming where all the carbon we dumped hangs out at the bottom. This is a smoking gun.

If it were caused by solar variations, why has there been no marked solar variation sufficient to account for any but the smallest fraction of the changes we see (and even that is under strong debate)? The point of this is that we can rule out solar variation yet another way.

Do you think that the all the CO2 is doing nothing? Of course it is doing something. It must because of QM and Thermodynamics.

Why are we warming when as far as orbital variations are concerned, we should be cooling? The point of this is that orbital variations have been primary drivers in the past. However, we are warming in a period that should be cooling.

Further all of this warming coincides with the advent of the industrial age and us starting to dump all of that CO2. This is another smoking gun.

There has not been a significant increase in volcanic activity to account for the increased CO2 and more over, if it were, there would be sharp jumps in the Keeling curves. We do not see that. In otherwords, the only other natural driver that could cause such shifts in climate is also ruled out.

NOW, if you honestly process that, and stop with your word games and reliance on the political language of the IPCC, you will see that we are for certain the cause of the present shift.

How about you look at the actual science and process it?

As to IPCC,

If you think about it for half a minute BTW, you will find that no physics paper talks about bands of likely or >90% certainty. We give the evidence and the error bars and let you decide. Any such statement at all, is by it’s very nature, a sopp to the politicos. The fact that you even see such a statement is proof of politics and not science.

I am tired of your insults and your insulting of the science. I am even more tired of your false claims to speak for what science is. Do not insult me by calling the arguments I bring faith based with out even addressing the science. Start there. We can argue the politics of IPCC later.

For now, since you claim to be scientifically literate and scientifically balanced, act like it and address the scientific points given.

It is apparent that you are simply being arrogant and insulting.

453 Sharmuta  Sat, Oct 31, 2009 4:40:11pm

re: #447 Bagua

So you’re going to discredit Ludwig for calling +90% a consensus? You’re going to parse words and play gotcha to this extent instead of dealing with the meaning of the science? You really think that 10% saves you from this catastrophe in waiting? If not- why are you trying to hammer this rather insignificant point? Like using a bazooka to kill a housefly, don’t you think?

Frankly- this reeks of baiting. You’re not being an honest opponent in this debate, Bagua and it’s really beneath you, imo. Ludwig has said he’s work to improve his debating technique, and you seem to want to bait him away from that. It would be nice if you could try to do the same. Thanks.

454 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Oct 31, 2009 4:46:17pm

re: #453 Sharmuta

Actually it’s a bit worse than that.

He is caliming to speak for the science and the concensus when he does not know what either is, while steadfastly refusing to look at the actual science.

The 10% is important, because it gives political hacks wiggle room to pretend that teh evidence is less in than it is.

I’ve given the actual hard reasons why it is certain that we are the primary driver of the warming.

He has yet to refute any of them, and instead is simply playing obnoxious word games and repeating himself like a broken record with the same miss understandings over and over again. He could, heaven forefend, look at the actual facts and discuss those. But, I suppose he is too scientific for that.

It’s really just insulting.

455 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Oct 31, 2009 4:48:03pm

So in short Bagua read, understand and refute 452, or admit you are not talking science, just playing silly and ill-conceived word games.

It is certain that we are the primary cause of the present warming. This has been demonstrated by the above evidence.

456 Bagua  Sat, Oct 31, 2009 5:04:27pm

re: #452 LudwigVanQuixote


[StrawMan arguments deleted]

As to IPCC,

If you think about it for half a minute BTW, you will find that no physics paper talks about bands of likely or >90% certainty. We give the evidence and the error bars and let you decide. Any such statement at all, is by it’s very nature, a sopp to the politicos. The fact that you even see such a statement is proof of politics and not science.

I am tired of your insults and your insulting of the science. I am even more tired of your false claims to speak for what science is. Do not insult me by calling the arguments I bring faith based with out even addressing the science. Start there. We can argue the politics of IPCC later.

For now, since you claim to be scientifically literate and scientifically balanced, act like it and address the scientific points given.
It is apparent that you are simply being arrogant and insulting.

Ludwig,

It is unfortunate that your pride and ego are so fragile that you take personal insult in every challenge to your overwrought assertions. If my conclusions are even mildly insulting, which they are not intended to be, they pale in comparison to your insults such as “Jerk”,” Stupid”,” Foolishness” and worse which only you use and which precede my mild riposte.

I’ve deleted all you points about the science above which I do not dispute and have never disputed. Again, you are addressing the StrawBagua with those points. I am aware of them, agree with them. None of those points did I question. What I questioned was your incorrect assertions as to the certainty to which certain parts of the AGW theory are held.

I am fully aware that the literature uses different terminology, that is why the IPCC must define its terms, which I have correctly listed. The actual papers list their level of uncertainty differently, what the IPCC is doing is compiling and translating that for policy makers in simpler, but generally accurate terms. The papers do not speak in terms of 100% certainty with their terminology which is why the IPCC uses the language that they do.

You are simply incorrect and indignant because I have clearly demonstrated where you were wrong. You take this as a personal insult and an insult to science. That is ridiculous, pride and hubris. If there is any
insult to science, it is when it is being misrepresented by someone who claims to speak for all scientists, as you do with your “we scientists” meme.

Stop getting so emotional, defending the true faith against heresy, and wearing your pride like a fragile flower. Avoid exaggerations which overstate the science and weaken your reports, and you will not encounter objections from me. I enjoy your posts and agree with most of what you post. Why not debate the few issues I do take with reason and logic, and in the spirit of a search for truth, not a challenge to your pontification?

While I understand that the Pope’s infallibility can not be questioned and certain dogmas of the church are off limits to debate, when you join the world of politics and voters, debate and reason, and propose theories that involve massive economic impacts, then you will have to accept debate and explain your side.

“When people overstate happenings that aren’t necessarily climate change-related, or set up as almost certainties things that are difficult to establish scientifically, it distracts from the science we do understand. The danger is they can be accused of scaremongering. Also, we can all become described as kind of left-wing greens.” - Professor Sir David King, director of the Smith School for Enterprise and the Environment at the University of Oxford

457 Bagua  Sat, Oct 31, 2009 5:15:17pm

re: #453 Sharmuta

So you’re going to discredit Ludwig for calling +90% a consensus? You’re going to parse words and play gotcha to this extent instead of dealing with the meaning of the science? You really think that 10% saves you from this catastrophe in waiting? If not- why are you trying to hammer this rather insignificant point? Like using a bazooka to kill a housefly, don’t you think?

Frankly- this reeks of baiting. You’re not being an honest opponent in this debate, Bagua and it’s really beneath you, imo. Ludwig has said he’s work to improve his debating technique, and you seem to want to bait him away from that. It would be nice if you could try to do the same. Thanks.


Sharmuta,

You are misunderstanding my points. I am not talking about any “calling +90% a consensus”, I am talking about relating a description of a suspected mechanism as 100% certain when the literature and consensus does not support certainty. The question is accuracy, not being saved from catastrophe.

That we fear something, or that we are at risk, does not justify overstating that risk as certain when the science does not say that. This sort of misrepresentation weakens science, and enables people to entirely reject things they should be concerned about.

I fully realise that when people hear that something is 90% or 95% likely, they just assume it is a sure thing or mostly right. Its not, if the 10% proves correct, then the original idea can be 100% wrong in actuality.

Science is about accuracy, not emotions. My observations are honest and about establishing accuracy, not any personality games.

458 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Oct 31, 2009 5:33:14pm

re: #456 Bagua

Those are not straw man arguments. Those are the scientific reasons why it is certain that we are the primary driver behind the current warming.

Why not adress the science? If you truly care about accuracy and non emotional discourse of what the science is, you might try looking at it.

You really are simply trying to be a troll now aren’t you?

I repeat. It is one hundred percent certain that we are the primary cause of the present warming for the following reasons:

So here it is one more time:

Why is the atmosphere heating from the bottom up? Why is this happening where all the CO2 we dump tends to hang out? The whole point of this of course is that if there were something extraterrestrial causing the warming, colar variation or cosmic rays or whatever, the atmosphere would be heating from the outside in. Instead of that, we see it warming where all the carbon we dumped hangs out at the bottom. This is a smoking gun.

If it were caused by solar variations, why has there been no marked solar variation sufficient to account for any but the smallest fraction of the changes we see (and even that is under strong debate)? The point of this is that we can rule out solar variation yet another way.

Do you think that the all the CO2 is doing nothing? Of course it is doing something. It must because of QM and Thermodynamics.

Why are we warming when as far as orbital variations are concerned, we should be cooling? The point of this is that orbital variations have been primary drivers in the past. However, we are warming in a period that should be cooling.

Further all of this warming coincides with the advent of the industrial age and us starting to dump all of that CO2. This is another smoking gun.

There has not been a significant increase in volcanic activity to account for the increased CO2 and more over, if it were, there would be sharp jumps in the Keeling curves. We do not see that. In otherwords, the only other natural driver that could cause such shifts in climate is also ruled out.

Now, if you honestly process that, and stop with your word games and reliance on the political language of the IPCC, you will see that we are for certain the cause of the present shift.

Address the science. That is what science is about. I really do not care about your opinion of how certain things are in the absence of discussing the facts. You opinion means nothing in a science conversation.

The only one calling names is you.

Look at the science.

459 Bagua  Sat, Oct 31, 2009 5:34:05pm

re: #455 ludwigvanquixote

So in short Bagua read, understand and refute 452, or admit you are not talking science, just playing silly and ill-conceived word games.

It is certain that we are the primary cause of the present warming. This has been demonstrated by the above evidence.

Ludwig,

repeating incorrect statements and repeating your straw man arguments does not make you correct. I know it is your MOD to shout down your opponents. It does not change the facts.

The 10% is crucial as it honestly states the true approximate level of certainty held by the scientific consensus on those particular mechanisms. The real one, not the imaginary Ludwig “we scientists”. This varies mechanism to mechanism, theory to theory and paper to paper, but the truth is, the certainty is not in the literature on the points I raised, and certainly not in the internationally accepted scientific consensus which you reject.

Yes I know it is expressed differently in the actual papers which the consensus relies on. However it is expressed as a degree of uncertainty, that is why the IPCC uses the language that they do.

100% certainty is your belief, not a scientific fact. What is happening is that you are afraid that “heretics will seize on the 10% doubt, or the 40% doubt” and so you prefer to pretend that there is no doubt, 100% certainty to advance your cause. The fact is, this weakens your cause as Professor Sir David King correctly observed.

Adults like to make decisions based upon real facts not propaganda. If your doctor tells you a certain procedure is necessary, and tells you it is 100% safe when in fact 2% of the cases have complications, this is malpractice. The patient has the right to weigh the legitimate odds and decide honestly. Exaggeration is dishonest and defames science, even when it is well intentioned.

460 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Oct 31, 2009 5:35:52pm

re: #459 Bagua

Ok lets trey quoting you.

I’ve deleted all you points about the science above which I do not dispute and have never disputed. Again, you are addressing the StrawBagua with those points. I am aware of them, agree with them. None of those points did I question.

If you do not dispute those facts, you must conclude that we are the primary cause of the warming.

If you do not dispute those facts, you are only playing a silly game.

461 Sharmuta  Sat, Oct 31, 2009 5:37:58pm

re: #460 LudwigVanQuixote

Ok lets trey quoting you.

If you do not dispute those facts, you must conclude that we are the primary cause of the warming.

If you do not dispute those facts, you are only playing a silly game.

Then you need to GAZE, Ludwig.

462 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Oct 31, 2009 5:39:56pm

re: #459 Bagua

OK, here is how science works,

We scientists, if you were one, you would know this, collect the evidence until we have a complete picture. It is no longer in doubt at all for reasons that you yourself acknowledge, that we are the primary cause of the present warming.

This is certain.

The political language of IPCC does not come into play, because you yourself acknowledge that the actual papers do not say such things.

As to insulting me, and my credentials and whatever else you think of me, it should be pretty obvious that you are and I am tired of it. It’s infuriated me in the past. It infuriates me now. It makes you a troll.

If you acknowledge the facts, as you claim you do, you must conclude that we are the primary driver of the present shift.

Stop the games.

463 Bagua  Sat, Oct 31, 2009 5:50:28pm

re: #458 LudwigVanQuixote

I repeat. It is one hundred percent certain that we are the primary cause of the present warming for the following reasons:

Why not repeat it in bold a dozen more times? Surely that will prove your point beyond any doubt! LOL

Ludwig,

All those are straw arguments because they are not being disputed. Each of those statements has a variable level of certainty and stands on its own merits.

The issue is not an individual mechanism, the issue is the confidence in the over all conclusions of the theory, such as the level of confidence that the anthropogenic influence is the primary driver of GW, or that specifically anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the primary driver of GW, or that certain feedbacks will occur in a certain manner in the future, and on and on like that.

Around each issue there is a level of confidence and a level of uncertainty. No one is saying that water isn’t wet or that gravity isn’t real.

Now, I see that while I am typing you shout again:


If you acknowledge the facts, as you claim you do, you must conclude that we are the primary driver of the present shift.

Again, strawBagua, certainly it is reasonable to “conclude” that we are the primary driver of the present shift. That is a reasonable conclusion and my conclusion as the science relates a greater 90% certainty with less than 5% doubt. That is also the IPCC consensus. Put that way you have no argument.

But say it is 100% certain and no, that is wrong. Even >99% certainty it is still reasonable to conclude that it is the case, and unreasonable to then state we are 100% certain.

Stop the games on your part. My point is correct.

464 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Oct 31, 2009 5:57:03pm

re: #463 Bagua

OK, you refuse to acknowledge the implications of the points that you claim to agree with. Instead you play a mushy game of semantics.

So let me make this simple for the stupid - that would be you.

When we say an eclipse will happen on thus and such a date we are certain of it. The fact that the best calculations might have an error of a fraction of a second, does not invalidate the certainty of the eclipse.

Physics deals in absolutes. Yes we are open to new data. Yes those aboslutes can get refined to new circumstances. However, there are times where we know what we know for well stated reasons.

Your campaign to make the science into a form of mushy headed relativism is silly, insulting and false.

You are being willfully blind and ignoring all the facts brought to you.

You acknowledge all the reasons why it is certain we are the primary driver, yet you do not acknowledge that yes, really, in fact, we certainly are.

You call saying such things faith and extremism and use all manner of denigrating language, because you refuse to acknowledge the facts.

This simply makes you a stupid, pathetic, insulting, asshole.

From now on, simply don’t talk to me. I am through with you. You are a worthless troll.

465 Bagua  Sat, Oct 31, 2009 5:59:47pm

re: #461 Sharmuta

Sharmuta,

You know I am not a troll and that I argue my points honestly and fairly. I also put up with a great deal of insults and emotional rants from Ludwig and give very little such in return.

You are not being fair to me here. I put a lot of effort into debating Ludwig on the merits of reason and get a bunch of shouting in return.

Here is another gem from Ludwig:

So let me make this simple for the stupid - that would be you.

I do not attack him in that way or rely on insults. I would respectfully ask you to treat me fairly.

466 Bagua  Sat, Oct 31, 2009 6:03:38pm

re: #464 LudwigVanQuixote

So let me make this simple for the stupid - that would be you


silly, insulting and false.

This simply makes you a stupid, pathetic, insulting, asshole.

You are a worthless troll.

LOL,

ah the voice of unemotional scientific reason! You are a gem Ludwig.

No, I’ll not trade insults with you, it’s childish and pathetic. You violate the terms under which we agree to debate in this forum, I will not do so.

{gaze}

467 Sharmuta  Sat, Oct 31, 2009 6:06:44pm

re: #465 Bagua

I think you’re nitpicking, and Ludwig has once again lost his temper. I think perhaps secretly you two enjoy this.

Youtube Video

468 Bagua  Sat, Oct 31, 2009 6:26:10pm

re: #467 Sharmuta

I think you’re nitpicking, and Ludwig has once again lost his temper. I think perhaps secretly you two enjoy this.

Honestly Sharmuta, I don’t enjoy the hysterics and the insults. The last time Ludwig called me an asshole it was over the issue of whether water boarding was torture or not, not science. No one else acts like Ludwig on this forum and gets away with it, he shouldn’t either.

Debate I do enjoy, I just prefer reason and respect over insults and emotion. Previously I would get angry as well, now I’m just amused.

Consider if a parent brings their child to the doctor, the doctor says the medicine he is prescribing is 100% safe. The child then dies and the parents discover there was in fact a 10% chance of death. The doctor is now sued for malpractice. In fact, the parents may have proceeded with the treatement knowing the true risk considering the threat of the disease. They deserve honesty and accuracy.

The difference between 100% certainty and 90% certainty is massive, it is not nitpicking. No matter how many times the alleged scientists repeats this fraud, uses bold, stamps his feet and spits insults, it is still inaccurate and thus false.

Are we not the fact checking forum who use reason and value accuracy?

469 Sharmuta  Sat, Oct 31, 2009 6:31:13pm

re: #468 Bagua

Right- you’re amused by this. Which is why I told Ludwig to gaze you. If you find him so frustrating, then perhaps you should gaze him also. Otherwise you two will reap what you sow. I’m all in favor of debate, but you two seem to bring out the worst in each other.

470 Bagua  Sat, Oct 31, 2009 6:36:56pm

re: #469 Sharmuta

Right- you’re amused by this. Which is why I told Ludwig to gaze you. If you find him so frustrating, then perhaps you should gaze him also. Otherwise you two will reap what you sow. I’m all in favor of debate, but you two seem to bring out the worst in each other.

Aaarg… I didn’t mean I am amused therefore I am taunting him, in fact I find his vulgar insults upsetting and unnecessary. I am choosing to be amused now instead of becoming angry. Ludwig previously promised not to engage in angry insults and I took him on his word. I was mistaken.

I am debating a simple point which is valid. I am not the one using insults and hysterics. If you are saying that I must concede my point because of Ludwigs behaviour then I accept that, but that is not honest debate, that is giving in to an emotional bully.

471 goddamnedfrank  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 3:26:32pm

re: #470 Bagua

I am debating a simple point which is valid.

No.you.are.not. You are turning off intelligent thought in favor of a pedantic, pointless argument by authority. You know that the IPCC report is a political document, yet you cling to its “>90%, very likely” language like it justifies the last death rattle of whatever reasonable doubt might have once existed. I don’t blame Ludwig for losing his temper with your idiocy, at all, as you bait him with repeated non-thoughts and obstreperous insistence that the IPCC political compromise represents “the science,” when it quite clearly does not.

He is right, you are a troll.

472 Bagua  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 3:42:57pm

re: #471 goddamnedfrank

That’s amusing coming from a real troll.

Here you are squatting on an AGW thread, day’s dead, 75 comments in 2 years and the only subject you participate in by downdinging.

That is troll behaviour so don’t cast stones. You don’t have a valid point to make on the issue being discussed, just an insult to pass.

473 goddamnedfrank  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 4:08:37pm

re: #472 Bagua

That’s amusing coming from a real troll.

Here you are squatting on an AGW thread, day’s dead, 75 comments in 2 years and the only subject you participate in by downdinging.

That is troll behaviour so don’t cast stones. You don’t have a valid point to make on the issue being discussed, just an insult to pass.

I see, only you are allowed to squat on old threads. This is not the only topic I participate in, and if my comment history supported your accusation then you would have / could have supported it by example, right? Right?

You deliberately conflate the political compromise of the IPCC with the objective science. If argument by authority is your game, then let’s just say that my M.S. in Physics is thus far totally unimpressed by your bullshit misrepresentations.

474 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 7:04:51pm

re: #473 goddamnedfrank

My PhD in physics is even more unimpressed with his nonsense.

Thanks for the support.

475 goddamnedfrank  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 8:11:25pm

No problem Ludwig, you do have to stop letting yourself get baited by the bullshit though. I may be a lowly M.S. industrial / scientific photographer, but one thing I have learned thus far is that perception is reality. Bagua is far too eager to pounce on the very frustration his adamant IPCC literalism is designed to elicit in you. Try not to give him the satisfaction.

476 Bagua  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 9:09:01pm

re: #473 goddamnedfrank

I see, only you are allowed to squat on old threads. This is not the only topic I participate in, and if my comment history supported your accusation then you would have / could have supported it by example, right? Right?

You deliberately conflate the political compromise of the IPCC with the objective science. If argument by authority is your game, then let’s just say that my M.S. in Physics is thus far totally unimpressed by your bullshit misrepresentations.

Nonsense, I do not “conflate the political compromise of the IPCC with the objective science.” The objective science does not speak of 100% certainty either. Ludwig knows this, the IPCC knows this, everyone who reads the science knows this.

This is the reason the IPCC does not speak in terms of of 100% certainty when reporting on the science.

Above he said clearly “As a scientist I will give we are 90% certain that we are the only driver worth being taken into account.”

Then he repeats the 100% certain canard. Elsewhere he admits he can’t accept the 10% error bar because it would give the evil deniers ammunition.

So clearly, he is covering up the small, but statistically valid degree of uncertainly for propaganda purposes. That is not science, it is talking points.

477 Bagua  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 9:12:05pm

re: #475 goddamnedfrank

I may be a lowly M.S. industrial / scientific photographer, but one thing I have learned thus far is that perception is reality.

I see, so as a photographer you understand that the medium is the message, the facts be damned lets stay on message. You are both correct that such exaggeration of false certainty is effective propaganda, but it is not science.

478 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 9:20:59pm

re: #476 Bagua

Yes, and when I said, “As a scientist I will give we are 90% certain that we are the only driver worth being taken into account” it means that I will give a 10% chance that something else may be posing a small enough effect that we need to account for it as well as the primary driver.

I said that we are 100% certain that modern human activities are the primary driver of the present cycle.

I gave the reasons why this is certain.

You acknowledged that those reasons are true.

If they are true, you must conclude with certainty that we are the primary driver.

Yet you would rather obfuscate and insult.

Your game is up Bagua, others are noticing that you are full of shit too.

Of course, you could have avoided that by talking science and actually debating science like you claim to want to. However you called the facts strawmen and continued with your crap.

It makes you a troll, and a silly one at that.

I stand by everything I have said about your pathetic misuse of the word science, and your foolish attempts to sound “scientific.” I can only conclude that you are playing an obnoxious game for reasons of ego. It’s an asshole move. The insults made it so, and don’t whine about how reasonable you are. You know full well you were picking a fight. You also know full well you lost.

479 goddamnedfrank  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 9:36:39pm

re: #477 Bagua

I see, so as a photographer you understand that the medium is the message, the facts be damned lets stay on message. You are both correct that such exaggeration of false certainty is effective propaganda, but it is not science.

You have no idea what the hell you are talking about. My work is forensic. Trying to impugn my occupation like I’m some kind of paparazzi is really pathetic and insulting. Grow the fuck up.

480 Bagua  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:23:53pm

re: #478 LudwigVanQuixote

I see, a bunch of invectives and insult and a declaration of victory, whatever. People can als see what you are full of also Ludwig, hubris.

I answered all your strawmen arguments, you are still incorrect. Why not link a paper that draws your conclusion of 100% accuracy? You can’t. I cited the literature that supported my case.

But what ever. You insist the IPCC is wrong and you uniquely speak for “we” scientists. Your call to authority is weak as you dispute the real scientific consensus and misrepresent the basic science.

But use little words like “troll” and insults like “asshole” and that really makes your point. Pittiful.

re: #479 goddamnedfrank

You have no idea what the hell you are talking about. My work is forensic. Trying to impugn my occupation like I’m some kind of paparazzi is really pathetic and insulting. Grow the fuck up.

Oh I see, you are a forensic photographer and that makes you and authority on science and me a troll? Have fun with that. I don’t call to my qualifications as they can not be verified anonymously and because they are irrelevant to my arguments which rely on facts and reason.

There is no need to get so hostile. It was you who started with the “Troll” namecalling. It is necessary and I won’t trade insults.

481 Bagua  Sun, Nov 1, 2009 10:32:59pm

Pimf: It is unnecessary and I won’t trade insults.

Let’s either debate as respectful adults or ignore each other. So we disagree, so what?

All the anger, insults and indignation are out of proportion to the issue being debated. No one is “denying” or “insulting” the science. The discussion is over a the degree of certainty, let’s relax here guys.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh