Pages

Jump to bottom

51 comments

1 Eclectic Cyborg  Mon, Nov 22, 2010 8:07:08pm

I think part of the problem is that it’s gradual change. We can visualize quick and massive chaos (think the Day after Tomorrow) but not so much with a slower if just as damaging change.

That and the fact a lot of folks haven’t seen much change in their day to day lives as a result of “global warming” and hence they are less likely to believe it.

2 deranged cat  Mon, Nov 22, 2010 8:21:39pm

yup. most CC deniers i know just get more adamant and stubborn when they hear reasonable, logical proof.

3 Interesting Times  Mon, Nov 22, 2010 8:22:40pm

Maybe this might help (emphasis mine):

Editorial: Change terms of climate debate

The key to success, Gov. Arnold Schwarzeneggersaid, is engaging with these folks: “If you don’t believe in global climate change, what about the other four or five things?”

• Energy independence. Spiking oil prices, uncertain sources of oil, and sending money to countries that don’t share our values are matters of national security.

Schwarzenegger directly tackles what too often remains unspoken: “What does it cost the state and what does it cost the country, that we have been fighting one war after the other in the Middle East because of oil?”

• Bringing back the economy. Schwarzenegger noted that in California, “the only area right now that has the biggest explosion in job creation, by 10 times more than any other sector, is the green sector.”

• Public health. Reducing carbon pollution, Schwarzenegger said, is worthwhile: “We have 19,000 people in California dying every year because of smoke and smog-related illnesses, and nationwide it’s 100,000 people that are dying. We have children that are running around in the Central Valley with inhalers, one out of six kids.”

• Energy efficiency and conservation. Saving energy saves money on energy bills.

“Let’s not get stuck on the one thing we disagree on. Let’s talk about what we can agree on,” Schwarzenegger says.

In other words, beat the “boiling a frog” effect by focusing on CO2 harm and green energy benefits in the here and now.

4 Carlos Diggler  Mon, Nov 22, 2010 8:33:55pm

Hard and dire evidence causes the fundamentalist zombies to run to what they know: God will make it all OK.

5 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Nov 22, 2010 9:22:41pm

re: #1 dragonfire1981

I think part of the problem is that it’s gradual change. We can visualize quick and massive chaos (think the Day after Tomorrow) but not so much with a slower if just as damaging change.

That and the fact a lot of folks haven’t seen much change in their day to day lives as a result of “global warming” and hence they are less likely to believe it.

Folks here. Trust me Eskimos to people who depend on melt waters for their water, from glaciers that are disappearing, to the poor souls in Bangladesh see it every day. The ruined Russian crops were rather real as well.

6 NC Gray  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 5:31:14am

Psychologists, scientific evidence, extinguished species, melting ice caps, serial natural disasters…

Sounds like anecdotal evidence not scientific-

The hubris of the ‘Climate Change’ (notice that they have increasing change their characterization from global warming to climate change) movement never ceases to amaze. The whole idea is a moving target.

If we want the overall condition of the planet to improve we should be stressing individual liberty and freedom. There is a measurable correlation between relatively free societies with cleaner air and water.

The idea of greater government control and restricted individual liberty will ultimately lead increased environmental destruction (see the former USSR and her satellite states).

7 Romantic Heretic  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 5:56:59am

The real problem is that climate change affects people’s power. Or so they believe. They think that the technological changes required to reduce pollution of all types and deal with AGW will cause America, and by extension themselves, to be less powerful.

As the saying goes, “It’s hard to get someone to believe something when his salary depends on him not believing it.”

8 Charles Johnson  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 8:13:42am

re: #6 NC Gray

Pathetic. Right wing climate change denial, ignorant and proud of it.

9 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 8:30:33am

re: #6 NC Gray

The vast amounts of clear data to be found from the scientific organizations is hardly anecdotal.

You are not only ignorant and proud of it, but you refuse to even look.

10 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 8:31:33am

re: #8 Charles

Pathetic. Right wing climate change denial, ignorant and proud of it.

Being proud of being ignorant is a central plank of the right. They are even proud of being stupid if you look at the people they elect.

11 Interesting Times  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 8:36:09am

re: #10 LudwigVanQuixote

Being proud of being ignorant is a central plank of the right. They are even proud of being stupid

Speaking of which, LGF’s resident Glenn Beck defender is back

12 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 8:48:20am

re: #11 publicityStunted

Speaking of which, LGF’s resident Glenn Beck defender is back

Thanks for the heads up.

13 friarstale  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:34:20pm

Hello,
I am an AGW denier.
At the risk of a torrent of derision, I will outline my problems with this nonsense:
1) I’m from Rochester, NY, which used to be under a mile of ice. SUV exhaust did not melt the ice which used to cover Rochester, NY.
2) The charts and graphs the climate alarmists come up with are not very impressive or convincing.
3) I hear a lot of talk, but I don’t see much being done about it, other than crying “Wolf! Wolf!”

14 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:36:57pm

re: #13 friarstale

1) I’m from Rochester, NY, which used to be under a mile of ice. SUV exhaust did not melt the ice which used to cover Rochester, NY.

AGW does not claim that all previous warmings happened due to humans. This point makes no sense.


2) The charts and graphs the climate alarmists come up with are not very impressive or convincing.

Why aren’t you convinced by well-established, peer-reviewed science backed up by every possible data measurement?


3) I hear a lot of talk, but I don’t see much being done about it, other than crying “Wolf! Wolf!”

A lot isn’t being done because of climate deniers throwing up political roadblocks. Take some responsibility.

15 FriarsTale  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:40:38pm

re: #14 Obdicut

AGW does not claim that all previous warmings happened due to humans. This point makes no sense.

Why aren’t you convinced by well-established, peer-reviewed science backed up by every possible data measurement?


A lot isn’t being done because of climate deniers throwing up political roadblocks. Take some responsibility.

So previous warmings didn’t happen because of humans, but this warming is happening because of humans?
Your point makes no sense.

Your second point is self-serving. “Why aren’t you convinced by my wonderful convincing powers?”

What responsibility would you like me, singlehandedly, to take? What roadblock are you accusing me of throwing up?

16 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:44:41pm

re: #15 FriarsTale

So previous warmings didn’t happen because of humans, but this warming is happening because of humans?

Yes, exactly. Humans are putting huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, causing warming.

A good example could be the damming of a lake. The lake may have dam,med due to purely natural causes in the past. That doesn’t mean that humans can’t dam the lake.

Your second point is self-serving. “Why aren’t you convinced by my wonderful convincing powers?”

No, I’m not a scientist. I’m asking you why you don’t believe the scientific consensus.

What responsibility would you like me, singlehandedly, to take? What roadblock are you accusing me of throwing up?

I’d like you to examine the science and accept the reality of AGW, and write to your congresspeople to tell them to take action on it.

This site may help you:

skepticalscience.com

17 FriarsTale  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 12:59:37pm

re: #16 Obdicut

good website
it prooves that the Climategate scandal was a true scandal

27. On the allegation that CRU does not appear to have acted in a way
consistent with the spirit and intent of the FoIA or EIR, we find that there
was unhelpfulness in responding to requests and evidence that e-mails
might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a
subsequent request be made for them. University senior management should
have accepted more responsibility for implementing the required processes for
FoIA and EIR compliance.
ClimateGate Scandal Report

18 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:08:08pm

re: #17 FriarsTale

So you’re simply going to ignore the exoneration of the actual science, then?

19 FriarsTale  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:17:47pm

re: #18 Obdicut

So you’re simply going to ignore the exoneration of the actual science, then?

science?
those clowns weren’t doing science

20 FriarsTale  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:40:51pm

re: #1 dragonfire1981

I think part of the problem is that it’s gradual change. We can visualize quick and massive chaos (think the Day after Tomorrow) but not so much with a slower if just as damaging change.

That and the fact a lot of folks haven’t seen much change in their day to day lives as a result of “global warming” and hence they are less likely to believe it.

if it’s just gradual change, how can you believe it?
why won’t it gradually change back, like in the Next Ice Age?

21 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:41:36pm

re: #19 FriarsTale

Yes, they were. The same report that you are citing to lambast them clearly states that the science was sound.

So why are you ignoring that?

22 FriarsTale  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:42:19pm

hey folks, if the earth has been warming for the past 10,000 years, how are we going to stop it?

you seem to have complete faith in these “climate scientists”

23 FriarsTale  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:44:22pm

re: #21 Obdicut

Yes, they were. The same report that you are citing to lambast them clearly states that the science was sound.

So why are you ignoring that?

who wrote the report?
East Anglia University
who was the report about?
East Anglia University

so even their own whitewash report was forced to admit:

we find that there
was unhelpfulness in responding to requests and evidence that e-mails
might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a
subsequent request be made for them.
24 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:44:44pm

And then the waves will crush them!
Oh wait, you didn’t mean the river in Egypt.

The waves are all to real, though, if nothing is done.

25 FriarsTale  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:45:56pm

re: #24 Sergey Romanov

And then the waves will crush them!
Oh wait, you didn’t mean the river in Egypt.

The waves are all to real, though, if nothing is done.

What?
What is to be done?
Tell us what can be done to stop this complete and utter disaster!

26 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:47:40pm

re: #25 FriarsTale

What?
What is to be done?
Tell us what can be done to stop this complete and utter disaster!

The first step is for trolls like you to stop maligning science and scientists.

27 FriarsTale  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:48:36pm

re: #26 Sergey Romanov

stop maligning me

28 Gus  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:51:10pm

Troll.

29 FriarsTale  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:51:46pm

We also note Recommendation 5: “All researchers should make
research data, methods, and other information integral to their publicly
reported results publicly accessible in a timely manner to allow verification of
published findings and to enable other researchers to build on published
results, except in unusual cases in which there are compelling reasons for not
releasing data. In these cases, researchers should explain in a publicly
accessible manner why the data are being withheld from release”.

30 FriarsTale  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:52:03pm

37. In relation to ―hide the decline‖ we find that, given its subsequent iconic
significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC TAR), the figure
supplied for the WMO Report was misleading in two regards. It did not make
clear that in one case the data post 1960 was excluded, and it was not explicit on
the fact that proxy and instrumental data were spliced together. We do not find
that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, but that the
reason for doing so should have been described.

31 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:53:06pm

re: #29 FriarsTale

Why do you keep citing from a report that you’ve indicated you don’t believe?

32 Interesting Times  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:53:11pm

re: #27 FriarsTale

stop maligning me

Image: happy-bunny-c100863172.jpeg

33 FriarsTale  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:54:11pm

re: #28 Gus 802

Troll.

how am I a troll?
I’m linking off the page obdicut suggested, and quoting from the ClimateGate Scandal Report

Don’t you believe the ClimateGate Scandal Report?

ClimateGate Scandal Official Report

34 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:55:10pm

re: #31 Obdicut

Why do you keep citing from a report that you’ve indicated you don’t believe?

Hmm. I’ll admit I’ll cite from the reports of cranks and freaks some adversaries when “even they” admit something. (I’m not saying this particular … adversary has a point.)

35 FriarsTale  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:55:37pm

re: #31 Obdicut

Why do you keep citing from a report that you’ve indicated you don’t believe?

I do believe the report.
They admit the Scandal was a true real authentic Scandal, and they discredit their researchers, although they do couch their language to try to discredit them as little as possible

36 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:57:39pm

re: #35 FriarsTale

I do believe the report.

Great. The report completely exonerates the scientific work of the scientists.

You appear to have miscomprehended it if you believe otherwise.

37 Interesting Times  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:58:49pm

Investigators: “The autopsy report could have been better written in places.”

Deniers: “Woo-hoo! This means the person isn’t actually dead!”

38 FriarsTale  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:59:18pm

re: #36 Obdicut

Great. The report completely exonerates the scientific work of the scientists.

You appear to have miscomprehended it if you believe otherwise.

I don’t miscomprehend it, you do.
The “scientists” get put in their (low) place.

39 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 1:59:28pm

re: #37 publicityStunted

“Lots of cows died before humans were around. Therefore, slaughterhouses don’t exist”.

40 FriarsTale  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:00:26pm

re: #37 publicityStunted

Investigators: “The autopsy report could have been better written in places.”

Deniers: “Woo-hoo! This means the person isn’t actually dead!”

um, u have this backward
their “fixing” of their charts doesn’t give the patient a valid heartbeat

41 FriarsTale  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:01:45pm

hiding the declinere: #39 Obdicut

“Lots of cows died before humans were around. Therefore, slaughterhouses don’t exist”.

hide the slaughterhouses in the same place they hid the decline

42 FriarsTale  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:03:13pm

re: #39 Obdicut

“Lots of cows died before humans were around. Therefore, slaughterhouses don’t exist”.

let me guess:
you want to kill the cows so their methane farts stop adding to global warming

you people are delusional

(gotta run folks, go ahead and insult me some more, you’re very clever)

43 Gus  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:04:40pm

re: #33 FriarsTale

how am I a troll?
I’m linking off the page obdicut suggested, and quoting from the ClimateGate Scandal Report

Don’t you believe the ClimateGate Scandal Report?

ClimateGate Scandal Official Report

Congratulations. You found one minor point brought up in that report. But you didn’t really fully grasp what that entry described:

37. In relation to ―hide the decline‖ we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC TAR), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading in two regards. It did not make clear that in one case the data post 1960 was excluded, and it was not explicit on the fact that proxy and instrumental data were spliced together. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, but that the reason for doing so should have been described.

Here. Let me repeat that for you:

We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, but that the reason for doing so should have been described.

The one point was not misleading “per se” but instead “the reason for doing so should have been described.” Or we can cut to the chase and read the conclusion of the report:

8.6 Conclusions

18. In our judgement none of the above instances represents subversion of the peer review process nor unreasonable attempts to influence the editorial policy of journals. It might be thought that this reflects a pattern of behaviour that is partial and aggressive, but we think it more plausible that it reflects the rough and tumble of interaction in an area of science that has become heavily contested and where strongly opposed and aggressively expressed positions have been taken up on both sides. The evidence from an editor of a journal in an often strongly contested area such as medicine (Appendix 5) suggests that such instances are common and that they do not in general threaten the integrity of peer review or publication.

44 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:05:35pm

“go ahead and insult me some more, you’re very clever”

Your wish is my command. You shouldn’t have called yourself “FriarsTale”. “WalkingTalkingPoint” fits you more.

45 Gus  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:06:01pm

re: #42 FriarsTale

let me guess:
you want to kill the cows so their methane farts stop adding to global warming

you people are delusional

(gotta run folks, go ahead and insult me some more, you’re very clever)

Don’t forget your tin foil lead lined hat. It’ll help keep out the cosmic radiation while you’re out and about.

46 NC Gray  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:10:15pm

re: #8 Charles

It always gets me warm and fuzzy when you respond to one of my posts…

But, that aside do you concede that if there is AGW and government action is the solution that people as whole will have less freedom and government will have more power over the activities of individuals?

47 freetoken  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:27:05pm

re: #46 NC Gray


But, that aside do you concede that if there is AGW and government action is the solution that people as whole will have less freedom and government will have more power over the activities of individuals?

My city has codes that keeps me from building any structure that I desire.

My city has codes that tells me I have to pour my excrement down the collectively paid-for sewer.

My state has laws that tells me what I can and can’t do on the streets and highways.

And so forth.

Am I less “free” because of all the above?

I will tell you this - I’m better off due to all the above.

48 Gus  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 2:41:28pm

re: #46 NC Gray

It always gets me warm and fuzzy when you respond to one of my posts…

But, that aside do you concede that if there is AGW and government action is the solution that people as whole will have less freedom and government will have more power over the activities of individuals?

Driving around in a pick-up truck with a broken muffler and violates clean air laws is not a right. That was common in the mid 20th century but rarely seen today. No one lost their freedom and mobility in later years as newer trucks that can pass emissions testing were bought by the millions. You can’t ride a horse in the open range anymore either. Things change and the same will be true for our current modes of transportation.

49 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:13:08pm

re: #40 FriarsTale

um, u have this backward
their “fixing” of their charts doesn’t give the patient a valid heartbeat

No charts were ever fixed. It’s a pity you cherry pick so much.

50 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:14:44pm

So I told you all that friar’s tale is troll. It is likely good for my blood pressure that I missed this particular thread discussion.

51 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Nov 23, 2010 3:16:23pm

re: #43 Gus 802

You beat me to that post. Of cousrse those parts, that contradict the talking point - even if they are the main conclusions of the report will not be noticed.


This page 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
Why Did More Than 1,000 People Die After Police Subdued Them With Force That Isn’t Meant to Kill? An investigation led by The Associated Press has found that, over a decade, more than 1,000 people died after police subdued them through physical holds, stun guns, body blows and other force not intended to be lethal. More: Why ...
Cheechako
4 hours ago
Views: 30 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
A Closer Look at the Eastman State Bar DecisionTaking a few minutes away from work things to read through the Eastman decision. As I'm sure many of you know, Eastman was my law school con law professor. I knew him pretty well because I was also running in ...
KGxvi
8 hours ago
Views: 85 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 1