Thank You, Climate Change Deniers

Environment • Views: 3,353

A few years ago, I used to doubt that there really were climate change denialists.

But then I started posting at LGF about the scientific evidence for global warming, and lo, the denialists began to appear.

Hordes of them.

Posting one comment after another full of talking points, false claims, diversions, and complete BS.

I don’t doubt their existence any more.

So I want to say “thank you” to all the climate change denialists who post comments at LGF, relentlessly hyping every false claim, refusing to follow any links to evidence, and ceaselessly parroting the latest obfuscations.

You’ve really helped open my eyes to the truth.

Jump to bottom

774 comments
1 laZardo  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:25:03pm

I'm no denier, but it's not exactly solace that the only thing we can do now is to get potentially-displaced populations to settle on higher ground when their current houses end up on the wrong side of the coastal property line...

2 Kronocide  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:25:45pm

Not that I'm one to pile on, but the faux ClimateGate is just shocking how ignorant and scandalous it is.

3 Crimsonfisted  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:28:44pm

What now? Where do we go from here?

Speaking just for me.

4 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:28:52pm

It was somewhat the same way for me during the start of the Vlaams Belang investigations - I was somewhat on their side until the propagandists all started flocking in, then I began to smell something real bad.

5 Ojoe  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:29:50pm

Bean Ass Howe

the climate has changed before, it is silly to suppose that it is not changing now.

Good night.

6 freetoken  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:31:18pm

re: #4 Thanos

Notably, it was after people started to point out where VB was headed that VB and their supporters really started to ratchet up the vitriol.

It's a long process to sort out beliefs, but once started can lead to some unexpected places.

7 Achilles Tang  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:31:24pm

Boy I hope this ad with the drawing of an overweight woman in a skimpy bikini gets swapped out soon.

8 little boomer  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:31:36pm

Whether the climate is warming or cooling, to be on the safe side, let's have President Pelosi seize control of the economy.

9 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:31:51pm

re: #5 Ojoe

Bean Ass Howe

the climate has changed before, it is silly to suppose that it is not changing now.

Good night.

Yes it has -- and during some of those periods there were inland seas in Kansas, insects the size of Volkswagen Beetles, and Alligators in Canada. I don't think we want to go back there.

10 Sheila Broflovski  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:32:11pm

re: #7 Naso Tang

Boy I hope this ad with the drawing of an overweight woman in a skimpy bikini gets swapped out soon.

Hey, be glad it's a drawing and not a photo.

11 laZardo  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:32:19pm

re: #7 Naso Tang

Refresh the page?

12 papajoe  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:32:27pm

I am a denier. look at the history on a planet scale.

13 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:32:30pm

I think this is another example in a long line of issues where you can see people aren't interested in facts and truth, but are rather interested in propaganda that confirms their existing biases. It's slow, hard work to chip away at such prejudice, but as always, the Truth is worth the effort.

14 freetoken  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:32:42pm

re: #7 Naso Tang

Boy I hope this ad with the drawing of an overweight woman in a skimpy bikini gets swapped out soon.

What... you don't like women in skimpy bikinis?

15 Crimsonfisted  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:32:53pm

re: #7 Naso Tang

Boy I hope this ad with the drawing of an overweight woman in a skimpy bikini gets swapped out soon.

Speaking as a fat woman...

I agree.

16 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:33:10pm

I think that there are simple, easy things that we can do NOW to use less energy, and we SHOULD be making every effort to do them. Previous generations did things like, turn off the lights when you leave a room.
It's not hard. It just takes a little effort.
My electric company offers lists of "energy efficient" things to do.
Does yours?
Have you done them?

17 laZardo  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:33:14pm

re: #13 Sharmuta

The problem is, we don't exactly have all the time in the world to chip away at it...

18 Charles Johnson  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:33:57pm

re: #8 little boomer

Whether the climate is warming or cooling, to be on the safe side, let's have President Pelosi seize control of the economy.

Thank you!

19 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:34:30pm

re: #4 Thanos

It was somewhat the same way for me during the start of the Vlaams Belang investigations - I was somewhat on their side until the propagandists all started flocking in, then I began to smell something real bad.

I never heard of Vlaams Belang until Charles exposed them here.

20 little boomer  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:34:48pm

re: #18 Charles

Not at all.

21 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:34:51pm

re: #9 Thanos

Yes it has -- and during some of those periods there were inland seas in Kansas, insects the size of Volkswagen Beetles, and Alligators in Canada. I don't think we want to go back there.

So there might be beachfront property in Kansas? Way cool.

22 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:35:25pm

re: #19 NJDhockeyfan

I never heard of Vlaams Belang until Charles exposed them here.

Yep, I would have been ignorant of them and their aims without the articles from Charles.

23 reine.de.tout  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:35:25pm

re: #16 Floral Giraffe

I think that there are simple, easy things that we can do NOW to use less energy, and we SHOULD be making every effort to do them. Previous generations did things like, turn off the lights when you leave a room.
It's not hard. It just takes a little effort.
My electric company offers lists of "energy efficient" things to do.
Does yours?
Have you done them?

Why - yes I have!

Good evening, Flo!

24 Ojoe  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:35:33pm

re: #10 Alouette

It should change color every 5 seconds for "diversity."

Good night again.

25 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:36:07pm

re: #22 Thanos

Yep, I would have been ignorant of them and their aims without the articles from Charles.

That's why I love LGF. I have learned a lot from this website.

26 Crimsonfisted  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:36:10pm

re: #22 Thanos

Yep, I would have been ignorant of them and their aims without the articles from Charles.

Upding a thousand times. If I could.

27 Bloodnok  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:36:20pm
So I want to say “thank you” to all the climate change denialists who post comments at LGF, relentlessly hyping every false claim, refusing to follow any links to evidence, and ceaselessly parroting the latest obfuscations.

I like 'em for the laughs they give me, but that's just me.

(the end of this thread should be like a Richard Pryor set)

28 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:36:25pm

re: #23 reine.de.tout

Of course YOU have!
Hello, Madame Reine!
I hope all is well with you & Le Roi?
And my spelling?

29 Ojoe  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:36:27pm

re: #23 reine.de.tout

Yes but I'm keeping my lava lamp. I don't always turn it on though.

30 laZardo  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:36:34pm

re: #16 Floral Giraffe

I think that there are simple, easy things that we can do NOW to use less energy, and we SHOULD be making every effort to do them. Previous generations did things like, turn off the lights when you leave a room.
It's not hard. It just takes a little effort.
My electric company offers lists of "energy efficient" things to do.
Does yours?
Have you done them?

It saves resources, AND it'll save you money on your electric bill.

/ O:

31 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:36:51pm

re: #8 little boomer

Whether the climate is warming or cooling, to be on the safe side, let's have President Pelosi seize control of the economy.

Dude, some of your post make no sense. Are you drunk?

32 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:36:56pm

re: #21 SanFranciscoZionist

So there might be beachfront property in Kansas? Way cool.

Probably not this next round as the overall elevation of Kansas is higher now. It's been uplifted along with the Rockies.

33 reine.de.tout  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:37:09pm

re: #28 Floral Giraffe

Of course YOU have!
Hello, Madame Reine!
I hope all is well with you & Le Roi?
And my spelling?

ur spelng iz fine

34 reine.de.tout  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:37:44pm

re: #29 Ojoe

Yes but I'm keeping my lava lamp. I don't always turn it on though.

It's an antique. Of course you need to keep it.

35 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:38:02pm

re: #33 reine.de.tout

I need to find a basement kitteh for that!

36 little boomer  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:38:04pm

re: #31 NJDhockeyfan

Inferential comprehension.

37 jayzee  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:38:20pm

re: #13 Sharmuta

I think this is another example in a long line of issues where you can see people aren't interested in facts and truth, but are rather interested in propaganda that confirms their existing biases. It's slow, hard work to chip away at such prejudice, but as always, the Truth is worth the effort.

I think the problem is politics and money-on both sides. You got one side saying we have 50 days to change the world, the other side saying there's nothing going on and both sides have a real political agenda. It is like cigarettes. On one hand, people like Bloomberg want a sin tax to "make people quit", but it's always just enough that people will still be willing to pay. Then he complains, when taxes stop coming in because people buy elsewhere and/or quit. On the other hand, the tobacco industry...

38 Digital Display  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:38:30pm

re: #13 Sharmuta

I think this is another example in a long line of issues where you can see people aren't interested in facts and truth, but are rather interested in propaganda that confirms their existing biases. It's slow, hard work to chip away at such prejudice, but as always, the Truth is worth the effort.

So true Sharm..People only believe in Science when it fits within their political view.

39 laZardo  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:38:34pm

re: #32 Thanos

After the Global Warming deniers, we go after the Continental Drift deniers. :D

40 Charles Johnson  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:38:46pm

I sent an email of support to Prof. Andrew Watson, by the way, just to let him know that not everyone in America is as deranged as Marc Morano.

41 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:39:07pm

re: #27 Bloodnok

I like 'em for the laughs they give me, but that's just me.

(the end of this thread should be like a Richard Pryor set)

The FWOOSH, set your hair on fire kinda thing?

42 laZardo  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:39:26pm

re: #41 Floral Giraffe

Nah, that's a Michael Jackson set.

43 Gus  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:39:49pm

re: #39 laZardo

After the Global Warming deniers, we go after the Continental Drift deniers. :D

I was surprised to learn that there are those. They believe in some crazy flood theory and I think it involves a giant wooden boat.

44 Achilles Tang  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:39:57pm

re: #14 freetoken

What... you don't like women in skimpy bikinis?

No, I want photos, not drawings.

45 Ojoe  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:40:00pm

re: #34 reine.de.tout

Lava Lamps, the antique that they still make!

46 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:40:28pm

re: #39 laZardo

There were a lot of those now that I recall. Many were in the scientific community, however they flipped on their opposition to the theory within a year once the proof was brought forth.

47 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:40:50pm

re: #40 Charles

I bet he was happy to get some support.
Good for you.

48 acwgusa  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:41:13pm

re: #40 Charles

I sent an email of support to Prof. Andrew Watson, by the way, just to let him know that not everyone in America is as deranged as Marc Morano.

I would hope so. Charles, that Breitbart Tweet is really disturbing. No wonder you left the right behind.

49 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:41:37pm

re: #32 Thanos

Probably not this next round as the overall elevation of Kansas is higher now. It's been uplifted along with the Rockies.

Let's not get started with the climate change plate tectonics will bring.

50 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:41:59pm

re: #27 Bloodnok

I like 'em for the laughs they give me, but that's just me.

(the end of this thread should be like a Richard Pryor set)

Here he is doing the alphabet.

Youtube Video

:o)

51 jaunte  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:42:41pm

re: #49 Sharmuta

Hey, I'll be able to see Yucatan from my house!

52 What, me worry?  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:43:04pm

I've said this before, but what difference does it make if the evidence is real or not? Doesn't it make sense to promote, utilize, develop alternative fuel sources if for no other reason than significantly curbing our dependence on foreign oil? I'm surprised the Right isn't on board with this. Climate change denying, IMO, is really about not wanting to create sustainable alternative resources and continue drilling or importing than about disavowing the science. It's certainly seems to be a huge aspect.

Look, I thought we should have started producing/developing alternative fuel sources, wind, solar and electric during the Carter recession. Those of you who are old enough to remember the gas lines that stretched for blocks. In fact, if we had then, we'd be well on the road today and it would be affordable. Well, it's not too late to start. In fact, it's already begun. Most all major energy producing companies are focusing on wind and solar today.

I find it sad because it's really an idea, policy, whatever, that both sides can agree to, maybe for different reasons, and work towards together.

53 Kronocide  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:43:11pm

Breitbart: another one I used to love...

54 Locker  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:43:58pm

re: #40 Charles

I sent an email of support to Prof. Andrew Watson, by the way, just to let him know that not everyone in America is as deranged as Marc Morano.

Maybe you could interview him? I think the resulting discussion would be interesting and relevant.

55 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:44:20pm

re: #51 jaunte

Hey, I'll be able to see Yucatan from my house!

At some point, you'll see Africa.

56 papajoe  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:44:26pm

It's always good to conserve energy. but not at the expense of the people. This planet is not in danger because of humans. It has more to fear from astrological impacts than humans.

57 reine.de.tout  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:44:45pm

re: #35 Floral Giraffe

I need to find a basement kitteh for that!

Take a 45- second break for a cute kitteh

58 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:44:55pm

re: #56 papajoe
Why do you think that?

59 Ojoe  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:44:56pm

re: #52 marjoriemoon

Our energy is all going to have to be renewable eventually & the sooner we get going on developing all the different renewable sources the easier it will be for us to make the change.

Good night again to all.

60 Locker  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:45:05pm

re: #56 papajoe

It's always good to conserve energy. but not at the expense of the people. This planet is not in danger because of humans. It has more to fear from astrological impacts than humans.

Humans are in danger because of humans. The planet is gonna do what it does regardless.

61 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:45:09pm

re: #56 papajoe

It's always good to conserve energy. but not at the expense of the people. This planet is not in danger because of humans. It has more to fear from astrological impacts than humans.

Humans are in danger of human caused climate change.

62 Kronocide  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:45:44pm

re: #56 papajoe

Dat Mayan sheet fo realz dawg!

63 acwgusa  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:46:09pm

re: #59 Ojoe

Our energy is all going to have to be renewable eventually & the sooner we get going on developing all the different renewable sources the easier it will be for us to make the change.

Good night again to all.

I still want a way to power the country off Washington DC abundant hot air.

64 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:46:51pm

re: #57 reine.de.tout

Awww. That wuz a nice break!

65 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:47:44pm

This is probably driving Ahmanson much further around the bend since it's in his backyard:

LOS ANGELES – The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles elected a lesbian as assistant bishop Saturday, the second openly gay bishop in the global Anglican fellowship, which is already deeply fractured over the first.

The Rev. Mary Glasspool of Baltimore needs approval from a majority of dioceses across the church before she can be consecrated as assistant bishop in the Los Angeles diocese.

66 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:48:02pm

re: #63 acwgusa

I still want a way to power the country off Washington DC abundant hot air.

Ok, but YOU have to hook it up to them...
I'm just saying...

67 What, me worry?  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:48:33pm

re: #59 Ojoe

Our energy is all going to have to be renewable eventually & the sooner we get going on developing all the different renewable sources the easier it will be for us to make the change.

Good night again to all.

It's on Obama's agenda btw. I haven't read through that whole list, but I'm happy to see a president focusing on this. I expect to see more action in the years to come.

68 little boomer  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:48:39pm

re: #52 marjoriemoon

Quite so. Global Warmer or Global cooler-dove or hawk-put up those windmills, solar panels and install those wood pellet stoves!!

69 acwgusa  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:48:39pm

re: #66 Floral Giraffe

Ok, but YOU have to hook it up to them...
I'm just saying...

Ewww!

70 Charles Johnson  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:49:23pm

re: #56 papajoe

It's always good to conserve energy. but not at the expense of the people. This planet is not in danger because of humans. It has more to fear from astrological impacts than humans.

Thank you!

71 lostlakehiker  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:51:04pm

re: #3 Crimsonfisted

What now? Where do we go from here?

Speaking just for me.

Where we should go is wind, solar, nuclear, cogeneration, green buildings, smart grids, electric cars, and on and on. And mitigation. For instance, don't put expensive, long-term investments right on the coast.

Sweep aside regulatory obstacles. Grant eminent domain to power lines connecting wind and solar installations to markets. Grant licenses to build nuclear power plants of a fixed, proven design, without any "environmental impact" nonsense. The environmental impact of AGW, by the account of those who say they take it seriously, is the gorilla in the room. Nothing else much matters by comparison.

And if we absolutely must, I suppose a tax on carbon emissions. It's less disruptive than "cap and trade", and it's less prone to gaming. Cap and trade, by contrast, will be almost entirely gaming, racketeering, and hype, with no real effect on carbon emissions. What does it matter, for instance, if a trillion seedlings are planted in some poor third-world country? The normal fate of seedlings is failure. Without a suitable plot of land and property rights to protect that plot, the seedling, in the unlikely event that it reaches stick size, is to be plucked and converted to charcoal for cooking.

Speaking of wood cooking, there's a fifteen dollar wood stove (details)...that gets far more cooking accomplished with a given amount of wood than makeshift hearths do. Get them to everybody who cooks with wood.

What we will do is putter along with R&D at non-emergency pace, then freak and spend a bundle when the dice of weather turn to reinforcing climate change rather than, as now, mitigating it. When the solar cycle comes around to a spate of high sunspot activity, and El Nino rolls around, and some storm devastates NOL again, then we'll pay more attention.

72 Bloodnok  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:51:25pm

re: #55 Sharmuta

At some point, you'll see Africa.

Great. I have enough trouble cleaning up after what the neighbor's dog does in my yard. Now I have to worry about zebras and lions someday.

73 papajoe  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:51:46pm

Humans endangering humans on a planet scale. I don't think we are that important to this world at this time in history.

74 Bloodnok  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:52:01pm

re: #70 Charles

Thank you!

You really should add a HUMOR tag to these threads from now on. /

75 lostlakehiker  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:52:04pm

re: #40 Charles

I sent an email of support to Prof. Andrew Watson, by the way, just to let him know that not everyone in America is as deranged as Marc Morano.

Let's have a vote. A yes vote signs Charles' support letter. Can you put up a poll?

76 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:52:06pm

re: #73 papajoe

You'd be wrong.

77 What, me worry?  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:52:29pm

re: #68 little boomer

Quite so. Global Warmer or Global cooler-dove or hawk-put up those windmills, solar panels and install those wood pellet stoves!!

I asked a friend who works in the energy field why we don't have more solar panels in Florida, seeing as it's warm all year round. He said one word, "Hurricanes." You're not going to spend $30K (which is about what it is today) to put up panels that will fly off your roof next summer. But I think there has to be a solution. I'm not an engineer :)

For the record, I believe global warming is all too terribly real AND we need to cut our foreign dependence.

78 lostlakehiker  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:52:54pm

re: #73 papajoe

Humans endangering humans on a planet scale. I don't think we are that important to this world at this time in history.

We don't exactly endanger our own species. We'll pull through, hell or "high water". A great many other species won't.

79 acwgusa  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:53:01pm

re: #71 lostlakehiker

Where we should go is wind, solar, nuclear, cogeneration, green buildings, smart grids, electric cars, and on and on. And mitigation. For instance, don't put expensive, long-term investments right on the coast.

Sweep aside regulatory obstacles. Grant eminent domain to power lines connecting wind and solar installations to markets. Grant licenses to build nuclear power plants of a fixed, proven design, without any "environmental impact" nonsense. The environmental impact of AGW, by the account of those who say they take it seriously, is the gorilla in the room. Nothing else much matters by comparison.

And if we absolutely must, I suppose a tax on carbon emissions. It's less disruptive than "cap and trade", and it's less prone to gaming. Cap and trade, by contrast, will be almost entirely gaming, racketeering, and hype, with no real effect on carbon emissions. What does it matter, for instance, if a trillion seedlings are planted in some poor third-world country? The normal fate of seedlings is failure. Without a suitable plot of land and property rights to protect that plot, the seedling, in the unlikely event that it reaches stick size, is to be plucked and converted to charcoal for cooking.

Speaking of wood cooking, there's a fifteen dollar wood stove (details)...that gets far more cooking accomplished with a given amount of wood than makeshift hearths do. Get them to everybody who cooks with wood.

What we will do is putter along with R&D at non-emergency pace, then freak and spend a bundle when the dice of weather turn to reinforcing climate change rather than, as now, mitigating it. When the solar cycle comes around to a spate of high sunspot activity, and El Nino rolls around, and some storm devastates NOL again, then we'll pay more attention.

Have you seen some of the stupid environment impact assessment laws? Especially in the state of California?

80 Locker  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:53:19pm

re: #71 lostlakehiker

Can't help but say that ignoring Environmental Impact is what got us into this situation initially. It would be nice if processes were streamlined but I still think doing it right is better than doing it wrong and making something else worse. Just one perspective.

81 Kronocide  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:53:47pm

re: #73 papajoe

That is logically detached. Humans are very important to humans.

They've been messing with each other for at least 6013 years.

82 Digital Display  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:54:14pm

re: #73 papajoe

Humans endangering humans on a planet scale. I don't think we are that important to this world at this time in history.

Congratulations.. You just made the stupidest statement on LGF today.

83 little boomer  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:54:33pm

re: #77 marjoriemoon

Good point on the Florida solar panels...

84 reine.de.tout  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:54:55pm

re: #51 jaunte

Hey, I'll be able to see Yucatan from my house!

Actually, not so far-fetched for those of us in Louisiana.
I posted this before:
Louisiana wetlands are disappearing at an alarming rate (25 sq miles a year)

85 Spare O'Lake  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:55:04pm

The older I get the more I don't know.

86 Bloodnok  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:55:43pm

re: #84 reine.de.tout

Actually, not so far-fetched for those of us in Louisiana.
I posted this before:
Louisiana wetlands are disappearing at an alarming rate (25 sq miles a year)

BTW, did you get snow today? (Not being snarky since this is an AGW themed thread -just curious).

87 Varek Raith  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:56:08pm

re: #73 papajoe

Riiight.

88 papajoe  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:56:36pm

#78
species come and go. This has been the way for eons.

89 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:56:41pm

Dear Deniers,

A Hyperlinked History of Climate Change Science

I know clicking link is teh hard, but please do try. Thanks!

Sincerely, Sharmuta

90 Varek Raith  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:56:47pm

re: #87 Varek Raith

/just in case...

91 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:57:07pm

Chrysochroa Rugicollis, native of Pakistan

92 Bloodnok  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:59:08pm

re: #89 Sharmuta

Dear Deniers,

A Hyperlinked History of Climate Change Science

I know clicking link is teh hard, but please do try. Thanks!

Sincerely, Sharmuta

Needs more hand puppets and a fun activity page. A nice maze would fit the bill. Then they'll click.

93 reine.de.tout  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:59:14pm

re: #86 Bloodnok

BTW, did you get snow today? (Not being snarky since this is an AGW themed thread -just curious).

We got a light dusting of snow last night for a short time = mixed with sleet. It was gone about as soon as the sun came up. But it was pretty for a bit.

94 bosforus  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:59:14pm

Now, who's going to deny ferrofluids?

Youtube Video
95 Gus  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:59:45pm

re: #56 papajoe

It's always good to conserve energy. but not at the expense of the people. This planet is not in danger because of humans. It has more to fear from astrological impacts than humans.

Er, uh, from which sign? Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, or Libra?

Astrological is of or pertaining to astrology.

96 Varek Raith  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 8:59:47pm

re: #88 papajoe

#78
species come and go. This has been the way for eons.

Boy, you really don't get how badly we could screw up the earth's ecology...

97 jaunte  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:00:09pm

re: #84 reine.de.tout

Actually, not so far-fetched for those of us in Louisiana.
I posted this before:
Louisiana wetlands are disappearing at an alarming rate (25 sq miles a year)

John McPhee saw it coming when he wrote The Control of Nature.
[Link: www.amazon.com...]

98 Kronocide  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:00:10pm

re: #88 papajoe

Posters come and posters go. That's the way it's been for eons (2001).

99 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:00:34pm

re: #57 reine.de.tout

Take a 45- second break for a cute kitteh

I was in a house today. One of the pets in that house was one of these.

100 What, me worry?  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:00:50pm

re: #71 lostlakehiker

I like it.

I'm a supporter of nuclear too. Not something you normally hear from a Leftie heh. The problem, though, is the waste. What to do with the waste.

101 papajoe  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:00:59pm

climate change is a real and tangleable thing. the cause is not.

102 Charles Johnson  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:01:04pm

re: #88 papajoe

#78
species come and go. This has been the way for eons.

It's been two years since you last showed up at LGF. Where have you been?

103 Locker  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:01:16pm

re: #88 papajoe

#78
species come and go. This has been the way for eons.

Some people care about things and others don't give a fuck. This has been the way for eons.

So, that being said, why don't you move it on over to a "don't give a fuck" blog and enjoy yourself. We'll all be happier in the end.

104 lostlakehiker  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:01:48pm

re: #80 Locker

Can't help but say that ignoring Environmental Impact is what got us into this situation initially. It would be nice if processes were streamlined but I still think doing it right is better than doing it wrong and making something else worse. Just one perspective.

Whatever adverse environmental impact a plant might have locally is sure to be outweighed by the global effects to the upside. I don't mean to suggest that we put nuclear power plants in the middle of the Everglades, on top of Half Dome, and cut down the Redwoods to make room for another, but fretting over whether the desert spotted mouse louse will have its habitat encroached on won't DO. Worse still, fretting over whether there might possibly be some effect nobody can imagine, and spending decades dickering and bickering over wholly imaginary possibilities, is insane.

Serious environmentalism requires keeping an eye on the ball and it requires prioritizing. Mitigating and stemming global warming is necessary if we are to limit the far-reaching changes now afoot, changes that are shaping up to be another of the great waves of extinction in the history of life on earth.

We humans are a sturdy species. With a range that covers altitudes from below sea level to 15000 feet or so, and every continent but Antarctica, we ominvores will survive. We cannot screw things up that bad with mere climate change. Other, less fortunate species, have their backs to the wall. Maybe a few will be hurt by this or that power plant. But for the mass of them, as the climate goes, so they go.

105 Varek Raith  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:02:06pm

re: #101 papajoe

climate change is a real and tangleable thing. the cause is not.

And you base this off of what scientific evidence...?

106 Spare O'Lake  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:02:07pm

Is Obama still against nuclear, or has he veered to the right on that one too?

107 papajoe  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:02:35pm

#56
Sorry. space rocks.

108 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:02:36pm

re: #92 Bloodnok

Needs more hand puppets and a fun activity page. A nice maze would fit the bill. Then they'll click.

I think I understand- I was hasty.

Here is a link to a hot video of Megan Fox. Yeah...

109 Kronocide  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:02:41pm

re: #102 Charles

It's been two years since you last showed up at LGF. Where have you been?

Planning for the a-pox-cal-lipses!

110 Charles Johnson  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:02:53pm

These threads are like alarm clocks to the sleepers.

111 laZardo  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:03:04pm

re: #89 Sharmuta

Amazing how cheerful and upbeat we can be when we're dealing with the potential permanent displacement of entire countries' populations.

At the least we should start drawing up plans for the inevitable. And I'm not joking...

/last year's news, but no less relevant.

112 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:03:18pm

re: #106 Spare O'Lake

Is Obama still against nuclear, or has he veered to the right on that one too?

Even during the campaign he made noises of approval towards nuclear; most politicians have figured out that it's inevitable by now.

113 Irenicum  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:03:28pm

You make a good point Charles. Sometimes it takes the repeated expressions of an ideologically driven viewpoint, said over and over again, to bring home the reality that they're not operating from an honest vantage point. There are times that a meme gets sold so much that red flags go up. The anti AGW meme is one. There are others of course, usually involving scientific issues which impinge on either religious beliefs or corporate profits. Yet in all of these cases the technique is to obfuscate through redirection. Learning from the scientific method, it seems, is too dangerous for these folks. Straw men and ad hominem attacks are the tactic du jour. The irony is that the very behavior of these willful ignoramuses illustrate the reality of who they are. It seems they can't help themselves. Of that I am very thankful.

114 Locker  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:03:40pm

re: #104 lostlakehiker

I guess I'm just advocating doing things in a measured way vs a slash and burn. I don't think we are that far apart on things I just hate seeing this pendulum swing so violently from one side to the other with regard to our forward progress.

My hope is for us, as a nation, to be smart and active on this issue and on the host of other issues we will be addressing in the future.

115 EE  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:03:57pm

In one of the emails, a CRU insider said that it is a "travesty" that the insider scientists are unable to explain the recent non-warming (over the past few years). It is a "travesty" from his point of view because of the posture of infallibility that they are attempting to cultivate.

But a worse travesty is their refusal to budge from the carbocentric rut that they are in, which limits them to groupthink, and makes it highly unlikely that the correction of the climate model will come from these guys. How can they correct the model, when they cannot think outside of the box?

An even worse travesty is their efforts to squelch the admission into the scientific forum of the heterodoxic climatologists. My guess is that the correction of the model will come from the heterodixic climatologists, who have an open mind, and who have a healthy scientific skepticism of the groupthink dogma of carbocentrism.

Also, it is a travesty that they are unable to explain the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, let alone the very many ice ages and interglacial warm periods that have appeared during the last million years or so at least. Carbocentrism won't explain the very many severe climate changes -- that dwarf anything that we have seen from 1978-1998 -- and until they address these, they surely look like they have closed minds.

116 Bloodnok  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:04:33pm

re: #108 Sharmuta

I think I understand- I was hasty.

Here is a link to a hot video of Megan Fox. Yeah...

Ya got me. And I think AGW is real.

117 lostlakehiker  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:05:25pm

re: #100 marjoriemoon

I like it.

I'm a supporter of nuclear too. Not something you normally hear from a Leftie heh. The problem, though, is the waste. What to do with the waste.

Nevada. But actually, on site storage is tolerable. There's even a Scientific American article pointing out that we can manage it that way. Not optimal, but since Nevada is politically impossible, we're stuck with on-site. The beauty of nuclear waste is that there is so little of it, and most of what there is goes away all on its own. (The really hot isotopes have a short half life. Store them for ten half lives and 99.9 percent of your problem is gone.) Quite unlike, say, arsenic or lead in mine tailings.

118 papajoe  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:05:31pm

#101
Nobody knows for sure. The science is tainted at this time.

119 What, me worry?  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:05:45pm

re: #106 Spare O'Lake

Is Obama still against nuclear, or has he veered to the right on that one too?

I don't recall Obama ever being against nuclear energy. He was rightly concerned about the waste.

120 Digital Display  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:06:05pm

re: #108 Sharmuta

I think I understand- I was hasty.

Here is a link to a hot video of Megan Fox. Yeah...

Boy did I sucker for that!
*wink*

121 Charles Johnson  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:06:30pm

re: #115 EE

Thank you!

122 Kronocide  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:08:03pm

re: #115 EE


Also, it is a travesty that they are unable to explain the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, let alone the very many ice ages and interglacial warm periods that have appeared during the last million years or so at least.

It's a travesty that many supposedly thinking people demand that scientist not only explain what happened but why it happened, lest the explanation of if is denied.

And the term 'carbocentrism' is pure populist fodder.

123 laZardo  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:08:23pm

re: #117 lostlakehiker

Then there's the recycling of waste into weapons-grade plutonium.

124 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:09:05pm

re: #115 EE

Pish. Scientists are one of the groups of people least susceptible to group think. They revel in tearing an accepted theory asunder when they truthfully can, it's like hot sex for them.

125 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:09:17pm

re: #111 laZardo

Amazing how cheerful and upbeat we can be when we're dealing with the potential permanent displacement of entire countries' populations.

At the least we should start drawing up plans for the inevitable. And I'm not joking...

/last year's news, but no less relevant.

I'm sorry. I find that story highly relevant, and I do understand the weight of the issue. That's why I think it's so important folks start looking at actual science, and the history involved in this issue. I think that's a good link for people to start with, but I get frustrated that people can't click links sometimes. What can you do but try to keep a sense of humor, at least? Maybe one of them will click the Megan Fox link. Then they'd understand your link better.

126 The Shadow Do  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:09:32pm

re: #112 Thanos

Even during the campaign he made noises of approval towards nuclear; most politicians have figured out that it's inevitable by now.

He'll need an exit strategy to power up the politics necessary to advance the nuclear power option. Something like, we will build them with the promise that we will decomission them in 18 months.

This is the new definition of leadership.

127 Kronocide  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:10:04pm

re: #121 Charles

Thank you!

Like squitos to da bright purple light ZAPP!

128 What, me worry?  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:10:14pm

re: #117 lostlakehiker

Nevada. But actually, on site storage is tolerable. There's even a Scientific American article pointing out that we can manage it that way. Not optimal, but since Nevada is politically impossible, we're stuck with on-site. The beauty of nuclear waste is that there is so little of it, and most of what there is goes away all on its own. (The really hot isotopes have a short half life. Store them for ten half lives and 99.9 percent of your problem is gone.) Quite unlike, say, arsenic or lead in mine tailings.

Those people in Vegas will be mighty pee'od at you.

129 Racer X  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:11:30pm

re: #110 Charles

These threads are like alarm clocks to the sleepers.

Dad!

I don't wanna go to school!

130 Racer X  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:12:00pm

re: #108 Sharmuta

I think I understand- I was hasty.

Here is a link to a hot video of Megan Fox. Yeah...

Cruel.

131 Kronocide  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:12:51pm

re: #124 Thanos

They revel in tearing an accepted theory asunder when they truthfully can, it's like hot scientist sex for them.

Youtube Video

(You knew this was coming...)

132 laZardo  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:14:30pm

re: #125 Sharmuta

I suppose I've got a Comedian-like look on life. The science is real, but given the politics that it'll get entangled in we'll be fucked come the 'Day after Tomorrow'. Might as well just play along with the gag.

133 Obdicut  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:14:37pm

re: #124 Thanos

Pish. Scientists are one of the groups of people least susceptible to group think. They revel in tearing an accepted theory asunder when they truthfully can, it's like hot sex for them.

Quoted for its truthiness.

A scientist who successfully overthrows an established theory is a hero. It's a way to make a name for yourself.

134 Racer X  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:15:22pm

re: #133 Obdicut

Quoted for its truthiness.

A scientist who successfully overthrows an established theory is a hero. It's a way to make a name for yourself.

PWNED!

135 laZardo  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:16:01pm

re: #133 Obdicut

I wonder if the scientist that finally debunks religion will become a legend in his/her own right.

136 What, me worry?  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:16:34pm

re: #106 Spare O'Lake

Is Obama still against nuclear, or has he veered to the right on that one too?

Nov 2008:

It was one of Barack Obama's big applause lines. At nearly every campaign stop, the candidate promised to end our dependence on foreign oil and slash carbon emissions 80 percent by midcentury. "I will set a clear goal as president," he said in his speech accepting the Democratic nomination. "I will tap our natural-gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology and find ways to safely harness nuclear power." He also promised to back biofuels and wind, water and solar power. The crowd cheered.

[Link: www.newsweek.com...]

137 all4one  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:16:48pm

I don't really think we can conceive of just how poorly history will treat the deniers. A hundred years from now, people will have witnessed the wanton destruction caused by warming, seen entire species and ecosystems annihilated. They will view the deniers with more contempt that we can imagine, probably with similar contempt that we feel for the Nazis. The deniers are going to succeed at slowing down or stopping the global efforts we would need to avert the disaster that will happen. And it will be well known that the deniers knew or should have known the accepted science of the time, but they were just too assholish to care about the genocide they caused. I'm serious, I don't think they will be viewed fondly.

138 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:17:24pm

re: #132 laZardo

Only so much we can do. At this point, there is still a lot of education that needs to be done. And it's Saturday night here.

But you are in a unique position to try to get through to some folks about how climate change will impact the Pacific. Any other countries making moves like the Maldives?

139 Racer X  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:17:47pm

The Magnificent Tail of Comet McNaught

140 Obdicut  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:17:56pm

re: #135 laZardo

I wonder if the scientist that finally debunks religion will become a legend in his/her own right.

Religion can't be debunked, because it isn't bunked. There's nothing scientific about it. It's declaration is 'unreal things exist', which is a contradictory statement.

141 Racer X  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:18:55pm

re: #137 all4one

Step away from the ledge.

142 Obdicut  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:19:14pm

re: #137 all4one

Whenever you feel the urge to compare people to the Nazis, refrain from doing so.

143 What, me worry?  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:19:26pm

re: #137 all4one

I don't really think we can conceive of just how poorly history will treat the deniers. A hundred years from now, people will have witnessed the wanton destruction caused by warming, seen entire species and ecosystems annihilated. They will view the deniers with more contempt that we can imagine, probably with similar contempt that we feel for the Nazis. The deniers are going to succeed at slowing down or stopping the global efforts we would need to avert the disaster that will happen. And it will be well known that the deniers knew or should have known the accepted science of the time, but they were just too assholish to care about the genocide they caused. I'm serious, I don't think they will be viewed fondly.

I agree, but you might want to step back on that Nazi analogy.

144 Spare O'Lake  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:19:26pm

re: #112 Thanos

Even during the campaign he made noises of approval towards nuclear; most politicians have figured out that it's inevitable by now.

Most rational people seem to have come to that realization, and there does seem to be some rhetorical movement. But I haven't heard him actually advocate building a slew of nuke plants NOW as part of the urgently required solution to AGW, nor has he reversed his decision to close Yucca Mountain. Why not?
[Link: www.usnews.com...]

145 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:20:41pm

re: #137 all4one

How many people are living their lives worrying what "history" will think of them? Are you? DUDE!

146 laZardo  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:20:46pm

re: #138 Sharmuta

I'm not sure about here, even given Typhoon Ketsana, which I literally waded through first hand on the way home from school. Probably after our world-famous election season (of which the recent massacre was related) then we'll see what the next administration will be doing.

147 What, me worry?  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:20:47pm

GMTA!!

148 Racer X  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:21:27pm

What will happen if there is no global warming, and humans continue down the current evolutionary path? What will earth look like in another 200 years? 500?

149 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:23:03pm

re: #145 Floral Giraffe

How many people are living their lives worrying what "history" will think of them? Are you? DUDE!

I try to be a great father & husband. I don't give a shit what anyone else things of me.

150 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:23:18pm

re: #144 Spare O'Lake

Most rational people seem to have come to that realization, and there does seem to be some rhetorical movement. But I haven't heard him actually advocate building a slew of nuke plants NOW as part of the urgently required solution to AGW, nor has he reversed his decision to close Yucca Mountain. Why not?
[Link: www.usnews.com...]

No but if you look at who is proposing nuclear ammendments nowadays, many of them have -D behind their names.

[Link: neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com...]

151 Bloodnok  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:23:24pm

re: #148 Racer X

What will happen if there is no global warming, and humans continue down the current evolutionary path? What will earth look like in another 200 years? 500?

Youtube Video
152 laZardo  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:23:43pm

re: #145 Floral Giraffe

How many people are living their lives worrying what "history" will think of them? Are you? DUDE!

I am, but I'm more worried about where my car is.

153 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:24:03pm

re: #142 Obdicut

Whenever you feel the urge to compare people to the Nazis, refrain from doing so.

Agreed. I know Charles updinged him, but I felt a downding was needed for the Godwin's Law violation, so I applied one. His points were good but the Nazi reference was a poor choice.

154 all4one  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:24:06pm

re: #142 Obdicut

99.9% of the time, I agree with you. And it is probably too much. But think about it this way - what if hundreds of millions die in an avoidable catastrophe. What will people think of people like James Inhofe?

155 Charles Johnson  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:24:14pm

re: #137 all4one

I don't really think we can conceive of just how poorly history will treat the deniers. A hundred years from now, people will have witnessed the wanton destruction caused by warming, seen entire species and ecosystems annihilated. They will view the deniers with more contempt that we can imagine, probably with similar contempt that we feel for the Nazis. The deniers are going to succeed at slowing down or stopping the global efforts we would need to avert the disaster that will happen. And it will be well known that the deniers knew or should have known the accepted science of the time, but they were just too assholish to care about the genocide they caused. I'm serious, I don't think they will be viewed fondly.

I'm sure you'll catch a lot of crap for this comment, but I agree. The more I learn about this subject, the more appalling it is to see the tactics of the denial industry.

They're deliberately leading humanity over the cliff.

156 Achilles Tang  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:24:54pm

re: #110 Charles

These threads are like alarm clocks to the sleepers.

Bug spray?

157 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:26:25pm

re: #154 all4one

99.9% of the time, I agree with you. And it is probably too much. But think about it this way - what if hundreds of millions die in an avoidable catastrophe. What will people think of people like James Inhofe?

Updinged to balance out the downding, because you are making a good point.

158 laZardo  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:26:25pm

re: #156 Naso Tang

Bug spray?

Kills bullshit...DEAD.™

159 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:26:29pm

re: #152 laZardo

LOL!
Lived in an apartment with no parking space. Every night, car was in a different place. It was a challenge! And then, one day, it wasn't where I was pretty sure, I'd parked it the night before. I walked blockes, just to be sure. THEN called the police & reported it stolen. It was a sweet 2 owner 1966 Mustang. I liked that car.

160 Gus  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:26:33pm

re: #155 Charles

I'm sure you'll catch a lot of crap for this comment, but I agree. The more I learn about this subject, the more appalling it is to see the tactics of the denial industry.

They're deliberately leading humanity over the cliff.

Speaking of over the cliff. I'm pretty sure a good percentage of them have some bizarre strange hope of helping to fulfill some ecclesiastic Apocalypse. Sort of like Inhofe, The Family, Falwell, et al.

161 Obdicut  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:27:15pm

re: #153 Dark_Falcon

Agreed. I know Charles updinged him, but I felt a downding was needed for the Godwin's Law violation, so I applied one. His points were good but the Nazi reference was a poor choice.

It just causes this kind of distraction, really.

And besides, I don't think it's the right comparison. I think the right comparison is the Lysenkoites in Soviet Russia, who believed so fervently in the non-scientific, total crap theories of Lysenko --or who knew he was full of shit but supported him out of cynical political reasons-- that they caused massive famines in Russia and the Ukraine.

I think it's more apt, and it doesn't involve the whole Nazi thing.

162 What, me worry?  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:28:04pm

re: #154 all4one

99.9% of the time, I agree with you. And it is probably too much. But think about it this way - what if hundreds of millions die in an avoidable catastrophe. What will people think of people like James Inhofe?

I think we've been there with someone else. They called it Katrina.

163 freetoken  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:28:25pm

re: #155 Charles

I linked to the Massey Energy CEO, in the previous thread, in full on denial mode. Incredible to watch, I'm reminded of the tobacco execs who would sit in front of Congress and lie.

164 McSpiff  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:28:51pm

re: #161 Obdicut

It just causes this kind of distraction, really.

And besides, I don't think it's the right comparison. I think the right comparison is the Lysenkoites in Soviet Russia, who believed so fervently in the non-scientific, total crap theories of Lysenko --or who knew he was full of shit but supported him out of cynical political reasons-- that they caused massive famines in Russia and the Ukraine.

I think it's more apt, and it doesn't involve the whole Nazi thing.

Excellent choice actually. It's a perfect example of what happens when politics and dogma take precedence over science.

165 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:28:54pm

re: #160 Gus 802

Speaking of over the cliff. I'm pretty sure a good percentage of them have some bizarre strange hope of helping to fulfill some ecclesiastic Apocalypse. Sort of like Inhofe, The Family, Falwell, et al.

Yes, many of them are betting that the rapture comes ahead of the consequences so they just don't care anymore, and this is one of the main reasons you don't want to follow religious conservative leadership. They don't give a damn about the future because too many of them are convinced the rapture comes within 100 yrs.

166 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:29:25pm

re: #160 Gus 802

Speaking of over the cliff. I'm pretty sure a good percentage of them have some bizarre strange hope of helping to fulfill some ecclesiastic Apocalypse. Sort of like Inhofe, The Family, Falwell, et al.

Instead, we'll get some punctuated equilibrium. Once the trigger for rapid evolution is in place, a whole lot of changing is going to happen. That's my take, anyways.

167 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:29:40pm

re: #142 Obdicut

Whenever you feel the urge to compare people to the Nazis, refrain from doing so.

Agreed.

168 Girth  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:30:03pm

re: #160 Gus 802

Speaking of over the cliff. I'm pretty sure a good percentage of them have some bizarre strange hope of helping to fulfill some ecclesiastic Apocalypse. Sort of like Inhofe, The Family, Falwell, et al.

I like my political figures (well, people in general, too I guess) to not want to bring about the end of the world just because they just can't wait to meet Jesus.

169 Obdicut  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:30:06pm

re: #154 all4one

99.9% of the time, I agree with you. And it is probably too much. But think about it this way - what if hundreds of millions die in an avoidable catastrophe. What will people think of people like James Inhofe?

See my above post. I seriously think that there are better comparisons, like Lysenkoites, or like the Aztecs, who had deforested so much of the area around their cities, who had caused so much damage to the rivers and the fields with their terrible agriculture, who had hunted the local animals to near extinction that they suffered mass famines as a matter of course.

I just don't think "Nazi" is the best term to use, because there are better ones. Sure, some people will have no idea what Lysenkoism means, but maybe they'll even look it up and learn something.

170 Gus  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:30:22pm

re: #165 Thanos

Yes, many of them are betting that the rapture comes ahead of the consequences so they just don't care anymore, and this is one of the main reasons you don't want to follow religious conservative leadership. They don't give a damn about the future because too many of them are convinced the rapture comes within 100 yrs.

Yep. Rapture is their get of jail free card. Either that or I've heard others say something to the effect of "God wouldn't let anything that bad happen to us."

171 Spare O'Lake  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:31:02pm

re: #137 all4one

I don't really think we can conceive of just how poorly history will treat the deniers. A hundred years from now, people will have witnessed the wanton destruction caused by warming, seen entire species and ecosystems annihilated. They will view the deniers with more contempt that we can imagine, probably with similar contempt that we feel for the Nazis. The deniers are going to succeed at slowing down or stopping the global efforts we would need to avert the disaster that will happen. And it will be well known that the deniers knew or should have known the accepted science of the time, but they were just too assholish to care about the genocide they caused. I'm serious, I don't think they will be viewed fondly.

You forgot to point out that they are worse than Mengele.

172 Bloodnok  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:31:04pm

re: #154 all4one

99.9% of the time, I agree with you. And it is probably too much. But think about it this way - what if hundreds of millions die in an avoidable catastrophe. What will people think of people like James Inhofe?

I'll let Prof. Andrew Watson speak for me on that one.

"What an asshole."

173 papajoe  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:31:08pm

#137
huh? What makes you think that humans can control any of this climate change. When animals would poop bigger than your house and pass more gas than the gas company. They found petrified wood in Antarctica.

174 Obdicut  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:31:54pm

re: #172 Bloodnok

I'll let Prof. Andrew Watson speak for me on that one.

"What an asshole."

And I'll let President Obama speak for me, "He's a jackass".

175 Digital Display  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:32:59pm

re: #159 Floral Giraffe

LOL!
Lived in an apartment with no parking space. Every night, car was in a different place. It was a challenge! And then, one day, it wasn't where I was pretty sure, I'd parked it the night before. I walked blockes, just to be sure. THEN called the police & reported it stolen. It was a sweet 2 owner 1966 Mustang. I liked that car.

I had a 53 Nash Ambassador stolen from me in California.. It still had the plastic on the seats...Cops said it would never be recovered..The parts were just too rare.. They were right..

176 Kronocide  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:33:03pm

re: #173 papajoe

And they found sea animal fossils on mountains. Does that mean CO2 is no big deal?

177 Racer X  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:33:29pm

re: #165 Thanos

Yes, many of them are betting that the rapture comes ahead of the consequences so they just don't care anymore, and this is one of the main reasons you don't want to follow religious conservative leadership. They don't give a damn about the future because too many of them are convinced the rapture comes within 100 yrs.

This was the point I was trying to make above. We have to think about the consequences of our actions today. What will happen 3-400 years from now? Will religious leaders still be spouting their end of days BS?

We also have to think about the impact of man on this planet - it may warm or it may get damn cold. We do have an impact.

178 papajoe  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:33:36pm

@173
Yes

179 laZardo  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:33:52pm

re: #166 Sharmuta

You mean like in Pokémon? :3

180 Gus  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:33:55pm

re: #173 papajoe

#137
huh? What makes you think that humans can control any of this climate change. When animals would poop bigger than your house and pass more gas than the gas company. They found petrified wood in Antarctica.

Huh? What? Que?

181 Girth  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:34:29pm

re: #170 Gus 802

Yep. Rapture is their get of jail free card. Either that or I've heard others say something to the effect of "God wouldn't let anything that bad happen to us."

I sincerely hope that if the Rapture actually happens, I am standing next to Pat Robertson so I can point and laugh my fucking ass off when he's still standing there.

182 Bloodnok  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:34:51pm

re: #173 papajoe

#137
huh? What makes you think that humans can control any of this climate change. When animals would poop bigger than your house and pass more gas than the gas company. They found petrified wood in Antarctica.

I shall quote this post nightly lest people forget it in all of its incoherent glory.

183 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:34:51pm

re: #176 BigPapa

And they found sea animal fossils on mountains. Does that mean CO2 is no big deal?

I found sea animal fossils on a mountain.

184 freetoken  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:35:32pm

I dare anyone to watch Rep. Sensenbrenner here and claim that the GOP is responsible wrt science and society:

Youtube Video

Oh, and it will come to no surprise to anyone here, but the comments on Youtube to that video are highly indicative of what we're dealing with wrt "denial".

185 Gus  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:35:41pm

re: #181 Girth

I sincerely hope that if the Rapture actually happens, I am standing next to Pat Robertson so I can point and laugh my fucking ass off when he's still standing there.

That's a good one. I'd run away from him after yelling at him, "it was a meteorite!"

186 Obdicut  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:35:45pm

re: #177 Racer X

Back at the time of Newton, there were apocalyptic sects who thought the end of days were at hand. I think throughout history, there's always a group that's claiming that. It appeals to the essential egoism of humans; they can't really imagine the world existing without them. Everyone's death is their own little apocalypse.

187 Achilles Tang  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:35:51pm

re: #160 Gus 802

Falwell is dead.

188 Charles Johnson  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:36:05pm

re: #173 papajoe

#137
huh? What makes you think that humans can control any of this climate change. When animals would poop bigger than your house and pass more gas than the gas company. They found petrified wood in Antarctica.

Yeah! Keep going. I couldn't have asked for a better illustration of what I was writing about.

189 What, me worry?  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:36:19pm

re: #161 Obdicut

It just causes this kind of distraction, really.

And besides, I don't think it's the right comparison. I think the right comparison is the Lysenkoites in Soviet Russia, who believed so fervently in the non-scientific, total crap theories of Lysenko --or who knew he was full of shit but supported him out of cynical political reasons-- that they caused massive famines in Russia and the Ukraine.

I think it's more apt, and it doesn't involve the whole Nazi thing.

I think the beginning of "Nazi" misuse began with Seinfeld's soup Nazi. Seems that every since then, the word has been used in jest (dark humor) or to mark someone/something you despise. Concerning the latter, it's wrong because the Nazis were unique and equating it with anything else diminishes the horror of what it was.

190 papajoe  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:36:24pm

Just saying that this planet changes all the time without our influence.

191 Gus  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:36:37pm

re: #187 Naso Tang

Falwell is dead.

I know. That's why I said "sort of like."

192 What, me worry?  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:36:49pm

re: #181 Girth

I sincerely hope that if the Rapture actually happens, I am standing next to Pat Robertson so I can point and laugh my fucking ass off when he's still standing there.

And how will you know?! lol

193 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:37:09pm

re: #190 papajoe

and it changes with our influence as well.

194 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:37:26pm

re: #173 papajoe

huh?

That about sums it up.

195 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:37:31pm

re: #186 Obdicut

Back at the time of Newton, there were apocalyptic sects who thought the end of days were at hand. I think throughout history, there's always a group that's claiming that. It appeals to the essential egoism of humans; they can't really imagine the world existing without them. Everyone's death is their own little apocalypse.

THE PROPHECIES OF DANIEL AND THE APOCALYPSE by Sir Isaac Newton

[Link: www.armageddonbooks.com...]

Free online book.

196 all4one  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:37:32pm

re: #153 Dark_Falcon

Keep in mind, the Godwin Law really can't be a law? Why? Because eventually it is certain to be wrong. Maybe in 50 years, maybe in 500, maybe in 5,000 years - sometime, somebody is going to be truly worse than the Nazis (call them the Potsies). At which point the law must fail; certainly at that point it must be acceptable to compare the Potsies to the Nazis, maybe you'd even be criticized for suggesting that ANYBODY could be as bad as the Potsies. That's the "Godwins Law" relating to Potzism. So Godwins Law is a law that is bound to fail again and again. it's not a good law, it's more of a good rule-of-thumb.

198 Achilles Tang  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:37:50pm

re: #191 Gus 802

good save.

199 papajoe  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:38:02pm

#193
Thats still up in the air

200 Racer X  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:38:05pm

re: #190 papajoe

Just saying that this planet changes all the time without our influence.

Yes it does, and has.

And now we are influencing climate change.

201 Kronocide  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:38:14pm

re: #190 papajoe

Just saying that this planet changes all the time without our influence.

And science is saying it's changing even more with human influence. You need a 'Dude... Dude!... DUDE!!!'

202 Obdicut  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:38:18pm

re: #195 Walter L. Newton

THE PROPHECIES OF DANIEL AND THE APOCALYPSE by Sir Isaac Newton

[Link: www.armageddonbooks.com...]

Free online book.

Right, I should have mentioned Newton calculated the end of days personally.

203 Mich-again  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:38:23pm

re: #137 all4one

And it will be well known that the deniers knew or should have known the accepted science of the time, but they were just too assholish to care about the genocide they caused. I'm serious,

Oh geeze. So now its genocide. That assumes that right at this point in history, today, if all of humanity could get on board with some undetermined anti global warming agenda and change their way of living starting tomorrow then everything would be OK.

But thats crazy. Just like your statement that deniers are genocidal.

204 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:38:27pm

re: #190 papajoe

Just saying that this planet changes all the time without our influence.

This is true. However, this time it is changing because of our influence.

It's true.

205 Achilles Tang  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:38:34pm

re: #190 papajoe

Just saying that this planet changes all the time without our influence.

Just saying, you don't.

206 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:38:46pm

re: #178 papajoe

Did you know, that you can click on the "reply" button, and it will link to the post that you are replying to? It makes it a lot easier for folks to see what you're talking about...

207 McSpiff  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:38:49pm

Papajoe might just be poe's law in action.

208 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:38:53pm

re: #173 papajoe

GAZE

209 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:39:12pm

re: #181 Girth

OK, that was funny.

210 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:39:45pm

re: #207 McSpiff

Papajoe might just be poe's law in action.

What does that law say?

211 Liberally Conservative  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:39:50pm

On the topic of The Rapture, there's something I never understood about it. Why would God leave the 144,000 (or whatever number) "strongest" Christians on Earth when you have the most divine show of power, ever? They would suffer, sure, but so did many of the most revered Christian saints of the last 2,000 years.

That being said, the Rapture was the invention of an 18th century British theologian. It's not in the Bible. Look it up.

212 Kronocide  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:40:05pm

Papajoe logic:

"Silk Shirts half off at the mall, there is no crime wave in Gotham!"

213 Girth  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:41:31pm

re: #211 Liberally Conservative

On the topic of The Rapture, there's something I never understood about it. Why would God leave the 144,000 (or whatever number) "strongest" Christians on Earth when you have the most divine show of power, ever? They would suffer, sure, but so did many of the most revered Christian saints of the last 2,000 years.

That being said, the Rapture was the invention of an 18th century British theologian. It's not in the Bible. Look it up.

I saw a documentary once that said in the event of Rapture, find and assist Kirk Cameron.

214 McSpiff  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:41:47pm

re: #210 Dark_Falcon

What does that law say?

Poe's Law points out that it is hard to tell parodies of fundamentalism from the real thing, since they both seem equally insane. Conversely, real fundamentalism can easily be mistaken for a parody of fundamentalism. For example, some conservatives consider noted homophobe Fred Phelps to be so over-the-top that they argue he's a "deep cover liberal" trying to discredit more mainstream homophobes.


Basically I can't tell if Papejoe is seriously funny or seriously crazy.

215 papajoe  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:42:06pm

What is poe's law?

216 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:43:01pm

One of the things denialists forget is that biological processes have changed the climate dramatically in the past. Without stromatolites a few billion years ago the air we breathe would not be breathable.

217 laZardo  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:43:01pm

re: #213 Girth

In the event of Rapture...FREE CARS! 8D

218 Gus  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:43:06pm

re: #184 freetoken

I dare anyone to watch Rep. Sensenbrenner here and claim that the GOP is responsible wrt science and society:


Oh, and it will come to no surprise to anyone here, but the comments on Youtube to that video are highly indicative of what we're dealing with wrt "denial".

I need an aspirin.

219 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:43:13pm

re: #215 papajoe

What is poe's law?

Try this.

220 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:43:14pm

re: #211 Liberally Conservative

On the topic of The Rapture, there's something I never understood about it. Why would God leave the 144,000 (or whatever number) "strongest" Christians on Earth when you have the most divine show of power, ever? They would suffer, sure, but so did many of the most revered Christian saints of the last 2,000 years.

That being said, the Rapture was the invention of an 18th century British theologian. It's not in the Bible. Look it up.

That is only one interpretation of what the "144,000" represent. Some interpretations say they are Jewish believers, some say Christian, some say it is only symbolic.

You are being very narrow assuming that the "144,000" are interpreted as ""strongest" Christians on Earth."

And while the word "rapture" does not appear in the greek scriptures, the concept is much older than the 19th century.

221 Mich-again  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:43:28pm

It's OK to agree with scientists about what is causing global warming and at the same time disagree with politicians about what to do about it.

222 jaunte  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:43:34pm

Poe's Law
[Link: rationalwiki.com...]

223 Digital Display  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:43:41pm

re: #211 Liberally Conservative

On the topic of The Rapture, there's something I never understood about it. Why would God leave the 144,000 (or whatever number) "strongest" Christians on Earth when you have the most divine show of power, ever? They would suffer, sure, but so did many of the most revered Christian saints of the last 2,000 years.

That being said, the Rapture was the invention of an 18th century British theologian. It's not in the Bible. Look it up.

Ahem..144,000 Jews not Christians..And I think you have alittle reading to do.
Paul in the new testament wrote about the Rapture...

224 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:44:03pm

re: #219 Sharmuta

Try this.

LOLOL!
Good one!

225 laZardo  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:44:05pm

Excuse me while I go cheer myself up.

/with video games and homework. Get those sick thoughts out of your head. ;D

226 papajoe  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:44:06pm

by your description...crazy

227 Girth  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:44:07pm

re: #217 laZardo

In the event of Rapture...FREE CARS! 8D

Yeah, but all the people who drive the awesome cars will still be here.

228 Liberally Conservative  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:44:56pm

re: #213 Girth

I saw a documentary once that said in the event of Rapture, find and assist Kirk Cameron.

I read a story about a guy who charges a small amount of money ($5 or something) to send letters to friends and family when the person who bought the service gets raptured. He is an atheist, so it's safe to assume he'd be left behind. Supposedly, he's doing that as a full-time job.

229 Racer X  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:44:59pm

6 months ago I thought AGW was crap. I still thought Al Gore was soon going to be exposed as a complete charlatan, a snake oil salesman.

After looking in to it and learning as much as I can, I have come to the logical conclusion that yes, man is affecting the climate and it could be very bad for all of us.

There are still some stragglers behind me, but to classify them as Nazis or worse is ridiculous. They are merely unwilling to believe. They need more convincing, more proof. I doubt any denialist is sitting at home thinking 'I'm sure glad I'm helping to bring on a global climate catastrophe'.

230 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:45:09pm

re: #226 papajoe

Who's description of what?

231 freetoken  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:45:11pm

re: #216 Thanos

So true, and indeed the biosphere and climate are linked so much that they can't be separated.

232 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:45:24pm

re: #222 jaunte

You're too kind, my friend.

233 Spare O'Lake  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:45:26pm

re: #155 Charles

I'm sure you'll catch a lot of crap for this comment, but I agree. The more I learn about this subject, the more appalling it is to see the tactics of the denial industry.

They're deliberately leading humanity over the cliff.

AGW deniers are like nazis and are knowingly advocating mass murder? Oh well, if you are correct then I guess there is nothing to talk about except how to quickly round them up, try them and sentence them to death.

234 Digital Display  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:45:35pm

re: #220 Walter L. Newton

How did the show go tonight bro?

235 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:45:36pm

re: #223 HoosierHoops

Ahem..144,000 Jews not Christians..And I think you have alittle reading to do.
Paul in the new testament wrote about the Rapture...

He has a lot of reading to do.

236 Liberally Conservative  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:45:54pm

re: #223 HoosierHoops

Ahem..144,000 Jews not Christians..And I think you have alittle reading to do.
Paul in the new testament wrote about the Rapture...

I believe the assumption that John was writing under was that they would be Christian Jews. And that the other tribes of Israel would be found.

237 jaunte  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:45:55pm

re: #232 Sharmuta

I didn't know what it was either!

238 freetoken  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:46:03pm

Put another way, our climate is the creation of life.

239 Racer X  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:46:23pm

re: #221 Mich-again

It's OK to agree with scientists about what is causing global warming and at the same time disagree with politicians about what to do about it.

Damn straight!

240 laZardo  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:46:30pm

re: #227 Girth

Yeah, but all the people who drive the awesome cars will still be here.

Depends on the definition of an 'awesome' car. Expensive European, super-nano-tech Japanese Racer or classic American Muscle?

241 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:46:46pm

re: #237 jaunte

Nor did I! I figured if I can google, papajoe could too.

242 laZardo  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:47:04pm

re: #221 Mich-again

It's OK to agree with scientists about what is causing global warming and at the same time disagree with politicians about what to do about it.

I love you.

/in a camaraderie way, regardless of your gender.

//shame how that sentence needs disclaimers.

243 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:47:22pm

re: #241 Sharmuta

Nor did I! I figured if I can google, papajoe could too.

But then- papajoe might be drunk or something.

244 What, me worry?  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:47:37pm

re: #196 all4one

Keep in mind, the Godwin Law really can't be a law? Why? Because eventually it is certain to be wrong. Maybe in 50 years, maybe in 500, maybe in 5,000 years - sometime, somebody is going to be truly worse than the Nazis (call them the Potsies). At which point the law must fail; certainly at that point it must be acceptable to compare the Potsies to the Nazis, maybe you'd even be criticized for suggesting that ANYBODY could be as bad as the Potsies. That's the "Godwins Law" relating to Potzism. So Godwins Law is a law that is bound to fail again and again. it's not a good law, it's more of a good rule-of-thumb.

Your argument of what may or may not happen in the future is ridiculous and to say that humanity will repeat the genocidal actions of the Holocaust "again and again" is incomprehensible to me.

Climate change deniers are not Nazis. They're selfish, greedy idiots who don't want to give up their oil. I'm sorry you don't see the difference.

245 papajoe  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:47:50pm

or somthing

246 papajoe  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:48:17pm

add an e

247 Racer X  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:48:35pm

re: #241 Sharmuta

Nor did I! I figured if I can google, papajoe could too.

Give a fish / teach to fish.

248 laZardo  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:48:38pm

re: #221 Mich-again

Also, greenhearted for reference.

/k, actually going now.

249 Liberally Conservative  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:48:38pm

re: #220 Walter L. Newton

That is only one interpretation of what the "144,000" represent. Some interpretations say they are Jewish believers, some say Christian, some say it is only symbolic.

You are being very narrow assuming that the "144,000" are interpreted as ""strongest" Christians on Earth."

And while the word "rapture" does not appear in the greek scriptures, the concept is much older than the 19th century.

I'm not saying that the interpretation I laid out was the only one or the correct one, but I would say that it is one of the more prevalent ones in fundie/evangelical circles.

And the concept is older, the concept of the incoming apocalypse is almost as old as Christianity itself, but the idea that there would be a Rapture, where people would float up to Heaven before the events of Revelation would happen is a relatively modern one.

250 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:48:41pm

re: #245 papajoe

or somthing

re: #246 papajoe

add an e

You remind me of tfk

251 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:48:50pm

re: #236 Liberally Conservative

I believe the assumption that John was writing under was that they would be Christian Jews. And that the other tribes of Israel would be found.

That's one assumption, there are many more.

252 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:49:01pm

re: #245 papajoe

or somthing

So, what was your post #226 in reference to?

253 jaunte  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:49:03pm

re: #243 Sharmuta

This is funny, from that rationalwiki link:

The term was first used by RationalWiki editor The Lay Scientist to describe an apparent paradox in the management of editing rights at Conservapedia:

"Any new member of the CP project who's not as Conservative as them is liable to be chucked out. However, any new member who is as Conservative as them is in serious danger of being called a parodist, and chucked out. Is this the first living example of a Poe Paradox?"


[Link: rationalwiki.com...]

254 Girth  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:49:06pm

re: #240 laZardo

Depends on the definition of an 'awesome' car. Expensive European, super-nano-tech Japanese Racer or classic American Muscle?

True, I was thinking expensive European. Watched Scent of a Woman last night, so I had Ferrari on the brain.

255 Achilles Tang  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:49:12pm

re: #137 all4one

I don't really think we can conceive of just how poorly history will treat the deniers.

Doesn't matter. History is full of deniers of one sort or another. They are dead and nobody knows their names. History will just as likely blame the other side for not convincing their opponents, regardless of who is right.

256 McSpiff  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:49:28pm

re: #246 papajoe

add an e

If you're replying to people, could you click the reply button? It's kind of hard to follow otherwise.

257 Digital Display  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:50:18pm

re: #235 Walter L. Newton

He has a lot of reading to do.

Should we direct him to watchman nee or would that blow his mind?

258 papajoe  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:50:20pm

you bet

259 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:51:31pm

re: #249 Liberally Conservative

I'm not saying that the interpretation I laid out was the only one or the correct one, but I would say that it is one of the more prevalent ones in fundie/evangelical circles.

And the concept is older, the concept of the incoming apocalypse is almost as old as Christianity itself, but the idea that there would be a Rapture, where people would float up to Heaven before the events of Revelation would happen is a relatively modern one.

144,000. I didn't say you said it was the only correct one, I simply was pointing out that there is more than one interpretation.

Rapture. No it's not. The word in greek is that paul used is translated "caught up," the word was transliterated to "rapture" (which is not accurate) in the 18th century.

260 Achilles Tang  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:52:07pm

re: #211 Liberally Conservative

On the topic of The Rapture, there's something I never understood about it. Why would God leave the 144,000 (or whatever number) "strongest" Christians on Earth when you have the most divine show of power, ever? They would suffer, sure, but so did many of the most revered Christian saints of the last 2,000 years.

Probably the answer is in that "Left Behind" book series, otherwise known as the Christian answer to Harry Potter.

261 papajoe  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:52:08pm

You people are brutal. A lack of experiance and im done in.

262 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:52:17pm

re: #258 papajoe

you bet

John Kerry

263 Gus  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:52:44pm

re: #262 Sharmuta

John Kerry

Earth FIrsT!11!!

264 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:52:45pm

re: #257 HoosierHoops

Should we direct him to watchman nee or would that blow his mind?

You can, I'm the atheist, remember?

Show was good tonight. It's going to snow overnight, I may have to be real careful getting to work tomorrow.

265 Bloodnok  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:52:57pm

re: #262 Sharmuta

John Kerry

like that

266 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:53:33pm

re: #261 papajoe

You people are brutal. A lack of experiance and im done in.

What are you whining about? I haven't been paying attention.

267 freetoken  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:54:00pm

re: #255 Naso Tang

I wonder who will write the history books in the future?

268 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:54:16pm

re: #266 Walter L. Newton

What are you whining about? I haven't been paying attention.

Just mock him. He's gone on a tfk-style bender.

269 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:54:19pm

re: #261 papajoe

You people are brutal. A lack of experiance and im done in.

Oh, HELLO! Like we haven't been trying to help.
Bail away, and whine that we're "mean", oh lazy one.

270 What, me worry?  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:55:12pm

Rapture

Youtube Video
271 freetoken  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:55:18pm

re: #261 papajoe

You people are brutal. A lack of experiance and im done in.

This place has always been intense. If you are going to argue a position you better come prepared to defend it.

OTOH, if you just want to hang out and chill... most people will treat you well.

272 jaunte  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:55:58pm

Brutal linking of definitions and explanations!

273 Digital Display  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:56:00pm

re: #264 Walter L. Newton

You can, I'm the atheist, remember?

Show was good tonight. It's going to snow overnight, I may have to be real careful getting to work tomorrow.

Dude..I don't care..You are the only person I have ever met that has read him.
Be safe in the morning driving to the theater...
Kind regards

274 Racer X  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:56:07pm

re: #263 Gus 802

Earth First!!

We'll strip-mine the other planets after.

275 Liberally Conservative  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:56:20pm

re: #259 Walter L. Newton

144,000. I didn't say you said it was the only correct one, I simply was pointing out that there is more than one interpretation.

Rapture. No it's not. The word in greek is that paul used is translated "caught up," the word was transliterated to "rapture" (which is not accurate) in the 18th century.

Hmm, I seem to be outmatched here. Serves me right for coming in without research and citations. : (

276 Spare O'Lake  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:56:26pm

Good night folks.

277 Mich-again  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:56:32pm

re: #242 laZardo

Politics need science more than science needs politics.

278 Varek Raith  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:57:55pm

re: #261 papajoe

Huh? Can you do a John Kerry haiku?

279 Achilles Tang  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:58:15pm

re: #261 papajoe

You people are brutal. A lack of experiance and im done in.

Have you considered trying punning? We love that here.

280 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:59:31pm

re: #272 jaunte

Brutal linking of definitions and explanations!

Then comes the difficult task of reading, and quite possibly comprehension.

281 papajoe  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:59:34pm

punning?

282 Achilles Tang  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:00:29pm

re: #281 papajoe

punning?

Wait for it.

283 Varek Raith  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:00:35pm

re: #281 papajoe

punning?

–noun
1. the humorous use of a word or phrase so as to emphasize or suggest its different meanings or applications, or the use of words that are alike or nearly alike in sound but different in meaning; a play on words.
2. the word or phrase used in this way.
–verb (used without object)
3. to make puns.

Dictionary.com is your friend.

284 Gus  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:00:50pm

re: #280 Sharmuta

Then comes the difficult task of reading, and quite possibly comprehension.

I never read. I let ceiling cat read for me then have him transfer what he read to my brain via telepathic mind beams!

//

285 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:01:05pm

re: #283 Varek Raith

Dictionary.com is your friend.

Google is teh hard.

286 papajoe  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:01:11pm

so much for civilized conservation

287 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:01:29pm

TFK knows how to spell experience. I think you are sniffing down the wrong trail.

288 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:01:33pm

re: #285 Sharmuta

Google is teh hard.

What's a google?

289 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:01:48pm

re: #284 Gus 802

I never read. I let ceiling cat read for me then have him transfer what he read to my brain via telepathic mind beams!

//

I'm waiting to be told none of the result links look helpful so they were all ignored.

290 Gus  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:02:09pm

re: #285 Sharmuta

Google is teh hard.

How do you spell that?

Goggle?

/

291 jaunte  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:02:10pm

Conservation is the true mark of civilization!

292 McSpiff  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:02:11pm

re: #287 Thanos

TFK knows how to spell experience. I think you are sniffing down the wrong trail.

Feel free to show yourself out if we're so hard to be around.

293 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:02:15pm

re: #283 Varek Raith

Pruning?
The art of baking plums?
///

294 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:02:18pm

re: #289 Sharmuta

I'm waiting to be told none of the result links look helpful so they were all ignored.

None of the result links look helpful so they were all ignored.

295 Charles Johnson  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:02:36pm

Oh brother.

296 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:02:52pm

re: #286 papajoe

so much for civilized conservation

Is THAT what you were having?

297 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:03:07pm

re: #287 Thanos

TFK knows how to spell experience. I think you are sniffing down the wrong trail.

Agreed. This guy is just not making sense, not a sockpuppet.

298 McSpiff  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:03:28pm

re: #292 McSpiff

Feel free to show yourself out if we're so hard to be around.

Woah replied to the totally wrong post. No offence ment Thanos!

299 Digital Display  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:03:54pm

re: #281 papajoe

punning?

I'd lay my head on the railroad tracks
And wait for the Double "E"
But the railroad don't run no more
Poor, poor pitiful me

Poor, poor pitiful me
Poor, poor pitiful me
These young girls won't let me be
Lord have mercy on me
Woe is me


Well, I met a girl in West Hollywood
I ain't naming names
She really worked me over good
She was just like Jesse James
She really worked me over good
She was a credit to her gender
She put me through some changes, Lord
Sort of like a Waring blender

Poor, poor pitiful me
Poor, poor pitiful me
These young girls won't let me be
Lord have mercy on me
Woe is me

___
Don't worry..You'll figure it out..After all I nominated you for the dumbest fricking post I've ever read here tonight...You are on your way to glory.

300 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:04:19pm

re: #298 McSpiff

Woah replied to the totally wrong post. No offence ment Thanos!

Ok, downding, reversed.

301 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:05:05pm

re: #273 HoosierHoops

Dude..I don't care..You are the only person I have ever met that has read him.
Be safe in the morning driving to the theater...
Kind regards

I'll drive careful... you still going to Shanghi?

302 McSpiff  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:05:23pm

re: #300 Floral Giraffe

Ok, downding, reversed.

Totally downding worthy. I try to avoid being sloppy but I slipped up there.

303 Achilles Tang  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:05:24pm

re: #293 Floral Giraffe

Come on, give him a break on the ding. It may have been an accident, but it was a try.

304 austin_blue  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:06:03pm

re: #70 Charles

Thank you!

Got it! Woot!

Gotta enjoy a twisted sense of irony.

Go for it!

305 Digital Display  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:06:52pm

re: #301 Walter L. Newton

I'll drive careful... you still going to Shanghi?

Singapore! Springtime in Singapore Bro!

306 arielle  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:07:00pm

This is totally OT but I linked to an article I found it interesting but I accidentally tagged it as "science" and it has nothing to do about science. Anyway to change it?

307 jaunte  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:07:22pm

re: #299 HoosierHoops

I'd lay my head on the railroad tracks
And wait for the Double "E"
But the railroad don't run no more
Poor, poor pitiful me

Poor, poor pitiful me
Poor, poor pitiful me
These young girls won't let me be
Lord have mercy on me
Woe is me

Well, I met a girl in West Hollywood
I ain't naming names
She really worked me over good
She was just like Jesse James
She really worked me over good
She was a credit to her gender
She put me through some changes, Lord
Sort of like a Waring blender

Poor, poor pitiful me
Poor, poor pitiful me
These young girls won't let me be
Lord have mercy on me
Woe is me


Some music to go with that:

Youtube Video
308 Mich-again  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:07:28pm

One small example of how Government efforts to regulate an environmental agenda backfire. True story from work.

The coal fired burner we have at one facility has a regulation to keep % NOx emissions below a certain parts per million level. The only way to do that is to operate the boiler hotter than it needs to run, which is to say, burn more coal than is needed to supply the amount of steam needed. So we burn more coal than what for the actual load in order to keep the ppm NOx emissions below the threshold. The worst part is that at the higher temperature we actually emit more NOx, but its at a lower ppm rate in the exhaust stream so its OK.

Politicians..

309 Walter L. Newton  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:07:35pm

re: #305 HoosierHoops

Singapore! Springtime in Singapore Bro!

That's what I meant, Shanghied to Singapore.

310 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:07:48pm

re: #302 McSpiff

Totally downding worthy. I try to avoid being sloppy but I slipped up there.

But you admitted your mistake.
I reversed the ding.
Just move on.
We all make mistakes, some are funnier than others...

311 What, me worry?  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:08:20pm

re: #306 arielle

This is totally OT but I linked to an article I found it interesting but I accidentally tagged it as "science" and it has nothing to do about science. Anyway to change it?

Not sure, don't think so, but you can just repost it under the heading you intended.

312 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:09:01pm

re: #303 Naso Tang

No, but thank you for playing!

313 arielle  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:09:37pm

re: #311 marjoriemoon

That's a good idea, thanks!

314 ryannon  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:10:10pm

re: #267 freetoken

I wonder who will write the history books in the future?

Nano-bics.

315 Obdicut  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:11:23pm

re: #314 ryannon

Nano-bics.

Moravecs.

316 nickzi  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:11:52pm

It's ironic that we have to fight this way over climate change, because you'd really think that thrift, making sure you aren't being greedy, having some respect for your community and your environment, and respecting the overwhelming mass of scientific evidence would have been a reasonable fit with conservative values. Perhaps there just aren't many real conservatives left?

317 Digital Display  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:12:37pm

re: #309 Walter L. Newton

That's what I meant, Shanghied to Singapore.

My boss called me the other day..They maybe asking me to move there for a few years...I'm not sure what to say..

318 austin_blue  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:13:49pm

re: #221 Mich-again

It's OK to agree with scientists about what is causing global warming and at the same time disagree with politicians about what to do about it.

Okay, science says it's a freaking disaster movie in the relatively near term. What is it that the pols are doing with which you disagree? More specifically what measures would you take to establish metrics to decrease atmospheric C02?

319 Achilles Tang  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:14:09pm

re: #308 Mich-again

There's a lot more where that came from, thanks to a tax code to beat all tax codes.


How to be a capitalist in name only (CINO)/

320 arielle  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:14:14pm

re: #311 marjoriemoon

So I tried to repost the link but was told "the link has already been posted" so I guess that's how we keep people from posting the same link over and over. Lesson learned: make sure the topic is the one I want before posting!

321 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:14:19pm

re: #317 HoosierHoops

My boss called me the other day..They maybe asking me to move there for a few years...I'm not sure what to say..

I bet it would be easy to find a good Chinese restaurant.

322 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:14:33pm

re: #316 nickzi

It's ironic that we have to fight this way over climate change, because you'd really think that thrift, making sure you aren't being greedy, having some respect for your community and your environment, and respecting the overwhelming mass of scientific evidence would have been a reasonable fit with conservative values. Perhaps there just aren't many real conservatives left?

There are a few of us still clinging.

323 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:14:55pm

re: #316 nickzi

It's ironic that we have to fight this way over climate change, because you'd really think that thrift, making sure you aren't being greedy, having some respect for your community and your environment, and respecting the overwhelming mass of scientific evidence would have been a reasonable fit with conservative values. Perhaps there just aren't many real conservatives left?

There has been a decrease in the number of authentic conservatives, that's a fact. Too many people have stopped being conservative and simply become right-wing radicals.

324 austin_blue  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:15:21pm

re: #208 Dark_Falcon

GAZE

DF, don't GAZE, engage! Gigatons o' Carbon fun!

325 Irenicum  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:15:57pm

re: #220 Walter L. Newton

Similarly I agree that while the "rapture" as understood by modern fundamentalism is not scriptural, the term "rapture' (which is the Anglicized version of the Latin term) is simply the Latin translation of the Greek term. Thus, in that sense, the rapture is strictly speaking, scriptural. I've noticed that this is a constant confusion in theological discussions. I don't share the dispensational understanding of the term. But as a Christian, I do believe that believers will be "caught up" to be with our Lord when He returns. Thus, in that sense, I' believe in the rapture. Have at it kids.

326 Achilles Tang  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:16:34pm

re: #317 HoosierHoops

My boss called me the other day..They maybe asking me to move there for a few years...I'm not sure what to say..

Why are you not sure?

327 austin_blue  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:17:28pm

re: #308 Mich-again

One small example of how Government efforts to regulate an environmental agenda backfire. True story from work.

The coal fired burner we have at one facility has a regulation to keep % NOx emissions below a certain parts per million level. The only way to do that is to operate the boiler hotter than it needs to run, which is to say, burn more coal than is needed to supply the amount of steam needed. So we burn more coal than what for the actual load in order to keep the ppm NOx emissions below the threshold. The worst part is that at the higher temperature we actually emit more NOx, but its at a lower ppm rate in the exhaust stream so its OK.

Politicians..

Then you should consider to switching over to natural gas and avoiding the entire hassle.

328 What, me worry?  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:17:47pm

re: #320 arielle

So I tried to repost the link but was told "the link has already been posted" so I guess that's how we keep people from posting the same link over and over. Lesson learned: make sure the topic is the one I want before posting!

Ah well that makes sense :(

329 Digital Display  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:18:02pm

re: #321 NJDhockeyfan

I bet it would be easy to find a good Chinese restaurant.

I'm told 60% of the residents are Chinese in Singapore...It could be a great adventure.

330 Mich-again  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:18:15pm

re: #318 austin_blue

More specifically what measures would you take to establish metrics to decrease atmospheric C02?

Good question. a few easy ones.. 1) deliver the US mail 3 days a week, not 6. 2) Make the road crews in every city and township get off their fat asses and go out and time the red lights in their town. 3) Make the schools go to a 4 day week to save 20% of busing costs. start there.

331 all4one  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:19:04pm

re: #244 marjoriemoon

I never actually said that the deniers are the same as Nazis. What I said in the post was that the way people in 100 years will think about the deniers is similar to how we think about Nazis. Comparing one state of mind to another state of mind is not the same as comparing one reality to another.

332 NJDhockeyfan  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:19:11pm

re: #329 HoosierHoops

I'm told 60% of the residents are Chinese in Singapore...It could be a great adventure.

My niece went to China for a semester in school. She never came back. She loves it there.

333 mikhailtheplumber  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:19:32pm

re: #115 EE

My guess is that the correction of the model will come from the heterodixic heterodox climatologists, who have an open mind, and who have a healthy scientific skepticism of the groupthink dogma of carbocentrism.

... Carbocentrism won't explain the very many severe climate changes -- that dwarf anything that we have seen from 1978-1998 -- and until they address these, they surely look like they have closed minds.

Open-minded... close-minded... wherever have I read this particular lingo?

Oh, I know! Why hello there, Mr. Schlafly/ random Conservapedia drone.

Now, remember, "you're not fooling anyone here..." :)

334 grob  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:19:48pm

Oh, good grief.

I heartily welcome LGF's scathing and deserved attacks on the intelligent design, anti-evolution community.

Lumping climate change skeptics in with anti-evolutionists, however, is just absurd. I fully accept the concept that man-made emissions contribute to the greenhouse effect. However, climate science is very difficult, and we need to essentially understand how big the uncertainties are.

The "ClimateGate" controversy is a good one because it is going to force the underlying data and assumptions out into the public, which is the ONLY way science should be conducted.

Not that it should matter, but I feel the need (due to the condescending tone of the topic) to establish my credentials. I have a PhD in Chemistry from one of the top-5 ranked universities in chemistry (tied for 1st by US News). I, unlike probably 99% of the people on this board, have taken graduate coursework in atmospheric chemistry. I also am a research director for a "green-tech" company (and am fully committed to the idea of cleaner energy sources), so the climate-change fear-mongering is actually very good for me financially.

I've also sat in energy+environmental policy seminars at this same university when questions like "is it okay to exaggerate for the public when we know that we're right" were asked. I also sat in a class by a prominent climate-change scientist, when, days after the 9/11 attacks, he was leading a discussion on how we get the public's attention back on the real problem, global warming.

There are frauds, zealots, and liars saying whatever they need to say to get money on both sides of this issue. Shining some light on Mann, Jones, and some of the sleaziest of the pro-AGW group will be beneficial overall. They were subverting the peer review process, and that's a huge problem.

Climate change IS extremely complicated, and it's inevitable that some of the evidence is going to be contadictory (unlike evolution deniers, who are fraudulently claiming scientific contradictions). That needs to be worked through in the public eye and not be hidden by some influential scoundrels who are willing to break the rules because of their "faith" in their correctness. More debate, not less, is needed here, and the AGW alarmists should not hide from debate with those that disagree with their theories and those that agree but question the severity of the problem.

335 Mich-again  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:20:35pm

re: #327 austin_blue

Then you should consider to switching over to natural gas and avoiding the entire hassle.

OK, so if its a business case, then tell me what would you use for the cost of money and whats your target payback. No one can afford more than a 12 month payback these days. Your idea to switch to natural gas is nice, but not feasible in todays financial climate. That was a tell. You have no idea how this all works.

336 nickzi  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:21:14pm

re: #223 HoosierHoops

I hate to be pedantic about such gloriously melodramatic things as the alleged "rapture" but it really has no support in the Bible. The passage which is the key to the whole thing is I Thessalonians 4:17, “Then we who are left alive will be carried off together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord.” Even the wildest rapturettes, if that's the right term, admit that without this passage there is no warrant for claiming that there will be a rapture. If we look at verse 17 in context, it is pretty clear that is does not support the doctrine of the Rapture. There is no reference to any Great Tribulation or to any other rapture-compatible events preceding Christ’s Return. The verse only speaks of something that will happen as part of the Lord’s Coming. The course of events that Paul presents is straight-forward. At the time of the Second Coming, the dead will be raised, and all the faithful will ascend to be with Him as He comes down. I would add that this is the universal interpretation of the Fathers of the Church who see the verse as referring to the last days. I know the Rapture sells loads of books, but it simply is not part of any traditional or scripturally sound version of Christianity.

337 Achilles Tang  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:21:35pm

re: #334 grob

If your IQ is less than 167 nobody will listen to you, all the other stuff notwithstanding.

338 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:21:44pm

re: #334 grob

Lumping climate change skeptics in with anti-evolutionists, however, is just absurd.

No it isn't. They use the exact same tactics. It's stunning how similar they are.

339 Varek Raith  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:21:57pm

re: #334 grob

All idiotic oxes will be gored!

340 Digital Display  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:22:16pm

re: #332 NJDhockeyfan

My niece went to China for a semester in school. She never came back. She loves it there.

I would love to live in China.. But I enjoyed Europe so much that if ever offered a position there I swear to Gawd I'd stay forever..I mean that.

341 Aye Pod  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:22:26pm

re: #287 Thanos

TFK knows how to spell experience. I think you are sniffing down the wrong trail.

The idiotic lying little moron known as TFK could spell experience, this is true.

342 all4one  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:23:17pm

re: #203 Mich-again

The deniers are willing to bet that warming isn't happening with the future of the planet, with the only cost of protecting ourselves against a calamity as some money, basically. That's what it comes down to, if we crazy environmentalists get our way our taxes go up a bit and the economy has to deal with additional regulations. So if humanity loses that really stupid bet, yes, I think there will be hell to pay.

343 The Left  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:23:28pm

re: #341 Jimmah

The idiotic lying little moron known as TFK could spell experience, this is true.

Sometimes.

344 Achilles Tang  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:23:42pm

re: #341 Jimmah

I think Ice needs to massage that knot in your neck.

345 mikhailtheplumber  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:24:27pm

re: #135 laZardo

I wonder if the scientist that finally debunks religion will become a legend in his/her own right.

Scientists debunk faulty scientific theories, not unfalsifiable ancient fairy tales with no material basis, supporting evidence, or even logical sense.

346 Bloodnok  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:24:27pm

re: #338 Sharmuta

No it isn't. They use the exact same tactics. It's stunning how similar they are.

cwarming skepticists

347 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:25:06pm

re: #346 Bloodnok

cwarming skepticists

Exactly.

348 Irenicum  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:26:03pm

re: #270 marjoriemoon

Now that's the kind of rapture I'm talking about!

349 austin_blue  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:26:38pm

re: #330 Mich-again

Good question. a few easy ones.. 1) deliver the US mail 3 days a week, not 6. 2) Make the road crews in every city and township get off their fat asses and go out and time the red lights in their town. 3) Make the schools go to a 4 day week to save 20% of busing costs. start there.

1) The USPS mail deliverers are some of the most low impact carbon workers in the country. They spend most of their time on foot. 2) Road crews don't set up timing systems, traffic engineers do. 3) That would require parents to also be on a four day schedule or the kiddies would be abandoned at home alone.

The last one has promise. The first one is a push because there is so much more low hanging fruit. The second...needs to be restated.

350 The Sanity Inspector  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:28:13pm

re: #9 Thanos

Yes it has -- and during some of those periods there were inland seas in Kansas, insects the size of Volkswagen Beetles, and Alligators in Canada. I don't think we want to go back there.

Speaking of which...

351 McSpiff  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:28:28pm

re: #349 austin_blue

1) The USPS mail deliverers are some of the most low impact carbon workers in the country. They spend most of their time on foot. 2) Road crews don't set up timing systems, traffic engineers do. 3) That would require parents to also be on a four day schedule or the kiddies would be abandoned at home alone.

The last one has promise. The first one is a push because there is so much more low hanging fruit. The second...needs to be restated.

You do know they don't walk your letters from Austin to say, Chicago right?

352 mikhailtheplumber  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:29:25pm

re: #182 Bloodnok

I shall quote this post nightly lest people forget it in all of its incoherent glory.

Good sir, I will see that your promise is kept :)

353 The Left  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:30:08pm

re: #345 mikhailtheplumber

Scientists debunk faulty scientific theories, not unfalsifiable ancient fairy tales with no material basis, supporting evidence, or even logical sense.*

Scientists propose and test hypotheses, rejecting false ones and refining their proposals to accommodate new data and extend verifiable (and falsifable) predictions..thereby rendering theories which are testable. All science is always an approximate science only, in teh sense that science aims at truth and is continually engaging in a process of targeting truth with ever more accuracy.
This process is the excuse creationists cling to when they demand stickers on textbooks that state evolution is "only" a theory.

*I'm not disagreeing with you in any way, only adding further clarification.

354 Achilles Tang  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:31:44pm

Gotta go. Goodnight.

355 Digital Display  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:31:58pm

re: #336 nickzi

Just for the record...I'll never be mistaken for a bible scholar...
More people have died at the hand of religion than any reason in the History of this world..That's a fact.
All the words..All the crap..all the swords..all the hatred..
God will judge us on the purity of our hearts...The kindness and love we show to our fellow man..
The rest is all crap.. IMO

356 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:32:02pm

xkcd on this topic
[Link: xkcd.com...]

357 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:34:02pm

re: #336 nickzi

And your point is?

358 Cato the Elder  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:34:41pm

Oh
It's the old
Forgotten question
What is it that we are part of
And what is it that we are?

359 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:35:19pm

re: #358 Cato the Elder

Did you get the answer, too?

360 Aye Pod  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:35:30pm

re: #344 Naso Tang

I think Ice needs to massage that knot in your neck.

Nope! Remember that this shithead went straight over to 2.0 upon being banned from here, slandered everyone on LGF, and then tried to get newbies here banned by claiming on stalker sites that they were his sock puppets. You'd need to have a knot in your brain to think he needs defending.

361 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:35:49pm

re: #334 grob

Lumping climate change skeptics in with anti-evolutionists, however, is just absurd.

No it's not absurd, since they are often the exact same people. Look at who's behind the Heartland Institute, and who's behind DI. It might be eye opening.

362 The Left  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:36:08pm

re: #356 Thanos

xkcd on this topic
[Link: xkcd.com...]

Updinged, twittered, etc. Love xkcd!

363 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:36:24pm

re: #358 Cato the Elder

Oh
It's the old
Forgotten question
What is it that we are part of
And what is it that we are?

That's fairly good, Cato. Is it original?

364 The Left  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:37:11pm

re: #358 Cato the Elder

Oh
It's the old
Forgotten question
What is it that we are part of
And what is it that we are?

THE BRAIN is wider than the sky,
For, put them side by side,
The one the other will include
With ease, and you beside.

The brain is deeper than the sea,
For, hold them, blue to blue,
The one the other will absorb,
As sponges, buckets do.

The brain is just the weight of God,
For, lift them, pound for pound,
And they will differ, if they do,
As syllable from sound

365 austin_blue  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:37:13pm

re: #335 Mich-again

OK, so if its a business case, then tell me what would you use for the cost of money and whats your target payback. No one can afford more than a 12 month payback these days. Your idea to switch to natural gas is nice, but not feasible in todays financial climate. That was a tell. You have no idea how this all works.

What is twelve month return based on future costs? That is the crux of the discussion. If you only look at short term costs, doing nothing will *always* win out.

And *that* is a tell. You obviously don't understand the long term implications work.

366 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:37:28pm

Past time for some sleeps here. G'night all

367 austin_blue  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:39:18pm

re: #351 McSpiff

You do know they don't walk your letters from Austin to say, Chicago right?

Sure, but that mass of freight is going to move regardless of the home delivery schedule.

Again, this is small beer. Energy production is the kicker.

368 Varek Raith  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:39:18pm

re: #362 iceweasel

Updinged, twittered, etc. Love xkcd!

Important math test. :)

369 Cato the Elder  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:40:20pm

re: #363 Dark_Falcon

That's fairly good, Cato. Is it original?

No.

370 The Left  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:41:11pm

re: #368 Varek Raith

Important math test. :)

My normal approach is useless here. :)

371 Mich-again  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:41:20pm

re: #365 austin_blue

And *that* is a tell. You obviously don't understand the long term implications work.

Ha. I know how things work. And it has little to do with how they should work.

372 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:41:59pm

re: #369 Cato the Elder

No.

Thank you.

373 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:42:54pm

re: #369 Cato the Elder

I could grow a fondness for your Incredible String Band.
You got me hooked, last night...

THOROUGHLY enjoyed the biography of Richard Burton.
Thank you again.

374 Aye Pod  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:43:04pm

re: #369 Cato the Elder

No.

Aaargh! The Incredible String Band. Somebody get the spray!

375 Killgore Trout  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:43:11pm

In The Presence of The Lord

Youtube Video

Namaste, Y'all
376 grob  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:43:26pm

Thanos,

Everyone that believes in A also believes in B (i.e., moronic anti-evolutionists are also all AGW-deniers).

That doesn't mean that everyone (or even anything more than a small percentage) of B also believes in A. The anti-evolutionists are not the serious people asking thoughtful questions about global warming.

377 austin_blue  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:44:06pm

re: #371 Mich-again

Ha. I know how things work. And it has little to do with how they should work.

And that is not a response that moves the discussion forward. Again, what policy decisions would you agree do to decrease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

378 The Sanity Inspector  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:44:21pm

Good article in the NYT about Climategate, apologies if it's already been posted.

One describes climate skeptics as “idiots,” another describes papers written by climate contrarians as “garbage” and “fraud.” Still another suggests that the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose 2007 report concluded that humans were the dominant force behind global warming, should pay no attention to contrarian opinions.

Another quotes an exasperated Phil Jones — director of the climate center at the University of East Anglia, from which the e-mail was stolen — as expressing the hope that climate change would occur “regardless of the consequences” so “the science could be proved right.”

However, most of the e-mail messages — judging by those that have seen the light of day — appear to deal with the painstaking and difficult task of reconstructing historical temperatures, and the problems scientists encounter along the way. Despite what the skeptics say, they demonstrate just how rigorously scientists have worked to figure out whether global warming is real and the true role that human activities play.

379 The Left  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:45:29pm

WTF? I assume this has been posted-- more climategate-esque shennanighans:

Watergate redux: Break-ins reported at another climate research center.

Burglars and hackers have attacked the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, apparently in an attempt to further the “Climategate” intimidation of global warming researchers. The Climategate smear campaign rests on the release of thousands of emails illegally hacked last month from the British Climatic Research Unit (CRU). The National Post reports that the Centre for Climate Modelling, a government institution, is also the victim of repeated criminal attacks:

Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria scientist and key contributor to the Nobel prize-winning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says there have been a number of attempted breaches in recent months, including two successful break-ins at his campus office in which a dead computer was stolen and papers were rummaged through.


Also: [Link: wonkroom.thinkprogress.org...]

These attacks go beyond simple burglary. University of Victoria spokeswoman Patty Pitts told the National Post “there have also been attempts to hack into climate scientists’ computers, as well as incidents in which people impersonated network technicians to try to gain access to campus offices and data.”
380 austin_blue  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:45:47pm

re: #376 grob

Thanos,

Everyone that believes in A also believes in B (i.e., moronic anti-evolutionists are also all AGW-deniers).

That doesn't mean that everyone (or even anything more than a small percentage) of B also believes in A. The anti-evolutionists are not the serious people asking thoughtful questions about global warming.

Thoughtful questions? Or tossing hand grenades?

381 mikhailtheplumber  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:46:03pm

That's it for me, Lizzards!

Good night!

382 Aye Pod  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:46:47pm

re: #364 iceweasel

THE BRAIN is wider than the sky,
For, put them side by side,
The one the other will include
With ease, and you beside.

The brain is deeper than the sea,
For, hold them, blue to blue,
The one the other will absorb,
As sponges, buckets do.

The brain is just the weight of God,
For, lift them, pound for pound,
And they will differ, if they do,
As syllable from sound

Image: escher.gif

383 Cato the Elder  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:47:30pm

re: #373 Floral Giraffe

I could grow a fondness for your Incredible String Band.
You got me hooked, last night...

THOROUGHLY enjoyed the biography of Richard Burton.
Thank you again.

Ask me before you buy any albums. There are great, good, and execrable by them. I am an expert.

384 Varek Raith  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:47:58pm

re: #379 iceweasel

WTF? I assume this has been posted-- more climategate-esque shennanighans:

Watergate redux: Break-ins reported at another climate research center.

The nut-o-sphere embracing those who perpetrated the break-ins as whistle blowers in 5-4-3...

385 Cato the Elder  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:48:14pm

re: #374 Jimmah

Aaargh! The Incredible String Band. Somebody get the spray!

You git! I bet you hate harps, too!

386 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:48:38pm

re: #379 iceweasel

WTF? I assume this has been posted-- more climategate-esque shennanighans:

Watergate redux: Break-ins reported at another climate research center.

If we're looking into deniers breaking into places, someone should check into what G. Gordon Liddy and Chuck Colson have been up to. They have some experience in setting up those sorts of things.

/actual Watergate reference

387 Mich-again  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:49:19pm

re: #377 austin_blue

Again, what policy decisions would you agree do to decrease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

in 330 I gave you a few really easy low-cost, high benefit ideas and in 347 you pointed out how that they would be too hard to implement. Unless you adjust your perspective on what is feasible then there is nothing that can be done. Just head for high ground.

388 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:49:51pm

re: #376 grob

No, but they tend to get their money and support from the same places. Both are largely anti science and willing to lie, both use false hysteria, both repeat false claims ad infinitum in the face of facts that fully refute them.

A pattern is as a pattern does.

389 Randall Gross  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:50:36pm

Now it really is time to get to sleep

390 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:51:18pm

re: #376 grob

The Discovery Institute has been promoting "Climategate" for days.

391 Irenicum  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:51:32pm

re: #355 HoosierHoops

Up until the modern period I would agree with you. Yet since the French revolution we've seen untold millions who have perished under the banner of 'objective' reason. Each system has decided to absolutize their respective visions in order to coerce their understanding. The slaughters of Robespierre, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, have led to many millions dying to achieve ideological ends. I'm not saying that religion doesn't have guilt in this equation. It certainly does. But the evidence is there to be seen for the opposite to be true too. The forces of anti religion have foisted as much violence on us as any religious motivations have, if not more. That's my point.

392 austin_blue  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:52:54pm

re: #385 Cato the Elder

You git! I bet you hate harps, too!

Jimmah better not. He'll have an enemy for life. She Who Must Be Obeyed and I are transporting a clarsach (built in Fort William) from Texas to the UK in about two weeks in its own carbon fiber travel case for a wedding. Not Jimmah's and Iceweasel's, unless the timing would work. Family.

393 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:53:10pm

re: #391 Irenicum

Up until the modern period I would agree with you. Yet since the French revolution we've seen untold millions who have perished under the banner of 'objective' reason. Each system has decided to absolutize their respective visions in order to coerce their understanding. The slaughters of Robespierre, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, have led to many millions dying to achieve ideological ends. I'm not saying that religion doesn't have guilt in this equation. It certainly does. But the evidence is there to be seen for the opposite to be true too. The forces of anti religion have foisted as much violence on us as any religious motivations have, if not more. That's my point.

And it is a point well taken.

394 srjh  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:53:27pm

When I manage to pretend for a moment that the denialists aren't being taken seriously, they're actually remarkably amusing to watch.

Most don't even come close to making scientific arguments, they just treat it as just another front in the "us and them" political mentality they seem to have. Al Gore said it's true, Fox News says it isn't - I'm a conservative, so it must be false. Completely illogical (why the science should have anything to do with one's political views, I'm not entirely sure), but condensing every single issue in the world to left/right, conservative/liberal, us/them is equally illogical.

But those that do... as a published scientist myself it's always a little strange watching the developments of "Climategate", etc. We're used to arguments falling or standing based on their merits, as judged by other experts in the field.

Sometimes arguments which are pretty much entirely settled from a scientific perspective (e.g. evolutionary biology) spill over to the public arena, but these generally turn out to be pretty inconsequential. Sometimes unsettled arguments (e.g. string theory, the interpretations of quantum mechanics) are so obscure and apolitical that they're unlikely to generate much controversy. But here is an issue where the experts clearly agree, where political action is clearly needed, but where we find ourselves in unfamiliar territory - defending the science against smear campaigns, journalistic malpractice, political assassinations, fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

Within the scientific community, the verdict is almost unanimous, with much of the uncertainty surrounding the feedback mechanisms, in other words, we know it's going to be bad, we just don't know how much worse climate feedback is going to make it (although it's possible that some feedback loops could mitigate it, the burden of proof is now on the denialists to prove how they counterbalance positive feedback loops). I think it's fair to say that in the time scale of decades, there is more uncertainty from how we respond to the issue than there is in the science itself.

I agree with the poster who said that history isn't going to be kind to the deniers. It's also hard not to feel a little like Cassandra, knowing full well that no matter how much temperatures increase, you'll always have people who refuse to accept what they don't want to hear or have a vested interest in continued denial. I'm almost resigned to the fact that nothing will be done, and that we should just hope that things will happen to stabilise without too much damage when we turn out to do nothing (e.g. fossil fuels, etc. turning out to be a better choice economically).

395 grob  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:53:50pm

Austin,

Some are serious, and some toss hand grenades.

Understanding atmospheric chemistry and its effects on the entire planet is extremely difficult. This complexity makes questioning the extent of AGW much different than questioning evolution, which can be beautifully demonstrated in single experiments now.

396 The Left  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:54:16pm

Touring the nutosphere, and I see the Episcopalian Diocese in LA just elected its first openly gay bishop.

Here is the execrable Robert Stacy McCain on it:

Episcopalian: The Gay Religion
They can't help it. They were born Episcopalian:

The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles today elected the first openly gay bishop since the national church lifted a ban that sought to bar gays and lesbians from the church's highest ordained ministry.
Clergy and lay leaders, meeting in Riverside for their annual convention, elected the Rev. Canon Mary D. Glasspool, 55, who has been in a committed relationship with another woman since 1988. Another gay candidate, the Rev. John L. Kirkley of San Francisco, withdrew late Friday.

They haven't actually banned breeders from membership yet, but why bother? No heterosexual has applied for membership in years.

The typical Episcopal church nowadays has more lesbians than the LPGA and more gay men than the first five rows at a Bette Midler concert.


Words fail, but not as much as RSM FAILs.

397 Bagua  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:54:41pm

Bagua's Music Break™

Evil Devil Woman Blues

MP3 Audio
399 Aye Pod  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:55:48pm

re: #385 Cato the Elder

You git! I bet you hate harps, too!

Actually, I do like harps of the unstrung variety.

(Thanks again ice-ski for the birthday prez! xxx)

400 Varek Raith  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:56:01pm

re: #396 iceweasel

Touring the nutosphere, and I see the Episcopalian Diocese in LA just elected its first openly gay bishop.

Here is the execrable Robert Stacy McCain on it:


Words fail, but not as much as RSM FAILs.

RSM sure likes to focus on this like a laser...

401 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:56:23pm

re: #390 Sharmuta

The Discovery Institute has been promoting "Climategate" for days.

Yep, its another element of the Wedge Strategy. Make science seem less reliable and believable by hyping scandals, and then step in as the "honest man of faith" whose science is untainted by the perfidy of the Left. Its a deceptive tactic, but sadly it often works.

402 Gus  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:57:05pm

re: #396 iceweasel

Touring the nutosphere, and I see the Episcopalian Diocese in LA just elected its first openly gay bishop.

Here is the execrable Robert Stacy McCain on it:


Words fail, but not as much as RSM FAILs.

Robert Stacy McCain is an Asshole™.

403 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:57:23pm

re: #401 Dark_Falcon

Yep, its another element of the Wedge Strategy. Make science seem less reliable and believable by hyping scandals, and then step in as the "honest man of faith" whose science is untainted by the perfidy of the Left. Its a deceptive tactic, but sadly it often works.

Yep- they want to rip down scientific materialism as a whole.

405 The Left  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:58:47pm

re: #402 Gus 802

Robert Stacy McCain is an Asshole™.

Verified, tested, repeatedly empirically proved!

406 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:59:18pm

re: #383 Cato the Elder

Please tell me what are the great albums?
I'll check back, here tomorrow.
Thank you.
Charles thanks you too, for the pennies he'll get when I buy the CD's from his Amazon linky!

407 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 10:59:35pm

re: #400 Varek Raith

RSM sure likes to focus on this like a laser...

Methinks he protests too much. That said, the Episcopalians have lost a fair bit of membership over the gay issue, much of which has gone (back, as I would see it) to Catholicism. Even allowing for that, RSM was being bigoted and ludicrous.

408 austin_blue  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:00:31pm

re: #387 Mich-again

in 330 I gave you a few really easy low-cost, high benefit ideas and in 347 you pointed out how that they would be too hard to implement. Unless you adjust your perspective on what is feasible then there is nothing that can be done. Just head for high ground.

Wow. Remarkable spin! Well done! Those are high benefit? Very small beer. If you think that is high benefit, I strongly suggest you take a look at reality. The large beer is electric generation and transportation policy. Red light sequencing, mail delivery, and cutting school days down to four a week (unless it includes cutting all work to 4/10s) is weak.

409 Gus  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:01:08pm

re: #404 Varek Raith

LOL @ HR3687!

Yeah, and wouldn't you know who came up with that.

BTW, when Dr. Watson called the mentally diminutive Mr. Moran and asshole that was an adjective and not a verb. Guess that means Dan Riehl will have to let it pass. /

410 Gus  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:01:49pm

re: #405 iceweasel

Verified, tested, repeatedly empirically proved!

We have a arrived at a consensus!

Now, do we have any skeptics or deniers? /

411 Cato the Elder  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:02:14pm

Remember:

Climate hysterics and climate deniers all want the same thing.

The best possible future.

Too bad no one has ever been able to predict outcomes of actions or inactions more than two weeks in advance.

412 Irenicum  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:04:46pm

I'm thinking I need to say something outrageous. Tonight's been too quiet. Smurfs are of the debil!!!

413 The Sanity Inspector  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:04:52pm

re: #385 Cato the Elder

You git! I bet you hate harps, too!

Sitars, actually.

414 idioma  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:05:58pm

Slightly OT: Whatever happened to Buzzsawmonkey? I remember having a couple of spats with the guy, now all of his posts are deleted and his account is blocked.

415 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:06:13pm

re: #412 Irenicum

I never suspected you for an anti-Smurfite.

416 Sharmuta  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:06:28pm

re: #414 idioma

He got the stick.

417 Irenicum  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:06:50pm

re: #415 Sharmuta

Mwahahaha!

418 srjh  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:07:01pm

re: #394 srjh

re: #394 srjh

(e.g. fossil fuels, etc. turning out to be a better choice economically).

Should probably clarify my obvious error here.

I mean that we should hope that fossil fuels turn out to be uneconomical compared to renewable sources.

419 jaunte  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:07:09pm
When animals would poop bigger than your house and pass more gas than the gas company. They found petrified wood in Antarctica.


This is definitely a classic, a keeper of a quote. Goodnight all.

420 Cato the Elder  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:07:56pm

A lesbian ditty to close out the night for me:

She said: "You can't beat a Mandelbrot set
For making a lady hot, bothered, and wet."

She responded: "So, what else have you tried?
Come, now, take a walk on the Lydian side!"

Copyright 2009 Cato the Elder

421 The Left  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:08:04pm

re: #386 Dark_Falcon

If we're looking into deniers breaking into places, someone should check into what G. Gordon Liddy and Chuck Colson have been up to. They have some experience in setting up those sorts of things.

/actual Watergate reference

And spot on with the relevance of the Chuck Colson reference too.

"Founder of The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview"... yikes.

422 BryanS  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:08:36pm

re: #419 jaunte

This is definitely a classic, a keeper of a quote. Goodnight all.

Didn't read up-thread. HI-larious indeed.

423 Varek Raith  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:09:30pm

re: #419 jaunte

This is definitely a classic, a keeper of a quote. Goodnight all.

Too bad it's probably too long for a rotating title...:(
:)

424 The Left  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:10:19pm

re: #414 idioma

Slightly OT: Whatever happened to Buzzsawmonkey? I remember having a couple of spats with the guy, now all of his posts are deleted and his account is blocked.

Earned a banning due to repeated asshole-dom.
Now merrily posts vile stuff about LGF, Charles, and various posters on a stalker site.
BTW, he bragged on stalker sites about planning to get banned and deliberately going out the way he did. Mullah Buzzsaw is very proud of his record here. /

425 Irenicum  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:10:32pm

re: #419 jaunte

Truly a great line. I want to create a great phrase for the record books, but it's too late, and the Guinness is too strong.

426 Irenicum  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:11:24pm

re: #420 Cato the Elder

You're a bad, bad man.

427 Dancing along the light of day  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:12:17pm

re: #414 idioma

He decided to go post elsewhere. He is gone.

428 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:13:02pm

re: #414 idioma

Slightly OT: Whatever happened to Buzzsawmonkey? I remember having a couple of spats with the guy, now all of his posts are deleted and his account is blocked.

Rodan and his crew at The Deuce started an email campaign to get BSM to flounce. Their persistence, coupled with his growing hostility to the changes here, lead to him posting a nasty farewell message and moving over to the stalker blog. Since then he's acted like a nasty asshole, his wit mostly gone and whats left placed and the service of a bad cause. Still, I don't miss him anymore. I did at first, but when I heard about his misogyny and his attacks on iceweasel his name became 'mud' to me. We don't need assholes who hate non-submissive woman here.

429 The Left  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:13:51pm

re: #427 Floral Giraffe

He decided to go post elsewhere. He is gone.

No-- he was banned because he earned it.

Then he decided to post elsewhere, and in the worst possible places, saying the worst possible things.

430 Aye Pod  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:14:41pm

re: #414 idioma

Slightly OT: Whatever happened to Buzzsawmonkey? I remember having a couple of spats with the guy, now all of his posts are deleted and his account is blocked.

He melted down in a wingnutty orgasm of incoherent mysogynistic stupidity and was never seen again here. LGF will never again feel the 'benefit' of his filthy hyper-butthurt religious explosions, tiresome puns and woeful 'topically re-worded' Gilbert and Sullivan verses.

431 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:16:16pm

re: #421 iceweasel

And spot on with the relevance of the Chuck Colson reference too.

"Founder of The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview"... yikes.

Good catch, but I'm rather leery of using a factcheck from MediaMatters. While a clip posted by them is OK (since it is the actual words or actions in question), they remain a Soro-funded outfit and thus untrustworthy when it comes to information analysis.

432 Irenicum  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:19:08pm

G'nite kids. It's late and I'm eminently tired. Be well.

433 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:20:03pm

re: #338 Sharmuta

No it isn't. They use the exact same tactics. It's stunning how similar they are.

No, it isn't. They overlap enough that it would be stunning if they didn't share a great deal of tactical and other similarities.

434 The Left  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:21:19pm

re: #428 Dark_Falcon

Rodan and his crew at The Deuce started an email campaign to get BSM to flounce. Their persistence, coupled with his growing hostility to the changes here, lead to him posting a nasty farewell message and moving over to the stalker blog.

No, that is not what happened. He didn't flounce, he deliberately posted worse and worse things in one particular thread until Charles was forced to ban him. His last comment was no sort of farewell message; it was a derogatory sexual comment directed at me, and others here.

435 The Left  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:23:01pm

re: #431 Dark_Falcon

Good catch, but I'm rather leery of using a factcheck from MediaMatters. While a clip posted by them is OK (since it is the actual words or actions in question), they remain a Soro-funded outfit and thus untrustworthy when it comes to information analysis.

Heh-- because it was a response to you, I almost added an apology about the link. :)
I know your feelings about MMFA and I'd share them for opinion or analysis pieces-- this specific piece, the sourcing in it looked to be decent, so I linked you up. Apologies.

436 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:24:34pm

re: #396 iceweasel

Touring the nutosphere, and I see the Episcopalian Diocese in LA just elected its first openly gay bishop.

Here is the execrable Robert Stacy McCain on it:


Words fail, but not as much as RSM FAILs.

So is RSM's point that heterosexuals are less godly than lesbians?

And what the hell is with his petulent, endless homophobia, anyway?

437 Cato the Elder  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:26:34pm

re: #426 Irenicum

You're a bad, bad man.

You think so? Read this.

Deconstructionism, Antiquity, and Sex: A Dialogue

Gentleman:

"The linear text may be long dead,
But, Lord, hear my request," he said.
"Do not my time accounted see
Before I've mastered Linear B!"

Lady:

"Linear B's a snap," she noted,
"Why, I'd learned that before I'd voted.
You want a task to make you pray?
Just try your hand at Linear A!"

438 Cato the Elder  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:27:09pm

re: #437 Cato the Elder

Copyright 2009 Cato the Elder

439 austin_blue  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:28:17pm

re: #395 grob

Austin,

Some are serious, and some toss hand grenades.

Understanding atmospheric chemistry and its effects on the entire planet is extremely difficult. This complexity makes questioning the extent of AGW much different than questioning evolution, which can be beautifully demonstrated in single experiments now.

Actually, evolution cannot be *demonstrated* in single experiments at this time. DNA and RNA regression series certainly *indicate* that a series of concestors connect us to the most primitive forms of life on the planet, and I certainly value them as a very reasonable explanation, given that that is the best model we have right. I personally, as a scientist, believe it is true.

But your denial of climate science as different because of its complexity confuses me. All science is complex. The basics of CO2 impact on global climate change and temperature are fairly simple: does the level in atmospheric CO2 have a direct relation on average surface temperatures?

The simple answer is yes.

Has human combustion of fossil fuels added a forcing mechanism in global CO2 levels that has not been seen in any previous natural cycles that were absent of human burning of fossil fuels?

Yes.

Is this going to affect global climate?

Yes.

440 nickzi  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:28:21pm

re: #396 iceweasel

I've spent some time observing the Abominable McCainman, and I've reached the following simple conclusions:

1) Robert Stacy McCain is always, and without exception, wrong
2) If Robert Stacy McCain hates it, good people should embrace it enthusiastically
3) If you feel tempted to agree with Robert Stacy McCain you are:

a) running a very nasty fever and need medical attention OR
b) having trouble working with facts and reason OR
c) Robert Stacy McCain

I've spent some time with Episcopalians, and while their theology is a bit wishywashy, they are, overall, a very decent bunch of people who are mostly filled with good intentions.

441 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:29:28pm

re: #434 iceweasel

No, that is not what happened. He didn't flounce, he deliberately posted worse and worse things in one particular thread until Charles was forced to ban him. His last comment was no sort of farewell message; it was a derogatory sexual comment directed at me, and others here.

I was at work when he got the boot, so thank you for explaining how he got it. The last half of my post is still valid though:

Since then he's acted like a nasty asshole, his wit mostly gone and whats left placed and the service of a bad cause. Still, I don't miss him anymore. I did at first, but when I heard about his misogyny and his attacks on iceweasel his name became 'mud' to me. We don't need assholes who hate non-submissive woman here.

442 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:31:50pm

re: #435 iceweasel

Heh-- because it was a response to you, I almost added an apology about the link. :)
I know your feelings about MMFA and I'd share them for opinion or analysis pieces-- this specific piece, the sourcing in it looked to be decent, so I linked you up. Apologies.

You're fine, ice. That for your understanding.

443 The Left  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:52:45pm

re: #440 nickzi

I've spent some time observing the Abominable McCainman, and I've reached the following simple conclusions:

1) Robert Stacy McCain is always, and without exception, wrong
2) If Robert Stacy McCain hates it, good people should embrace it enthusiastically
3) If you feel tempted to agree with Robert Stacy McCain you are:

a) running a very nasty fever and need medical attention OR
b) having trouble working with facts and reason OR
c) Robert Stacy McCain

I've spent some time with Episcopalians, and while their theology is a bit wishywashy, they are, overall, a very decent bunch of people who are mostly filled with good intentions.

I'm not sure their theology is 'wishy-washy', but I don't know many Episcopalians -- also I'm an ex-Catholic, so I consider virtually every Christian theology-- apart from Catholicism or High Episocopalian-- to be 'wishy-washy'. :)

I've got a close friend who is an Episcopalian and lives in the deep South, and his particular church welcomes all sorts of people, including even atheists (and of course gay people).

444 grob  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:56:22pm

Austin,

You're quibbling and making a semantic point of my use of "demonstrated." While the theory certainly doesn't rest on any one experiment, it so beautifully fits natural behavior that we've observed that educators can describe a single experiment to convey the concept. It's not so simple with global warming.

Atmospheric chemistry's effects on the entire planet and determining the sum of all those effects is much different. This might be a bit forced in a paragraph, but the point was to show the chasm separating anti-evolutionist nonsense from those who are rigorously and earnestly trying to understand what we're doing to the planet. There are contradictory bits of information on AGW that need to be reconciled, and it's no good if the AGW side is trying to subvert the peer-review process to suppress this information. Global warming is not nearly as well explained as evolution, hence the argument on complexity which you took issue with.

I will spare you from asking and answering my own questions. I also can construct a great strawman if I wish.

Anyway, like I mentioned in my original post, the frenzy for cleaner but more expensive energy technology has been excellent for my industry, even as I shake my head in dismay at some of the enormous energy-related ARRA grants for projects that are destined for failure.

I'm in the pro-AGW camp, but I question some of the most extreme warnings and certainly hate to see scientists on either side of the issue behaving badly. Even without global warming, I would still like to see us move to technologies that aren't poisoning us with what's coming out of the stacks and tailpipes.

445 abolitionist  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 12:34:25am

Peter Foster: Chairman Mo’s little red website - Posted: November 12, 2009
Excerpts:

Why are people not more aware of the greatest threat to human freedom and prosperity since the collapse of Communism?

I refer not to the 2008 financial crisis, or man-made climate change, but to that eminent Canadian Maurice Strong. He is, after all, more than any other person responsible for sending the nations of the world down the path to Copenhagen.

It seems that Mr. Strong too may be fed up with his lack of profile. He has set up a website, [Link: www.mauricestrong.net...] ...
[snip]
Mr. Strong is now 80 years old and thus out of the running for the title of CEO of “Earth Inc.,” but it is his environmental nightmares and dreams of global governance that will dominate Copenhagen. This is a man, we might remember, who welcomes the collapse of industrial civilization, and has described the prospect of billions of environmental deaths as a “glimmer of hope.” My editor didn’t believe me when I wrote this, so here’s what Mr. Strong actually said, in his autobiography, in a section described as a report to the shareholders, Earth Inc, dated 2031: “And experts have predicted that the reduction of the human population may well continue to the point that those who survive may not number more than the 1.61 billion people who inhabited the Earth at the beginning of the 20th century. A consequence, yes, of death and destruction — but in the end a glimmer of hope for the future of our species and its potential for regeneration.”
[snip]
Mr. Strong calls for a “new economic paradigm” which will set prices so as to reflect “real” values. It will be like taxing alcohol or tobacco. Mr. Strong admits that no nation could impose such taxes “without disadvantaging its own economy.” But if everybody can be cajoled into suicidal behaviour, then apparently we shall all be the better for it.

Hope and Change!

446 son of a son  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:40:41am

As a geologist I know that there is no such thing as a stable climate. It changed in the past and will change in future. Since we don't know exactly what causes ice ages, how can anybody calculate the human impact?
It is not about climate believers or climate deniers, left or right, good or bad. It is about science. And science got kicked out a long time ago.
I want to see the facts. But for years the facts were not presented and now at least some facts got lost. Sorry guys, I'm not stupid.
As long as there is no independent, I think the man-made climate change is a fraud.

447 son of a son  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:44:27am

sorry it's independent investigation

448 freetoken  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:51:36am

re: #446 son of a son

... how can anybody calculate the human impact? ...

By looking at the radiative transfer impact of greenhouse gases, aerosols, and land albedo changes due to human actions.

449 son of a son  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:54:47am

re: #448 freetoken

Do you include clouds to calculate that impact?

450 freetoken  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:56:22am

re: #449 son of a son

Sounds like you want to pimp Lindzen's "iris" hypothesis.

I seriously doubt you'll be able to come up with a new denier claim here that hasn't been tried before.

451 son of a son  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 4:12:55am

re: #450 freetoken

It would be sufficient for me that all the raw data are surrendered. That's all. As long as this is not happening I don't trust the guys. And if you call me a climate denier for that, it's fine with me. But this doesn't improve the arguments of the believers.

Over the pond it's lunchtime now.

452 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 4:14:18am

re: #392 austin_blue

Jimmah better not. He'll have an enemy for life. She Who Must Be Obeyed and I are transporting a clarsach (built in Fort William) from Texas to the UK in about two weeks in its own carbon fiber travel case for a wedding. Not Jimmah's and Iceweasel's, unless the timing would work. Family.

That doesn't sound carbon neutral! Are you doing all you can or not!!!?
//kinda

453 mousseman  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 5:51:46am

So far, the whole climate change debate down here has been in order to foist new taxes and fees on the citizen. Drive a car? Pay CO2 tax. Heat your home with oil? CO2 tax. Use electrical power? Some new tax to finance truckloads of solar panels that are comparatively useless in Western Europe and need backup capacity.

The government claims that by introducing these taxes, they are gonna help environment, and that we will get the money we paid back through health insurace primes. However, what they don't tell you is that the money they steal out of your pocket gets redistributed, all in the name of the Gods of Climate Change.

And, to add insult to injury, nobody has yet come up with a believable explanation as to why there were were warm periods in the medieval times and before.

And as long as nobody has proven beyond doubt that these medieval warm period was man-made, this will unlikely neither be. Volcano eruptions generate quite more CO2, to no noticably much worse effect.

I heavily suspect that the whole justification for finding global warming right now is more that the governments need a new source of money in order to feed the poor, and attract more and more of them into a life style of lazyness. If the whole global warming was really so dangerous, governments would enact bans today, not taxes and subsidies to get new constituencies like the constructors of solar panels, and those that make quite a lot of money by just getting inflated prices for the 'ecological' power they produce, paid for by all other consumers.

All other motivations are just plain dishonest. Either there's a clear and present danger, or there are just greedy politicians hell-bent on feeding their constituencies from the trough of taxpayer money.

454 iceman1960  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 5:59:15am

Climate change is real however man-made global warming via CO2 emissions is a hoax.
Global warming increases levels of CO2 not the other way around.
The earth warms and CO2 levels increase and they lag behind global warming. You would be hardpressed to find a chart that shows increases in CO2 levels in advance of warming it's been the other way around for millions of years and isn't going to change anytime soon.

455 BryanS  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 6:04:50am

re: #454 iceman1960

Climate change is real however man-made global warming via CO2 emissions is a hoax.
Global warming increases levels of CO2 not the other way around.
The earth warms and CO2 levels increase and they lag behind global warming. You would be hardpressed to find a chart that shows increases in CO2 levels in advance of warming it's been the other way around for millions of years and isn't going to change anytime soon.

So the reason, according to your assertion, for higher CO2 levels these days is global warming and not the rate at which we've added CO2 to the atmosphere since industrialization?

That's what's different this time around. Yes, CO2 may raise as a positive feedback to warming. But this time around, man's activities are pushing the CO2 increases.

456 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 6:11:25am

ooh, another hot thread which sole purpose seems to be to antagonize matters further and force people to choose their camps before fetching their pitchforks and torches. The fun thing is that a few years ago I didn't have much doubts about AGW. It is mostly here that I've developed my skepticism plus the now daily barrage telling how evil I am for eating meat and having children.

I suppose I am not allowed wavering and must pick my church now, but I still can't do it. I am not a climatologist and simply do not have the qualification to know. At this point I simply have a kneejerk reaction away from a path where the most ardent supporters advocate mass murder.

457 iceman1960  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 6:14:20am

Mans contribution to CO2 levels is very minimal at best.
You are still working from a model that says CO2 causes climate change when it is proven that is not the case.
Show me a model where CO2 increases proceed warming and we'll talk.

458 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 6:15:30am

Here's a google translation for those interested in the article I linked:

Pentti Linkolan consider more effective ways to reduce the crew would, for example tap water poisoning.

The author, a fisherman Pentti Linkola is of the view that children's acquisition is the largest environmental criminal. Responsible influential magazine interview, he says, the world is only one problem, and it is the fact that there are too many people here. All the other real problems arising from this and not the human race has the possibility to cope with.

Responsible influential magazine is a Finnish Business & Society Publications.

"Tsunami was not fun, is it in the past, even a one-day increase in the net amount of people," says Linkola. He calculates that global population will increase annually by 80 million, which is divided by 365 will holds about 220 000 people a day more.

AIDS Linkolan gave the first hope, but then also fall flat, "says Linkola, which is Finland's most famous apocalyptic doom.

Linkolan consider more effective ways to reduce the crew would, for example tap water poisoning.

He admires unreservedly in the 2001 terrorist attack on New York City, as it focused on just where there was supposed to: öykkärimäisen western way of life in the heart. "As long as at least one terrorist is alive, there is hope. They are not the Taliban, which destroy the earth but to a Western lifestyle," he says Responsible influential magazine.

Realistic way to reduce population is Linkolan view, the one-child policy, which should make it compulsory by legislation throughout the world. Linkola appalled by Mother Teresa and the Pope's trip to South America, where a pair of horses was "incitement of abortion and resistance to population growth."

Note the poll

459 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 6:19:08am

re: #403 Sharmuta

Almost makes you want the Rapture to be the Great Old Ones returning, and collecting all the "sheep" as the periodic harvest. Leaving the planet to a population of "goats" since non-credible minds don't "taste" right.

Appealing in a very base way. And just not good form to wish for the death of millions and widespread disruption of civilization that such an event would trigger.

---

Then again, wouldn't a 20-30 foot rise in mean sea level trigger disruptions of a similar nature. IIRC, Bangladesh is generally very low lying, mainly a river delta, and even a minor rise in sea level along with a tropical cyclone hitting at the correct angle would make the damage caused by Katrina pale in comparison.

460 iceman1960  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 6:22:36am

CO2 emissions lag so much behind (as much as a few hundred years) that the earth will actually cool as CO2 emmissions continue to rise.
It's a hoax pure and simple.

461 iceman1960  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 6:23:16am

I mean levels not emissions.

462 Obdicut  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 6:24:09am

I don't get the mentality of the peopel who come into these threads late, like iceman1960 and kittysaidwoof-- and make the same tired old arguments.

I mean, first of all, you're posting in a nearly dead thread. Very few people are going to read it.

Second of all, you're using exhausted arguments that just lie there, flaccid. They're not in the least bit compelling.

463 Obdicut  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 6:25:33am

re: #460 iceman1960

Why do you believe in a conspiracy that involves 97.5% of all climatologists who publish on global warming? How on earth do all the nations of the earth manage to join together in this conspiracy? Are the Illuminati behind this vast, earth-spanning conspiracy?

464 iceman1960  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 6:25:34am

re: #462 Obdicut

I don't get the mentality of the peopel who come into these threads late, like iceman1960 and kittysaidwoof-- and make the same tired old arguments.

I mean, first of all, you're posting in a nearly dead thread. Very few people are going to read it.

Second of all, you're using exhausted arguments that just lie there, flaccid. They're not in the least bit compelling.

Wow that was a compelling argument.

465 iceman1960  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 6:28:58am

re: #463 Obdicut

Why do you believe in a conspiracy that involves 97.5% of all climatologists who publish on global warming? How on earth do all the nations of the earth manage to join together in this conspiracy? Are the Illuminati behind this vast, earth-spanning conspiracy?

That was compelling too..Pffft!

466 Obdicut  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 6:29:16am

re: #464 iceman1960

Wow that was a compelling argument.

I don't need a compelling argument. 97.5% of all publishing climatologists agree with me. Every major scientific body and organization agrees with me. The five different models all of which are accurately predictive agree with me.

And the most basic of physics agrees with me:

When the CO2 concentration of an atmosphere increases, that atmosphere traps more heat. You can test this yourself, in a greenhouse. It's fun!

467 iceman1960  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 6:34:31am

Yes and if you burn kerosene and newspapers in a rabbit cage with a concrete block on top of it you can demonstrate how fire cannot melt steel.
Please!!! LMAO.
Lock yourself in a closet and seal it completely off from any air and you will eventually die. That proves that CO2 is a killer.
Good going Einstein.
Luminati! Pffft.

468 badger1  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 6:37:45am

Charles,

Yes it is important that scientific theories never be debated. Scepticism has no place in free inquiry. Everyone must agree, because all is settled.

469 Varek Raith  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 6:38:54am

re: #467 iceman1960

So... you believe that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?..

re: #468 badger1

Where the hell did Charles ever say that?

470 Obdicut  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 6:39:00am

re: #467 iceman1960

Um, yes, that would prove CO2 was a killer. It wouldn't prove anything about whether or not CO2 warms in atmosphere.

Are you actually contending the idea that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere? You're a physics denier? That's rad.

471 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 6:42:19am

obdicut, I am at a different time zone so I'm probably online at different times than the rest of you. And I didn't see anybody post that article before. Frankly I don't know why I post myself. Or why do anybody else. It is an obvious waste of time. Some university should get a grant to study the phenomenon.

472 Obdicut  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 6:43:35am

re: #471 kittysaidwoof

Ah, the old 'we're all just wasting our time' meme. How odd that only people supporting the shit end of debates tend to use it.

473 iceman1960  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 6:44:22am

Yes CO2 is a green house but like I said our contribution is so minimal it has no effect.re: #471 kittysaidwoof

obdicut, I am at a different time zone so I'm probably online at different times than the rest of you. And I didn't see anybody post that article before. Frankly I don't know why I post myself. Or why do anybody else. It is an obvious waste of time. Some university should get a grant to study the phenomenon.

They'll probably find it causes some sort of cancer.

474 Varek Raith  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 6:45:20am

re: #473 iceman1960

Yes CO2 is a green house but like I said our contribution is so minimal it has no effect.

They'll probably find it causes some sort of cancer.

Back your statement up with scientific evidence.

475 iceman1960  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 6:46:09am

Whatever happened to the second ice age? I remember that scientific consensus.

476 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 6:47:17am

I know for a fact that being online and posting here is evil. It is not only wasteful it does mean added emissions of CO2s. While I am not qualified to answer whether that will mean all of Bangladesh is going to drown tomorrow, there's a very good chance it will cause nasty things. I know all that and I still do it. Why?

477 iceman1960  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 6:49:11am

Beach front property should be at bargain basement prices by now with all the sea level rising and so on.

478 Obdicut  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 6:49:19am

re: #475 iceman1960

Whatever happened to the second ice age? I remember that scientific consensus.

No, you don't.

479 Varek Raith  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 6:50:06am

re: #476 kittysaidwoof

Fish for red herring often?

480 iceman1960  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 6:50:54am

There are plenty of scientists saying man-made global warming is bunk.

481 Varek Raith  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 6:53:23am

re: #480 iceman1960

There are plenty of scientists saying man-made global warming is bunk.

Names. Seriously, you've provided nothing in terms of evidence to back up any of your statements.

482 iceman1960  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 6:54:20am

Like I said show me a model where CO2 levels proceed global warming and we'll talk.
That's a fact not a theory.

483 iceman1960  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 6:55:21am

re: #481 Varek Raith

Names. Seriously, you've provided nothing in terms of evidence to back up any of your statements.

And you have?

484 Varek Raith  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 6:56:15am

re: #483 iceman1960

And you have?

So, you don't believe anything that Charles has posted on this subject? Not a single link he has provided?

485 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 6:56:31am

There's also one thing I don't get and haven't got a satisfactory answer to. In discussions with my very green friends they tell me how we should off most of the world's population to save the planet. I'm told we need to do it quick because if we don't do it, most of the planet's population is going to die. I've never really understood the point of this.

Varek, you think posting here serves a useful and necessary purpose? If so what? Or you don't think posting here causes CO2 emissions? Or have you bought carbon offsets? I think stopping wasteful use of internet would be pretty high on the list of things to do to change our lifestyle. I'd ditch that before ditching eating meat.

486 Obdicut  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 6:58:16am

Good god, kittysaidwoof, iceman1960, the two of you are amazingly boring. Are you parodies of global warming deniers? Just trolling for lulz?

487 Basho  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 6:59:03am

re: #482 iceman1960

Like I said show me a model where CO2 levels proceed global warming and we'll talk.
That's a fact not a theory.

Ok.. we know CO2 traps heat. That's a fact. So how exactly does adding large amounts of CO2 in our atmosphere not warm the planet?

488 Basho  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 7:03:21am

re: #468 badger1

Charles,

Yes it is important that scientific theories never be debated. Scepticism has no place in free inquiry. Everyone must agree, because all is settled.

So at what point does everyone agree that it is settled? Or must people argue for the sake of being contrarians?

489 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 7:04:33am

Obdicut, who said I am a denier? I said I am not qualified to know. Is that the same thing as I a denier? I don't really see how I could know without having either a time machine or being a very good climatologist.

So the question is about faith. You seem to require that I must have absolute faith. I think demanding that smacks of some other ideologies.

I am perfectly willing to discuss solutions even if I don't have absolute faith in AGW. BTW I am actually pretty sure I live a lot greener lifestyle than most Americans.

490 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 7:07:38am

re: #488 Basho

So at what point does everyone agree that it is settled? Or must people argue for the sake of being contrarians?

Why do people ever have agree that it is settled? It is settled when it happened and even when we can probably discuss the actual causes. I see a lot of energy being devoted to making sure everybody adheres to the same faith and very little discussion about what the proposed actions are. Given that I've seen what the worst solutions on offer are, it makes me scared what will happen when you have reached a point when everybody absolutely agrees. Will we at that point make reality the one thing that will absolutely guarantee drastic reduction of CO2 emissions?

491 Obdicut  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 7:09:05am

re: #489 kittysaidwoof

It's not about faith, it's about understanding that the scientific method works and the scientific community is self-policing.

492 Varek Raith  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 7:09:37am

re: #489 kittysaidwoof

re: #490 kittysaidwoof

Science is not faith.

493 Basho  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 7:10:10am

re: #490 kittysaidwoof

What do facts have to do with the proposals people come up with to deal with those facts?

494 Obdicut  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 7:10:53am

re: #492 Varek Raith

re: #490 kittysaidwoof

Science is not faith.

Hee hee. I just had an image of Charles waking up, and reading this thread, and being all, "Damn it, deniers got into the threads, again!"

They're like raccoons with open garbage cans, they come in at night and rummage through dead threads.

495 srjh  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 7:13:54am

re: #473 iceman1960

Yes CO2 is a green house but like I said our contribution is so minimal it has no effect.

Are you kidding?

Historically, CO2 levels have varied between about 180 and 280 parts per million in the atmosphere, over cycles of about a hundred thousand years:

Image: CO2graph.gif

See that sharp jump right at the end of the graph, taking us up to about 380?

That's the jump since we started to dump a significant volume of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels - there is a very strong correlation between the two.

We can also verify our contribution to the recent increases with isotopic analyses:

[Link: www.realclimate.org...]

There is so little doubt in our contribution to CO2 levels that most "skeptics" have accepted it before they move onto other talking points. The true skeptics - those who reserve judgement until they look into the evidence for themselves - quickly realise those talking points are bunk as well, then move on to the next point... ad infinitum. At no point does the denialist rhetoric have much validity, and "skeptics" often reach the same conclusion as the scientists.

Which is why climate change "skeptics" is pretty misleading as a terminology.

496 Obdicut  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 7:15:07am

re: #495 srjh

Welcome to the site, man.

497 iceman1960  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 7:20:50am

Government funding causes global warming.
There is a direct link between an increase in government funding for the study of global warming and the increase in the earths temperature.

498 Varek Raith  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 7:24:20am

re: #497 iceman1960

Thanks for proving you're nothing more than a troll.
Gaze.

499 iceman1960  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 7:29:15am

CO2 levels have been higher than they are now during times when the earth was cooler than it is now.
Please explain. Thanks.

500 iceman1960  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 7:33:13am

CO2 levels in the past have continued to rise while the earth cooled and lag sometimes as much as 800 years behind.
Please explain. Thanks.

501 iceman1960  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 7:34:27am

How's that for trolling? ;)

502 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 7:37:54am

Varek Raith, science is not based on faith for those who are sufficiently qualified to be able to make their own research and are able to understand at depth the issues at hand. For the rest of us it is a matter of belief in this or that scientists work.

For example I've absolutely no qualification to know nor have I done any research or experiments to confirm that earth actually has a molten core or that the sun is at approximately 150,000,000 km distance. I do believe the scientists who tell me so. So for my part it is a matter of faith.

Since I am no climatologist nor have done any computer modeling or tree ring studies myself, nor am I even qualified to critique the studies of others, it is a matter of faith whether I choose to believe a particular set of arguments or not. Obviously the belief would entail not only that the particular scientists doing the studies did the best job possible and arrived at the correct conclusion, but that the scientific self-policing of the scientific community did not break down. The e-mail nontroversy for instance suggests to me that the self-policing bit may have broken down in part.

Basho, I think Rumsfeld put it well that we live in a world of known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns. I don't have to absolutely believe in something to discuss the proposed solutions. I do that every day in all my decision making.

503 Morgoth  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 7:42:18am

re: #497 iceman1960

Government funding causes global warming.
There is a direct link between an increase in government funding for the study of global warming and the increase in the earths temperature.

I thought it was pirates?

504 iceman1960  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 7:42:43am

If warming proceeds a rise in CO2 and not the other way around how do we come to the conclusion that CO2 causes warming and warming doesn't cause CO2.
Please explain. Thanks.

505 iceman1960  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 7:45:29am

Settled science. Pffft.

506 jayzee  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 7:47:00am

OK-so here it goes-I am a skeptic, but the science is not the thing I am most skeptical about. It is the political response. I feel the left is cynically using global warming to push a political agenda and I think folk here would have a hard time proving otherwise. Pushing through nonsensical cap and trade which does nothing to help the environment is one example. The whole concept of purchasing carbon offsets is like the purchasing of indulgences. I am skeptical about a government that brought us the $20,000 toilet seat and a bankrupted Social Security Insurance program being capable of of solving our environmental and health insurance issues, especially when their elite fly around the world on private jets telling us how wasteful we are. I am skeptical when pols tell us we have 1 month, 2 month 3 months whatever to enact specific legislation or we are doomed. The whole skeptic issue needs to be addressed for what it is, a skepticism in government's ability to solve this issue in the manner they are suggesting (which in this country, has been centered primarily around taxation). AGW should be a scientific debate, with scientists providing the proofs as well as the solutions, NOT politicians from either side of the aisle.

507 iceman1960  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 7:47:26am

re: #503 Morgoth

I thought it was pirates?

Guess I was wrong. There it's settled ;)

508 Ron Bacardi  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 7:49:00am

One of the more "holier than thou" comments I've heard from Charles. You usually don't do this :-/

I've gone from believing in global warming, to not believing, to being a skeptic of both sides. But now that you've announced and called out the "deniers," it appears you've closed your mind off to anymore debate, regardless of the credentials of some of the so-called "deniers."

509 iceman1960  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 7:49:14am

re: #506 jayzee

The problem is the science has been corrupted by politics.

510 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 7:50:33am

Is the supposed cooling off period of the last decade caused by resurgence of piracy? It sounds incredibly unlikely. But I am sure somebody could whip up a very nice presentation out of it and I am sure it could be used as an argument to "pay off our ecological debt".

Hang on, I just realized that maybe it is me who is owed this ecological debt. That changes things.

511 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 7:55:22am

re: #509 iceman1960

The problem is the science has been corrupted by politics.

How dare you troll like this?

If warming proceeds a rise in CO2 and not the other way around how do we come to the conclusion that CO2 causes warming and warming doesn't cause CO2.
Please explain. Thanks.

There's ample of links you can click on that explains everything so that even kindergarden kids could understand it. Just look at this. Science is infallible, especially in this case as there are thousands of the best minds working on this and self-policing.

512 iceman1960  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 7:58:10am

re: #511 kittysaidwoof

You skeptic you... You must be a member of the luminati lol.

513 kyros  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 7:58:34am

I'm confused...wasn't Charles a skeptic of man made climate change?

514 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:02:58am

re: #513 kyros

Yes, he was. Then he started reading more science and came to a better conclusion.

515 Blueheron  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:03:08am

I am not a denier or a believer. I am ignorant about the entire matter. I know nothing about global warming but will take the word of those scientists who do know.

When the discussions move onto solutions, I will have opinions in that area as I have had to propose and implement solutions for other types of environmental pollution. Therefore Charles I promise to stay off these threads dealing with this subject until those discussions commence.

516 kyros  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:06:05am

re: #514 Sharmuta

the same science that has been called into question by the leaked emails?

517 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:06:16am

BLueheron, we cannot discuss solutions until you admit the facts. Only when we all know all the facts can we have a discussion of solutions. In the meantime it is time for you to pay off your ecological debt.

518 iceman1960  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:09:16am

I don't know about the rest of you but I could use a little global warming around here.

519 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:09:26am

re: #516 kyros

the same science that has been called into question by the leaked emails?

The e-mails didn't prove anything. I am sure you would have a bunch of private e-mails referring to suppression of your less intelligent peers that would be embarassing if they were outed.

520 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:13:07am

re: #516 kyros

The only people questioning the science because of those emails are the people who didn't accept the science in the first place.

521 srjh  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:13:19am

re: #496 Obdicut

Thanks! Just throwing my two cents into these threads... hopefully one or two people are listening.

522 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:14:07am

re: #518 iceman1960

I don't know about the rest of you but I could use a little global warming around here.

We had a recent study by self-policing scientists here in Europe claiming that for my particular area GW is actually going to be a net benefit while Southern Europe suffers a net loss. Since scientists cannot err, I am all good. Just bring it on and keep up those debt payments.

523 kyros  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:18:00am

re: #519 kittysaidwoof

The emails proved that the scientists tried to suppress any criticism of their work. And what about the computer code that actually fudges data.

524 jdwill  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:20:17am

Checking in after a long hiatus - AKA "Get/keep a Job"

Charles, what a journey you have been on! I too have made some shifts.

I tried to comment earlier today, but had to install IE8 just to get the site to work. PS I am now typing blind as the feedback is 10-12 seconds before I see what I type.

Anyway, re AGW, I am neither skeptic, denier, or believer as yet. I have a keen scientific interest and have been reading and following the debate closely. I most closely align with the Pielke clan and believe C02 is involved, but not accurately ranked yet. And yes, it is getting warmer but the measurement is inadequate as the CRU team acknowledged in the emails.

I think adaptation is not being talked about enough vis a vis C02 control/sequestration.

Some suggested things to view/read think about:

1. A C-Span dialog between Ezra Klein and the authors of Freakanomics. The section on cost and alternatives solutions from an economic view are worth considering.
2. Almost anything from a search on "climate adaptation" or "pielke adaptation climate" will do. Carbon already in the atmosphere will be there a long time and there would be climate change in any event.

525 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:21:14am

re: #523 kyros

That's just not true. Have you not read any of the threads Charles has posted on this matter?

How about this one?

526 gadlaw  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:23:16am

You know, when a honest examination of facts and opinions degenerates into what we have now - on both sides - it isn't a discussion any longer, discourse is over and name calling has replaced reason. I come to this site and it's a personal argument between LGF and whoever it is - sites I've never been to, accusations bandied back and forth that I've never seen elsewhere but seem important enough to occupy the space that discussions used to be here. Pretty sad all around.

527 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:24:10am

re: #524 jdwill

FYI on Pielke

528 kyros  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:26:12am

re: #525 Sharmuta

I have the emails and documents. I read them. I don't need to read any of Charles' threads to know what was leaked.

529 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:29:21am

re: #528 kyros

Then don't come in here asking what's going on with Charles if you're not interested in looking at what he has to say. You remind me of other deniers- you don't need to look at anything else- you have your "truth".

530 Bloodnok  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:31:22am

re: #526 gadlaw

I come to this site and it's a personal argument between LGF and whoever it is - sites I've never been to,

You should get out more.

531 papajoe  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:31:47am

Around here the weathermen can only predict the weather a few days in advance and still have a little better than a 50/50 accuracy. We still cannot predict hurricanes with accuracy until they start to form. To predict weather on a global scale far into the future is little more than soothsaying not science.

.

532 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:33:40am

re: #531 papajoe

Weather is not climate.

533 Obdicut  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:35:13am

re: #531 papajoe


I can't tell where this bouncy-ball is going to wind up when I throw it, therefore Newtonian physics must not work for predicting the orbit of the moon.

/

534 papajoe  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:35:14am

Is not weather caused by climatere: #532 Sharmuta

Is not weather caused by climateIs not weather caused by climate

535 papajoe  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:35:42am

I did that wrong. sorry

536 SixDegrees  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:37:04am

re: #523 kyros

The emails proved that the scientists tried to suppress any criticism of their work. And what about the computer code that actually fudges data.

There doesn't appear to be any such computer code. See downstairs for an actual analysis ascribing a perfectly innocent explanation to what the code in question seems to be doing.

537 Ron Bacardi  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:37:28am

re: #529 Sharmuta

And you have yours. Really, you talk as though skeptics have no leg to stand on or that they are just Alex Jones dolts with no scientific credibility to speak of.

538 papajoe  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:41:33am

Going to the moon is easer than predicting climate. Physics has rules. Written in stone. What rules for climate can say the same.

539 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:42:32am

re: #538 papajoe

Did you know that one of the rules of physics is that CO2 traps and radiates heat?

540 SixDegrees  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:42:52am

re: #538 papajoe

Going to the moon is easer than predicting climate. Physics has rules. Written in stone. What rules for climate can say the same.

Uh - climate is described by physics.

541 papajoe  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:43:23am

So does water which is in much higher concentrations than co2.

542 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:45:19am

re: #541 papajoe

You have proven to be so ignorant on this matter, there is hardly any point in discussing this with you.

543 papajoe  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:45:30am

What rules does climate have that is not subject to change?

544 badger1  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:46:39am

re: #488 Basho

Hopefully before the next ice age, which seems nigh here in Wisconsin this morning.

545 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:46:43am

re: #543 papajoe

The laws of physics won't be changing, so there you have it.

546 papajoe  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:48:06am

Right. Physics does not change, but climate does.

547 SixDegrees  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:48:13am

re: #541 papajoe

So does water which is in much higher concentrations than co2.

Feel free to publish your analysis in a peer reviewed journal. Or simply present it here.

For example: given a cubic meter of air at, say, at a given humidity CO2 concentration level, what is the differential change in temperature when either humidity or CO2 level is increase or decreased by a factor of, say, two?

Please provide the mathematics used to derive your answers.

548 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:48:52am

re: #546 papajoe

Are we in an ice age anymore?

549 SixDegrees  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:49:17am

re: #546 papajoe

Right. Physics does not change, but climate does.

Well, this comment wins both the "Ignorant" and "Stupid" awards for the day. Rare to have a winner in both categories, but congratulations.

550 Achilles Tang  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:49:23am

re: #360 Jimmah

Nope! Remember that this shithead went straight over to 2.0 upon being banned from here, slandered everyone on LGF, and then tried to get newbies here banned by claiming on stalker sites that they were his sock puppets. You'd need to have a knot in your brain to think he needs defending.

I just meant he is still playing with you. Relax.

551 papajoe  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:50:02am

In the 70's they said it was coming.

552 SixDegrees  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:51:05am

re: #548 Sharmuta

Are we in an ice age anymore?

More apropos: if you kick a ball, does it change it's position, velocity or acceleration?

Hmmm...physics doesn't change, but the ball does. And there's some kid down the street committing scientific fraud, apparently.

553 SixDegrees  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:51:44am

re: #551 papajoe

In the 70's they said it was coming.

References, please. Who, exactly, said it what was coming? And what was the consensus opinion?

554 Ron Bacardi  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:54:01am

re: #552 SixDegrees

As a skeptic of global warming, well done. lol

555 Achilles Tang  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:54:02am

re: #543 papajoe

What rules does climate have that is not subject to change?

That it changes with temperature could be one, but you know that so the real question is why you ask it.

I'd be tempted to give you a ding for scrappiness though; but I won't because I'm taking bets on how many negatives you will get before you self destruct.

556 SixDegrees  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:54:12am

re: #550 Naso Tang

I just meant he is still playing with you. Relax.

I agree. This ongoing obsession with people who haven't posted here in weeks or even months is beyond childish: it gives the target exactly what he wants - attention - and is uttered in an environment where he cannot respond.

Stupid and pointless.

557 Immolate  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:55:01am

The irony of this post Charles is that I first became interested in the Global Warming debate when you brought it up and recommended that your readers read "State of Fear". If I recall correctly, you weren't impressed with the drama so much as the argument. I agree, by the way. The book wasn't Crighton at his finest, but the arguments were powerful and persuasive. But now here you are branding him (and me) with the term "denier", equating us to anti-semites unwilling to acknowledge the holocaust because we dare to disagree with the people that you disagreed with back then.

You don't "believe in" science Charles. You either accept it, reject it or chose a proxy to do the heavy lifting for you. Most people are completely unqualified to have a scientific opinion of our own, including you unless you've switched professions, and therefore we rely on others to persuade us. What you are doing is saying "accept my proxies as the 'correct proxies' or you're evil." When I look at the people that are the face of your proxies like Gore and Mann, I am repelled. Unlike climate science, I am at least as qualified as you to judge people, Charles. I don't find them credible, nor do you I find your proxy arguments in favor of AGW persuasive.

Beyond that, I find your "see no evil" take on the CRU scandal to be self-serving and willfully blind. This is the sort of slippery argumentation that you easily thrashed back in Rathergate, when I first discovered blogs. This isn't a court of law, but if it was, you'd be the defense attorney and all of us would be the jury. You're telling us your clients are not guilty of trying to hide or destroy evidence and that they aren't trying to eliminate dissent when we can plainly see that that they are. You can argue that the evidence is inadmissible, but that argument only seems to appeal to those who want the evidence suppressed.

The problem isn't that you are persuaded by those representing the AGW side, Charles. The problem is that you have become one of them. You are no longer ostensibly impartial--you are an advocate. That puts you right where it put Hugh Hewitt when he joined team Romney. If you want to persuade me, you have to first convince me that you are willing to be impartial. Demonizing me won't work. I am not some neo-nazi-sympathizer.

558 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:55:04am

re: #551 papajoe

In the 70's they said it was coming.

This is another false talking point. In the70s there were 7 papers on "global cooling" and 44 on warming. Since I know google is difficult for you, I got the link for you:

Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s

But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.

559 SixDegrees  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:55:54am

re: #554 Ron Bacardi

As a skeptic of global warming, well done. lol

I've tried to be careful not to favor one side or the other in this debate. But when people willfully misrepresent things, I have little patience.

560 ulmsey123  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:58:14am

An open mind requires an open mind. There is no winning or losing the debate. We need to act in prudent ways based upon what is known. But what is a "fact" may not be so in the future. Some scientists hitch their wagon on a theory and forget to be scientists, and concentrate on their careers instead.
Before we alter our society and doom others, lets make sure we are not blundering ahead with all our facts neatly listed and our eyes closed.

561 Indepublicrat  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:59:08am

I enjoy being an independent thinker, analyzing all sides of an issue and striving for a nuanced approach that respects the viewpoints, values, and priorities of everyone involved. But I also love issues like global warming where one side presents an avalanche of slam-dunk evidence and the other side has nothing substantive to say.

Fact: The world's climate is warming. Maybe some particular places are getting cooler because of the way global warming affects local weather patterns. Maybe one particular year might be cooler than the one before because of micro-trends. But the world as a whole, over long periods of time, is becoming warmer.

Fact: Global warming is substantially caused by human activity. It correlates to the amount of greenhouse gasses we've been pumping into the atmosphere for the past 150 years. The data is overwhelming and conclusive. Solar activity and volcanoes may have some impact, but nowhere near enough to take humans off the hook.

Fact: We're already seeing costly impacts from global warming. The oceans are becoming more acidic. Ecosystems are being strained. Species are dying off. Ice is melting. We may be starting to experience more frequent and more severe storms, droughts, floods, desertification, and heatwaves.

Fact: If we continue to do everything as we have up until now, things will get worse. No honest, unbiased, and objective reviewer of the evidence could come up with any other conclusion.

And here, where the facts end, is where the debate should begin. How much worse will things get, how much will the damage cost us, how effective are various proposals to reduce or reverse the process, how much would those cost, how can we implement a plan that still allows for economic development, what new technologies should we invest in, and how can we best coordinate worldwide efforts to reduce carbon emissions?

562 Bloodnok  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 9:01:55am

re: #557 Immolate

The problem isn't that you are persuaded by those representing the AGW side, Charles.

Yup, everybody's in someone else's pocket but you. Thank goodness you chose your side in this debate after exhaustive scientific research. Right? That would surprise me since none of it is on display in your comment. Or is your stance built solely upon personal feelings towards the few proponents of AGW that you choose to associate with the cause (and not the countless scientists that have nothing to do with Messrs. Gore and Mann)?

563 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 9:02:14am

Indepublicrat, why are you demanding purity of though by others before debating what you think needs to be debated? Its puzzling.

564 jaunte  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 9:03:14am

re: #560 ulmsey123

I don't find the 'scientists are careerists' argument very convincing. What professional isn't? The suggestion that scientists are only interested in money may be coming into the debate as a bit of projection from people who are describing themselves.

565 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 9:03:15am

re: #563 kittysaidwoof

Indepublicrat, why are you demanding purity of though by others before debating what you think needs to be debated? Its puzzling.

We can't discuss math if people are going to insist that 2 + 2 = 5.

566 Ron Bacardi  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 9:08:41am

re: #559 SixDegrees

I've tried to be careful not to favor one side or the other in this debate. But when people willfully misrepresent things, I have little patience.

I found his "laws of physics don't change but climate does" statement to be borderline retarded, so he deserved it.

567 Indepublicrat  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 9:12:50am

re: #563 kittysaidwoof

Indepublicrat, why are you demanding purity of though by others before debating what you think needs to be debated? Its puzzling.

It's not about purity of thought. It's about separating science (the search for truth) from politics (the search for action). I want the scientists to be able to collect their data and refine their theories in a politics-free atmosphere so that the laymen, politicians, and pundits can have the best information and most accurate models we can get. Then I want the politicians to engage in good faith discussions on what political and economic policies would best respond to the problem. That's where the debate should be, but you don't get there if you're disingenuously questioning the underlying data and intimidating the scientists from doing their jobs.

568 Achilles Tang  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 9:15:15am

re: #557 Immolate

If you want to persuade me, you have to first convince me that you are willing to be impartial.

You want to be convinced to be impartial? What the F does that amount to?

569 SilentAlfa  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 9:15:20am

re: #557 Immolate

The irony of this post Charles is that I first became interested in the Global Warming debate when you brought it up and recommended that your readers read "State of Fear". If I recall correctly, you weren't impressed with the drama so much as the argument. I agree, by the way. The book wasn't Crighton at his finest, but the arguments were powerful and persuasive. But now here you are branding him (and me) with the term "denier", equating us to anti-semites unwilling to acknowledge the holocaust because we dare to disagree with the people that you disagreed with back then.

The problem isn't that you are persuaded by those representing the AGW side, Charles. The problem is that you have become one of them. You are no longer ostensibly impartial--you are an advocate. That puts you right where it put Hugh Hewitt when he joined team Romney. If you want to persuade me, you have to first convince me that you are willing to be impartial. Demonizing me won't work. I am not some neo-nazi-sympathizer.

Nobody is applying any special meaning to the word denier. A denier is simply one who denies--applicable to anything. You're playing the victim and making a big deal out of a whole lot of nothing. Nobody is calling you a holocaust denier or a neo-nazi.

570 jaunte  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 9:17:20am

re: #567 Indepublicrat

That would be ideal behavior, but when any of the suggested solutions involve trade-offs and people having to give up something, the discussion has immediately entered the realm of politics.

571 lostlakehiker  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 9:27:30am

re: #334 grob

Oh, good grief.

I heartily welcome LGF's scathing and deserved attacks on the intelligent design, anti-evolution community.

Lumping climate change skeptics in with anti-evolutionists, however, is just absurd. I fully accept the concept that man-made emissions contribute to the greenhouse effect. However, climate science is very difficult, and we need to essentially understand how big the uncertainties are.

The "ClimateGate" controversy is a good one because it is going to force the underlying data and assumptions out into the public, which is the ONLY way science should be conducted.

Not that it should matter, but I feel the need (due to the condescending tone of the topic) to establish my credentials. I have a PhD in Chemistry from one of the top-5 ranked universities in chemistry (tied for 1st by US News). I, unlike probably 99% of the people on this board, have taken graduate coursework in atmospheric chemistry. I also am a research director for a "green-tech" company (and am fully committed to the idea of cleaner energy sources), so the climate-change fear-mongering is actually very good for me financially.

I've also sat in energy+environmental policy seminars at this same university when questions like "is it okay to exaggerate for the public when we know that we're right" were asked. I also sat in a class by a prominent climate-change scientist, when, days after the 9/11 attacks, he was leading a discussion on how we get the public's attention back on the real problem, global warming.

There are frauds, zealots, and liars saying whatever they need to say to get money on both sides of this issue. Shining some light on Mann, Jones, and some of the sleaziest of the pro-AGW group will be beneficial overall. They were subverting the peer review process, and that's a huge problem.

Climate change IS extremely complicated, and it's inevitable that some of the evidence is going to be contadictory (unlike evolution deniers, who are fraudulently claiming scientific contradictions). That needs to be worked through in the public eye and not be hidden by some influential scoundrels who are willing to break the rules because of their "faith" in their correctness. More debate, not less, is needed here, and the AGW alarmists should not hide from debate with those that disagree with their theories and those that agree but question the severity of the problem.

How did this post earn so many down-dings? Right or wrong, and I think it overstates the extent of uncertainty in the science, this is a reasoned dissent. If we marshal our facts and get the ducks of our arguments in a row, and if we're right, we'll eventually win the author over. The work that entails is what we owe all the skeptics. This is important, and we can't take the lazy way and say the science is settled, get on board already. Anyone who speaks the language of reason deserves an explanation. If the reasons we give now aren't good enough, and if we're right, there will be new evidence by and by, and if we work at it, we'll arrive at fresh insights over time. No fair kvetching because he/she wants us to meet a higher standard of proof.

572 Achilles Tang  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 9:32:01am

This seemed relevant to some mindsets


When principles deserve no respect

573 jdwill  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 9:34:13am

re: #527 Sharmuta

Good link! Thanks. I'm seeing both sides there.

Or, Pielke versus the world. To put my prejudices up front, my money would be on Pielke.

... Conclusion: RP Jr is right.

and

Roger Pielke Jr has attempted to trash me using innuendo, fabrication and outright misrepresentation. I correct the record.

3f) Pielke is a political scientist(???). I am a computer scientist. Seems to me we are equally qualified or unqualified to comment on Hansen's work.

Lively.

574 oriana fan  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 9:35:24am

Skepticism is crucial to a free nation and world. Intellectual orthodoxies should likewise be viewed with concern. Yes, the environment should be the major subject of concern, but Kyoto was a terrible deal and the US underwriting states who refuse to curb their own consumption is not the answer. The fact that data may have been manipulated should be worrisome as well.
The environment has become the acceptable manner to promote "social justice" and other disregarded political goals. I would feel better about the debate if the rabid moon-bats did not have such a big place at the discussion table.

575 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 9:39:25am

re: #567 Indepublicrat

It's not about purity of thought. It's about separating science (the search for truth) from politics (the search for action). I want the scientists to be able to collect their data and refine their theories in a politics-free atmosphere so that the laymen, politicians, and pundits can have the best information and most accurate models we can get. Then I want the politicians to engage in good faith discussions on what political and economic policies would best respond to the problem. That's where the debate should be, but you don't get there if you're disingenuously questioning the underlying data and intimidating the scientists from doing their jobs.

huh, how on earth do you suppose to remove politics from billions if not trillions of dollars and policy proposals which range from genocide to doing nothing? And where do you get the politicians who are going to engage in good faith negotiations about matters which range from billions of dollars at the very least to genocide on the other extreme? I am sorry but the world isn't the perfect model of Thomas More's Utopia or Plato's Republic.

AGW is and has been for quite some time a policy issue. A policy issue which is influenced by science and which in turn influences science. There are several powerful forces which affect those scientists and we'd be fooling ourselves if we didn't recognize that. That doesn't mean that everybody is in the pocket of some nefarious forces or that there's some massive conspiracy afoot. It only means humans are humans.

Having said the above doesn't mean that AGW isn't real (or that it is real). It is a restatement that for the lay people the question is ultimately a matter of faith.

re: #565 Sharmuta

We can't discuss math if people are going to insist that 2 + 2 = 5.

Climate change is never going to be as simple matter as math where you can demonstrate how 2+2=4 with the aid of four fingers. By insisting that it is somehow comparable, you remind me of those clregymen of the past who insisted on their ideas of purgatories and whatnot by making hugely improbable analogies and allegories.

You guys will just have to accept the simple fact that we don't have world with 7 billion climatologists. The world only has some tens of thousands of climatologists and I dare say only a handful of those would think it is as simple a matter as 2 + 2 = 4.

576 Bloodnok  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 9:47:54am

re: #575 kittysaidwoof

Comprehend much? She is not saying the matter is as simple as 2+2=4. The point is that some people here are disregarding basic truths in these discussions so it is difficult to have these conversations.

577 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 9:59:14am

re: #576 Bloodnok

Comprehend much?

I am an ignorant European. So no, I don't comprehend much. Actually, every day I realize I comprehend less and less.


She is not saying the matter is as simple as 2+2=4. The point is that some people here are disregarding basic truths in these discussions so it is difficult to have these conversations.

Are you saying there aren't enough people who agree with you to have a debate on the solutions? I find that hard to believe given that there's supposed to be a consensus and I thought everybody believed except a few flat-earthers.

I don't know a single politician here in my country who would openly dare claim not believing, yet there's still very little discussion about solutions other than mysterious taxes.

578 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 10:00:40am

re: #577 kittysaidwoof

Perhaps you should read the top of the page again.

579 Blueheron  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 10:00:46am

re: #517 kittysaidwoof

BLueheron, we cannot discuss solutions until you admit the facts. Only when we all know all the facts can we have a discussion of solutions. In the meantime it is time for you to pay off your ecological debt.

First to facts. I admitted I am ignorant to the facts of global warming.
Secondly I have paid my ecological debt multiple times through my life and my work.
There are other environmental problems which we have made great strides towards mitigating. We have not finished and have much work to do.

I want to learn but not at the cost of offending those who have learned as evidenced by the posters and Charles.

580 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 10:05:29am

re: #579 Blueheron

A good place to start learning about AGW is The American Institute of Physics. Unfortunately, their site is down at the moment, but I link them on every AGW thread, so try clicking it sometime.

You could also try NASA.

581 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 10:07:17am

Blueheron, it was just my failed attempt at sarcasm. I actually agree with you.

I actually favor lots of common sense green projects and have participated as a volunteer on some. I too admit my ignorance with respect to AGW and have recognized the fact that I am never going to be qualified to really debate the issue, just like I am never going to be qualified to debate the big bang theory. I am however annoyed by the demonization and the goading into a strict set of beliefs before we even open the topic what really matters - what are the proposed actions.

582 [deleted]  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 10:15:04am
583 Bloodnok  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 10:17:27am

re: #577 kittysaidwoof

Are you saying there aren't enough people who agree with you to have a debate on the solutions? I find that hard to believe given that there's supposed to be a consensus and I thought everybody believed except a few flat-earthers.

I don't know a single politician here in my country who would openly dare claim not believing, yet there's still very little discussion about solutions other than mysterious taxes.

I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. In order to have a rational debate people from both sides are needed. But in this debate the people on the "other side" come armed with obfuscations and BS talking points that have been pumped into the mainstream by a well funded effort with the sole purpose of muddying the waters and making that rational debate impossible.

When science and mathematical results are on one side the other side has no choice but to disprove those findings scientifically and mathematically. That has not happened.

584 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 10:17:33am

re: #582 Troika37

What changed, Charles?

You could try reading Charles' blog for clues.

585 Bloodnok  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 10:21:42am

re: #582 Troika37

People change their minds. You know, like you did between the time you decided to register and the time when you decided to start spouting LGF hate-site worthy comments.

586 Blueheron  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 10:22:00am

re: #580 Sharmuta

A good place to start learning about AGW is The American Institute of Physics. Unfortunately, their site is down at the moment, but I link them on every AGW thread, so try clicking it sometime.

You could also try NASA.

Thanks so much :))

587 Gus  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 10:22:53am

re: #582 Troika37

It's obvious in your wording and linking to Weasel Zippers that you're a troll seeking to leave LGF. Your feeble attempt at a passive voice does not even work.

588 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 10:27:06am

re: #586 Blueheron

You're welcome.

I'm still learning a lot myself, as I've only recently turned to scientific sources for information. What changed my mind on looking at the actual science was the tactics. These people were distorting AGW much like the Discovery Institute distorts evolution. Thankfully, freetoken linked to the AIP site, which is a great resource (please look for it again later, and check it out). The NASA link also comes highly recommended. There is no reason to accept not knowing the issue. There are resources to help the laypeople like you and I get a better understanding of AGW, without insulting our intelligence either. Glad I could help. :)

589 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 10:34:34am

And the climate change deniers respond to my post by spewing hatred -- some of it outwardly homophobic, for what reason, it's impossible to understand.

And a barrage of anonymous hate mail too calling me a "friend of Hezbollah," "Dan Rather," and lots of obscenities and insults.

590 exelwood  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 10:37:08am

It'll be great when they release all the source code for the models, that'll end all this foolishness. Open code is always a good thing. :)

591 Blueheron  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 10:42:33am

re: #588 Sharmuta

You're welcome.

I'm still learning a lot myself, as I've only recently turned to scientific sources for information. What changed my mind on looking at the actual science was the tactics. These people were distorting AGW much like the Discovery Institute distorts evolution. Thankfully, freetoken linked to the AIP site, which is a great resource (please look for it again later, and check it out). The NASA link also comes highly recommended. There is no reason to accept not knowing the issue. There are resources to help the laypeople like you and I get a better understanding of AGW, without insulting our intelligence either. Glad I could help. :)

'There is no reason to accept not knowing the issue. '
Sharmuta you have given me two places to start. That is all a person could ask. Good people who can point your nose in the direction of scientists who are credible.
As for creationists versus evolutionists don't get me started!

592 Blueheron  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 10:43:18am

re: #589 Charles

And the climate change deniers respond to my post by spewing hatred -- some of it outwardly homophobic, for what reason, it's impossible to understand.

And a barrage of anonymous hate mail too calling me a "friend of Hezbollah," "Dan Rather," and lots of obscenities and insults.

Consider the source Charles consider the source.

593 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 10:43:35am

re: #591 Blueheron

You're welcome. One more comment and you get your dinger. Welcome to LGF.

594 Blueheron  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 10:45:47am

re: #593 Sharmuta

You're welcome. One more comment and you get your dinger.
Welcome to LGF.

Oh Wow...I think :/

595 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 10:46:03am

re: #590 exelwood

It'll be great when they release all the source code for the models, that'll end all this foolishness. Open code is always a good thing. :)

There is already a huge amount of source code available to the public. Releasing more won't change a thing. The deniers will simply move on the next phony controversy.

596 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 10:46:24am

re: #594 Blueheron

Ding at your own discretion.

597 Blueheron  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 10:47:20am

re: #596 Sharmuta

Ding at your own discretion.

Ding :))

598 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 10:52:58am

re: #508 Ron Bacardi

One of the more "holier than thou" comments I've heard from Charles. You usually don't do this :-/

I've gone from believing in global warming, to not believing, to being a skeptic of both sides. But now that you've announced and called out the "deniers," it appears you've closed your mind off to anymore debate, regardless of the credentials of some of the so-called "deniers."

You call it "closed your mind." I call it "convinced by overwhelming scientific evidence."

599 Indepublicrat  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 10:54:20am

re: #575 kittysaidwoof

It's about separating science from politics. Scientists and politicians should not be debating each other. Scientists should be debating scientists within the realm of data and methodology, while politicians should be debating politicians within the realm of policy and economics.

Policy should be based on the best science available. That much should be beyond debate. If the science doesn't support your policy, you should rethink that policy instead of launching political attacks against the science. In other words, don't attack the messenger just because you don't like the message.

Where the science is objectively incomplete or inconclusive, we as a society should fund additional research--but that doesn't mean that we should sit on our hands until we know everything about everything. We go with what we're reasonably sure of right now and reassess when we have access to even more accurate models based on more data and better theories. Otherwise we'd never do anything about anything.

Ideally the science should be conducted by scientists who have no stake in whether the results will support or undermine any given policy. Scientists who operate professionally, make their underlying data available, and adequately show how that data supports their conclusions. Of course we don't live in a perfect world, and scientists are human beings with opinions and feelings just like the rest of us. Some bad apples will always be inclined to fudge the books a little--but on the topic of AGW, I haven't seen any evidence of widespread fraud or conspiracy aside from the fever dreams of closed-minded ideologues who want so badly to disbelieve the facts.

In the amazingly unlikely event that thousands of scientists and politicians would perpetrate a decades-long worldwide conspiracy as the climate deniers claim, the first scientist to conclusively burst that bubble would be hailed as a scientific hero and rewarded with unlimited fame, funding, and career advancement. So strange that there haven't been any takers...

600 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 10:59:46am

re: #583 Bloodnok

I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. In order to have a rational debate people from both sides are needed. But in this debate the people on the "other side" come armed with obfuscations and BS talking points that have been pumped into the mainstream by a well funded effort with the sole purpose of muddying the waters and making that rational debate impossible.

So you're basically saying that first I have to agree with you, i.e. believe whomever you want me to believe, and then you are going to tell me what I need to do.

You don't seem to be wanting debate, you seem to be wanting a choir.

re: #583 Bloodnok


When science and mathematical results are on one side the other side has no choice but to disprove those findings scientifically and mathematically. That has not happened.

It would be of little use to me. I, unlike you, am not qualified to assess either sides scientific evidence, and will simply have to rely on faith. While I am perfectly happy to do some things relying on faith, as I do every day, I am not so happy to do other things, especially things that have little to do with solving the claimed problem.

601 Bloodnok  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 11:04:27am

re: #600 kittysaidwoof

You don't seem to be wanting debate, you seem to be wanting a choir.

Wrong. But you are determined to miss the point, so a good day to you.

602 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 11:10:38am

Indepublicrat, I propose that we should try to do things that work in our world not things that require that we advance into a Star Trek universe.

Here are some facts I feel comfortable enough to assert on my personal expertise:

1. Scientists are human
2. Politicians are human
3. Societies are formed of humans

BTW I don't believe in some massive deliberate conspiracy. Its as improbable as those conspiracies 911 truthers come up with. However there doesn't need to be a massive deliberate conspiracy for there to be significant errors in the current scientific understanding of something as complex as climate change.

Also I have not said we should do nothing. I am all for discussing what we should do, but it seems that AGW proponents are unwilling to discuss that in depth until AGW has become dogma.

603 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 11:11:23am

re: #601 Bloodnok

Wrong. But you are determined to miss the point, so a good day to you.


I stand corrected. I am wrong as always.

604 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 11:13:11am

re: #602 kittysaidwoof

It is a fallacy that climate change is too complex to understand. There are resources for laypeople to understand the issue, but only if they're willing to take the time to educate themselves. You seem content to revel in ignorance.

605 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 11:25:43am

re: #604 Sharmuta

It is a fallacy that climate change is too complex to understand. There are resources for laypeople to understand the issue, but only if they're willing to take the time to educate themselves. You seem content to revel in ignorance.

The problem is that I, unlike you, am stupid. It is a natural handicap and it would be cruel of you to hold it against me.

I've read quite a bit on the topic, but always end up with the problem that I have a whole collection of assertions I have to assume are true simply because this or that respected scientist says so. It isn't that much different from theory of relativity - I can learn by rote to repeat some of core principles and some of the consequences, but I don't really understand (not in the manner I understand topics relevant to my profession) and I am certainly not qualified to assess or critique the validity of it.

Perhaps by diligent study I could obtain the necessary qualifications, but that would take several years and as I lack the confidence in the internet as a teacher, I think I would have to go to a university to obtain the relevant degrees. Unfortunately I don't have the time for that and AGW is hardly the most pressing concern in my life. In fact in my region of Europe I think I have a high risk of getting killed in a conventional war well before I drown in 2050.

606 Bloodnok  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 11:27:58am

re: #605 kittysaidwoof

The problem is that I, unlike you, am stupid. It is a natural handicap and it would be cruel of you to hold it against me.

I've read quite a bit on the topic, but always end up with the problem that I have a whole collection of assertions I have to assume are true simply because this or that respected scientist says so. It isn't that much different from theory of relativity - I can learn by rote to repeat some of core principles and some of the consequences, but I don't really understand (not in the manner I understand topics relevant to my profession) and I am certainly not qualified to assess or critique the validity of it.

Perhaps by diligent study I could obtain the necessary qualifications, but that would take several years and as I lack the confidence in the internet as a teacher, I think I would have to go to a university to obtain the relevant degrees. Unfortunately I don't have the time for that and AGW is hardly the most pressing concern in my life. In fact in my region of Europe I think I have a high risk of getting killed in a conventional war well before I drown in 2050.

This is "debate" folks.

/facepalm

607 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 11:29:21am

re: #605 kittysaidwoof

I can understand your point about not fully understanding the science or math involved, but considering the scientific method, and these are points in science that have been verified to be true for hundreds of years, I don't think I'm taking the science as faith when I read AIP or NASA.

608 zenbone  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 11:37:37am

I just had to return. I see that Charles thinking and my own have traveled in parallel fashion. I was fed up with the left. Now I am fed up with the right.

I am not yet firmly convinced about AGM but am moving that way. I still need to do more reading.

One of the reasons why I stopped hanging out at LGF was because during one thread a few years ago I asked if anyone had proof that there was no AGM going on. I got mildly attacked for even questioning it. Basically I was told that it was not true "because it was not true"!

Anyways that was many babbazees ago. I am interested in returning to the new LGF terrain.

609 michael78244  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 11:39:50am

re: #605 kittysaidwoof

Don't bother Kitty. Climate change is a religion. We all know that real scientists normally dispose of data because once the data has been analized by professionals, there is absolutely no need to recheck the data and it is just taking up wasted space. We all also know that it is man who is killing the polar bears and drowning the world and we all know that by using less toilet paper and changing our light bulbs we are truly making a difference.

There is no need to check the science, obviously man is the problem and only those who are much smarter than us can come to a reasonable solution.

610 Mark Pennington  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 11:40:57am

This whole email thing is the most inane 'scandal' I've ever seen. I can't believe people are making a big deal out of it. Well actually, I can, I just don't want to.

I do not understand the whole climate change denial movement. I don't see how the outcome of this whole thing isn't a good thing not only for the planet and for society, but for individuals as well. At the end of the day we are going to have to change our lifestyles anyway for so many different reasons, regardless of whether or not global warming is 'real'. Even setting aside the fact that we are finally crawling out of the smog-filled shadow of the Industrial Revolution (with the societal and technological advances intact), and creating a cleaner life for ourselves; it is so much better for us to sort out the elephant in the room of ENERGY as soon as possible, instead of leaving it until the last possible minute because it is a subject that literally runs down the middle of war and peace. I guess I just do not understand what the people arguing so strongly against anything and everything to do with climate change(climate change deniers.) actually see as the desirable outcome.

Also, why do all the villains always crawl out from wherever they come from at the end of these posts like their mission is to get the last word in? Creepy.

611 michael78244  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 11:47:50am

re: #610 beekiller

Ah, we are not neccessarily saying there isn't climate change, in fact the world is always changing in one way or another. What I am saying is that man is not the cause and man is not the solution. Why do folks always believe it is their mission in life to change everyone elses life in order to save the polar bears? That is really creepy.

612 Indepublicrat  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 11:52:12am

re: #602 kittysaidwoof

Indepublicrat, I propose that we should try to do things that work in our world not things that require that we advance into a Star Trek universe.

Here are some facts I feel comfortable enough to assert on my personal expertise:

1. Scientists are human
2. Politicians are human
3. Societies are formed of humans

Thanks, Kittysaidwoof.

I truly wasn't aware that I was living in a Star Trek universe. I suppose that in my universe, all scientists are from Planet Vulcan and are thus always correct and incapable of lying. And all politicians are Klingons, singlemindedly dedicated to plunging themselves into glorious battles to the death. And societies are composed of sexy female humanoids with funny noses or silly ears who need a starship captain to teach them about love and "that thing you humans call kissing."

It must be nice living in your world, where anyone you disagree with is human and, since humans are imperfect, that means that they are inherently wrong and you are right. Why, I'm half-human myself, on my mother's side!

BTW I don't believe in some massive deliberate conspiracy. Its as improbable as those conspiracies 911 truthers come up with. However there doesn't need to be a massive deliberate conspiracy for there to be significant errors in the current scientific understanding of something as complex as climate change.

I would love for that to be true. It would be great to wake up tomorrow to see a headline about a new breakthrough in climatology that makes global warming go away without any effort or cost. But who's living in a fantasy world now?

Also I have not said we should do nothing. I am all for discussing what we should do, but it seems that AGW proponents are unwilling to discuss that in depth until AGW has become dogma.

Why don't we choose to err on the side of caution and take some small efforts now? If we're wrong, we end up looking silly. But if we're right, we could nip the problem in the bud while it's still somewhat manageable and not yet beyond the point of no return.

Gotta go now. The Holodeck's on the fritz again and we're under attack by Romulans!

613 michael78244  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 12:05:02pm

re: #612 Indepublicrat

Because "erring on the side of caution" always ends up costing our freedom. You can't have this kind of light bulb, you can't have that kind of freon, and you are guilty of causing the extinction of the polar bear and the white cave spider.

Now oil is bad so we can't explore for more and coal is bad because of evil CO2. There will always be a new crisis. Thirty years ago we were looking at a new ice age. Who knows what it will be thirty years from now?

So are you living in a Star Trek world?

614 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 12:07:07pm

And again with the "religion" accusation, with no apparent awareness that by trying to smear the science of global warming by accusing it of being a "religion," you're implicitly admitting that, to you, "religion" is a lesser thing than science.

These are the people I wrote this post about.

615 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 12:09:24pm

re: #613 michael78244

Of course, since you're also a creationist, I expect nothing else:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

616 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 12:14:53pm

Indepublicrat, I don't mind erring on the side of caution at all. I wouldn't mind doing things that somehow address the possibility of AGW. This is why I think we should discuss the proposed solutions. This is why I am troubled that often here we get politicians holding long speeches about AGW as a phenomenon before announcing a set of policies which don't seem to have anything to do with combating AGW.

re: #614 Charles

And again with the "religion" accusation, with no apparent awareness that by trying to smear the science of global warming by accusing it of being a "religion," you're implicitly admitting that, to you, "religion" is a lesser thing than science.

These are the people I wrote this post about.

It is my poor use of language. I don't think faith = religion nor even do I mean that faith = blind faith. Religion is a whole set of beliefs that usually rely on blind faith and mysticism, etc etc. In many ways different to what I as an atheist believe. However, as an atheist I would be dishonest, if I didn't admit that ultimately my worldview is also largely based on things I believe because I choose to do so, not because I actually know, i.e. faith.

617 michael78244  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 12:19:19pm

re: #614 Charles

Who said I was "smearing" anything? Thirty years ago there was the "science" of global cooling and freedoms were denied. Now it is global warming and freedoms are being denied.

I called it a religion because there is no scientific proof that it is happening by man's hand. Is there some warming? Sure. Is it natural or man made? There is no scientific evidence to prove it is not natural. There is only "cleaned" data and "scientific" models. There is only conjecture and belief.

So yes, in this case, religion of "man made global warming" is lesser than science.

618 michael78244  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 12:21:09pm

re: #615 Charles

Ah, since I "believe" something I'm not to be trusted, but since you "believe" something it is OK.

Thank you for proving my point!

619 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 12:23:32pm

And a belligerent, angry creationist at that.

620 tsflanagan  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 12:26:53pm

We'll there's climate change and anthropogenic climate change. Do you conflate?

PS Always love your pictures. I live near the strand. My kids are at American Martyrs.

621 michael78244  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 12:27:54pm

re: #619 Charles

How do you figure that? I didn't call you any names. I just said you are wrong. Happy Holidays!

622 Mark Pennington  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 12:29:17pm

Climate change deniers...all they do is project their own philosophy onto scientists. Usually they are Christians, or religious to a monotheistic faith. Science, humanism, environmentalism, etc, is all completely inconceivable to them -- they say the human-influence part of climate change is all a hoax because scientists "are only in it for the money" and apparently all those funds that go to alternative energy research is being blown on coke and hookers. *eye roll* All they care about is money, instant gratification, and the latest piece of Chinese sweatshop crap on sale at Wal-Mart, so they assume the same is true of everyone else. Jesus, God, Yahweh, whatever, is going to provide for us, so that we can take a big carbon dump all over the planet and not have to worry about anything.

623 Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 12:31:07pm

re: #618 michael78244

Ah, since I "believe" something I'm not to be trusted, but since you "believe" something it is OK.

Thank you for proving my point!

We have evidence, scientific, factual evidence, you have denialist talking points that have been debunked and proven wrong over and over yet are still recycled. So yes, your point of view is not to be trusted because it is not only wrong but it is based on purposeful lies.

624 tsflanagan  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 12:32:32pm

re: #623 ausador

What is the evidence that human beings are causing the climate to change?

625 Indepublicrat  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 12:33:54pm

re: #613 michael78244

Yup, I'm still in my Star Trek world--but I love my freedom too. Let's say I'm in a Star Trek episode right now and the writers have given me a plot device that would allow me to kill all the polar bears in the world with the press of a single button. Press, blip, gone forever. Talk about freedom! Will I press it? Of course not, because that would be an act of pure evil.

The writers would probably give me some backstory motivation--maybe a polar bear killed my entire family or something. Now would I press the button? I still say no, because sending the polar bears to extinction wouldn't bring my family back. So all that freedom I have to press the button isn't real freedom at all. It's a choice I wouldn't ever make because it's morally repulsive and serves no useful purpose. On this issue I have no real choice and I'm okay with that.

Now if you came along and tried to press the polar bear destructo-button because it would be "neat" or because you hate things that are white and furry, or because your mama never loved you, I'd do whatever I could to stop you. Would I be repressing your freedom? Gladly! Because your actions have a negative impact on my world--I want to live in a world where polar bears continue to exist and where people don't go around killing things for no good reason. I want to live in a world where people think for a while before doing stupid things that can never be undone.

If the government, our benevolent Federation of Planets, wanted to create a law to dump the magic bear-busting box into a black hole so it could never be used, I would strongly support that law. Am I saying the government should be suppressing your freedom to press whatever buttons you damn well please? Absolutely. Just like they can regulate who gets to flush the dilithium crystals out of the warp core while a starship is traveling at Warp 8.

Back in the real world, we're in the middle of a well-documented mass extinction event in which half of all animal species may go extinct. Polar bears are just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. Maybe there's some hype and exaggeration involved and only ten percent of the animal species will disappear. Or maybe only one percent. Or maybe it really is just the polar bears. I'm still against anyone having the "freedom" to press that button just for kicks and giggles.

626 michael78244  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 12:35:31pm

re: #620 tsflanagan

I had a friend of mine that loved to use $50 words. I used to tell him that communication is the art of expressing meaning from one object to another. When you use $50 words you show everyone how smart you are, but you are not communicating as effectively as you can.

Having said that, I will again state that there is no conclusive evidence that man is causing global warming. Further, there is no evidence that anything that man does will stop it.

627 Obdicut  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 12:36:39pm

re: #626 michael78244

You were right. You just stated something. No evidence, no argument, nothing to back it up. Just a statement.

Congratulations.

628 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 12:38:14pm

re: #626 michael78244

I had a friend of mine that loved to use $50 words. I used to tell him that communication is the art of expressing meaning from one object to another. When you use $50 words you show everyone how smart you are, but you are not communicating as effectively as you can.

Having said that, I will again state that there is no conclusive evidence that man is causing global warming. Further, there is no evidence that anything that man does will stop it.

Of course, you also think that human beings were poofed into existence by God, and that the theory of evolution is another hoax by those evil scientists, trying to trick you.

You're entitled to hold these opinions, but they're completely worthless.

629 Teh Flowah  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 12:38:51pm

re: #600 kittysaidwoof

So you're basically saying that first I have to agree with you, i.e. believe whomever you want me to believe, and then you are going to tell me what I need to do.

You don't seem to be wanting debate, you seem to be wanting a choir.


Well it's a little like arguing with someone who believes in Flat Earth, Creationism, or that the Moon landings were hoaxed.

Yes, all those people are idiots and not worth debating with. The "rational debate" area is over in the "we have a problem, how do we solve it" section of the world. Where we discuss the pros and cons of various proposed solutions so that we can maximize our efforts without destroying the technological progress that we as a global society have said is a Very Good Thing.

Do I want a choir to back me up when I say the earth is round? I kinda was hoping that people wouldn't be that fucking stupid enough to argue against the idea. I'm very sorry that the science behind AGW is too complex for you to understand. I'm willing to bet you don't understand everything behind physics and evolution and mathematics. Or how modern planes work, or the computer you're using, or the car you're driving. This doesn't make these things any less real.

You call it taking it on faith? That's intellectually dishonest. It works because of the science. You don't get the science. You're taking it on your ignorance. Religion on the other hand DEMANDS faith. Not everything is supposed to make sense or be figured out. That's why they came out with axioms like "God works in mysterious ways." Or impossible shit like water into wine. You need faith for this.

Science doesn't need faith. Just the intelligence and will to understand what we can empirically observe and experiment with.

630 michael78244  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 12:39:16pm

re: #622 beekiller

See Charles, this is an example of an angry belligerent person. Notice how my faith is belittled to "prove" their point?

631 tsflanagan  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 12:39:23pm

re: #626 michael78244

Anyone in a climate change debate in 2009 who does not know the word "antropogenic" is not serious. Is that to word you are talking about? I used it about a half hour ago, by the way.

632 tsflanagan  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 12:41:19pm

re: #628 Charles

Atheism is not an argument.

633 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 12:42:43pm

re: #632 tsflanagan

Atheism is not an argument.

Is that supposed to mean something? Are you a creationist too, by any chance?

634 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 12:42:57pm

beekiller, I am confused as to where I need to be qualified, but I guess that because I am not a believer I must be a denier, although I don't think I am denying anything.

Anyhow, I am an atheist so you got it wrong there. But I do care about money and instant gratification. So you certainly nailed me there. If we had walmart I might care about the latest piece of Chinese sweatshop crap, but since we don't, I don't.

Indepublicrat, ok, let's play the Star Trek game where you can actually separate politics from science and people sing Gumbaya before jointly and in good faith decided things that were in the common good. The scientists come in and say the following is absolutely true:

1. Man is causing global warming which is going to destroy 90% of species and 100% of mankind who are going to suffocate of excess CO2.

2. The only way to avert the above is instant reduction of CO2 emissions by 50%.

3. Cap and trade, cap and fine are impossible to effectively police, at best they shift the emissions from one place in the globe to another and it fails to address the emissions from food production.

4. We do not have a technological maggufin to fix it.

5. The only absolutely certain way to reduce emissions instantly is to reduce population.

What is the conclusion after having a nice cup of tea and warm good faith discussion?

635 Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 12:43:54pm

re: #624 tsflanagan

What is the evidence that human beings are causing the climate to change?

Yeah like I'm going to write you a 400 page treatise on AGW?

The basic research goes something like this though:
Has the planet warmed? Yes.
Did the sun do it? No.
Do greenhouse gases trap heat and affect the climate? Yes.
Do we have observable proof? Yes.

There you go, I hope your happy.
(Read a book or two)

636 michael78244  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 12:45:08pm

re: #623 ausador

If that were true, then there wouldn't be any scientists arguing this point and there would be no discussion. The world is flat right? Scientific models can show that. The same scientific models used to "prove" your point predicted a continuous rise in temps, but that hasn't been true. In fact, if you go back in history and use data against what is already known, the predictions are always wrong. We are supposed to believe them now as scientific fact?

Ok, sure.

637 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 12:45:10pm

re: #634 kittysaidwoof

You're not seriously trying to claim that scientists trying to alert the world to the dangers of global warming are advocating genocide, are you?

Good grief.

638 jaunte  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 12:46:17pm

re: #634 kittysaidwoof

Look, it's the buried Godwin gambit.

639 michael78244  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 12:47:30pm

re: #628 Charles

I defy you to show anywhere where I have said we were "poofed" into existence. You don't like when people do that to you, so don't do that to me.

640 tsflanagan  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 12:47:36pm

re: #633 Charles

Charles. No, I am a Roman Catholic (AMS Manhattan Beach) who believes that evolution is largely true but cannot explain all origins. Maybe someday. That said, does belief in God imply belief in "Creationism" in your view?

Are you a bigot? You did not used to be. By the way I don't think you are, but it's getting close. I've been following you for nearly a decade.

Talked to Prager lately?

641 tsflanagan  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 12:51:39pm

re: #635 ausador

So, climate change in the past was caused by what?

642 michael78244  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 12:52:47pm

re: #635 ausador

Did the sun cause it no? How do you know? Because some scientists said so?

Why would anyone think that the largest energy source in our solar system would have anything to do with how warm or cool our planet gets? Scientists have shown that the same warming and cooling trends are happening on Mars. I wonder what man is doing to make that happen?

643 Obdicut  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 12:54:20pm

re: #642 michael78244

You seriously think Climatologists don't take solar radiance into account?

Go to www.skepticalscience.com and learn you some.

644 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 12:55:34pm

re: #629 Teh Flowah


Yes, all those people are idiots and not worth debating with. The "rational debate" area is over in the "we have a problem, how do we solve it" section of the world. Where we discuss the pros and cons of various proposed solutions so that we can maximize our efforts without destroying the technological progress that we as a global society have said is a Very Good Thing.

Yes, that's the discussion I am looking for. Where is it? Or do I get some secret password once I declare to believe the dogma?


re: #629 Teh Flowah

I'm willing to bet you don't understand everything behind physics and evolution and mathematics. Or how modern planes work, or the computer you're using, or the car you're driving. This doesn't make these things any less real.

Absolutely correct. I wouldn't even know where to begin if I needed to build me a jet. I'd call Boeing or Eurobus.

re: #629 Teh Flowah

You call it taking it on faith? That's intellectually dishonest. It works because of the science. You don't get the science. You're taking it on your ignorance. Religion on the other hand DEMANDS faith. Not everything is supposed to make sense or be figured out. That's why they came out with axioms like "God works in mysterious ways." Or impossible shit like water into wine. You need faith for this.

Oh I don't deny the marvels of science at all. Science is wonderful, no question about it. I am all for more science. I hardly could be an atheist if I didn't think so.

re: #629 Teh Flowah

Science doesn't need faith. Just the intelligence and will to understand what we can empirically observe and experiment with.

That is true for the scientist doing the empirical observing and experimenting, but it isn't true for a layperson who will have to believe the scientist. I have little problem accepting most of what I read in popular science magazines as facts even though once in a while it happens that some new article debunks some older stuff. But that is easy because with most of the stuff nobody tries to sell me the concept of me having to start paying off my ecological debt (or that others should pay it to me).

645 michael78244  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 12:55:41pm

re: #637 Charles

This is not the warmest the world has been in the day of man. How do you know that global warming is a danger? How do you know that it wouldn't be a good thing if it were to continue?

646 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 12:57:27pm

re: #640 tsflanagan

Charles. No, I am a Roman Catholic (AMS Manhattan Beach) who believes that evolution is largely true but cannot explain all origins. Maybe someday. That said, does belief in God imply belief in "Creationism" in your view?

Exactly where have I ever said anything like that? Go ahead, show me that quote.

Are you a bigot? You did not used to be. By the way I don't think you are, but it's getting close. I've been following you for nearly a decade.

Right, I'm a bigot. Because I don't believe in creationism. That makes sense.

Talked to Prager lately?

No, I haven't. Why do you ask?

647 jaunte  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 12:57:32pm

re: #642 michael78244

Did the sun cause it no? How do you know? Because some scientists said so?

Why would anyone think that the largest energy source in our solar system would have anything to do with how warm or cool our planet gets? Scientists have shown that the same warming and cooling trends are happening on Mars. I wonder what man is doing to make that happen?

Global warming on Mars?
[Link: www.realclimate.org...]

648 Bloodnok  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 12:58:56pm

re: #645 michael78244

This is not the warmest the world has been in the day of man. How do you know that global warming is a danger? How do you know that it wouldn't be a good thing if it were to continue?

Charles, may I?

"Thank You"

649 Indepublicrat  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 12:59:34pm

re: #626 michael78244

I will again state that there is no conclusive evidence that man is causing global warming. Further, there is no evidence that anything that man does will stop it.

If you look around, you'll find the evidence in thousands of places online or in your local library. Some explanations have been written in language intended for third-graders to understand--maybe you should start there.

re: #634 kittysaidwoof

I knew that would be a good exercise for you! The science comes in and (assuming your highly-qualified science advisors assure you it's reliable) the next step is to discuss policy to deal with the problem. That's where the debate should be--and it's still quite a debate!

650 Teh Flowah  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:00:11pm

re: #634 kittysaidwoof

1. Man is causing global warming which is going to destroy 90% of species and 100% of mankind who are going to suffocate of excess CO2.

2. The only way to avert the above is instant reduction of CO2 emissions by 50%.

3. Cap and trade, cap and fine are impossible to effectively police, at best they shift the emissions from one place in the globe to another and it fails to address the emissions from food production.

4. We do not have a technological maggufin to fix it.

5. The only absolutely certain way to reduce emissions instantly is to reduce population.

What is the conclusion after having a nice cup of tea and warm good faith discussion?


What the hell kind of strawmen are you erecting here.

1. 90% of species and extinction of humanity? Where was this said?
2. "Instant" reductions by 50%? Again, who said this? And what do you mean by instant?
3. Yes Cap and Trade is dumb as it stands now.
4. Who says we don't? Everything we need to fight AGW we have right now. We just need to be willing to make sacrifices and think more long-term.
5. uh. lol.

>>>That is true for the scientist doing the empirical observing and experimenting, but it isn't true for a layperson who will have to believe the scientist.

651 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:01:35pm

re: #637 Charles

You're not seriously trying to claim that scientists trying to alert the world to the dangers of global warming are advocating genocide, are you?

Good grief.

I am seriously saying that some extreme environmentalists (I don't really care whether they are scientists or not) are and that it is gaining popularity. I've had more than one conversations on this topic with several friends who are quite warming up to the idea.

If a portion of the idea (that abstaining from having children is a good deed) in connection with an article describing genocide as the proper means of combating AGW gets 55% support of the readership in the biggest daily of Finland, I'd say genocide is now on the table as a polite topic to discuss over tea and biscuits.

652 jaunte  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:02:45pm

re: #651 kittysaidwoof

an article describing genocide as the proper means of combating AGW gets 55% support of the readership in the biggest daily of Finland


Do you have a link to that?

653 jayzee  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:03:01pm

I'm sorry, just like there are those objecting to the concept of AGW based on their religious beliefs, so too, there those who support the notion and every half baked solution based on their own "new age" visions. Both do little to advance legitimate discussion and solutions. I see a lot that bothers me about both sides (of the political debate) on climate change. To minimize the skeptics as being religious anti science zealots is a big mistake. The AGW case would be better served, explaining in clear terms, without hyperbole, what the problems are and potential scientific solutions that are not based upon redistribution of wealth and purchasing of indulgences. Telling me and many other Americans that we NEED to pass X bill within Y timeline will just make the AGW argument look political and will be met with resistance.

Now here is my personal view of AGW. I think it is very possible, though I am not entirely convinced. Regardless, I think we should be looking for renewable energy sources and the use of clean energy where possible. The less crap we throw into the air the better.

654 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:04:05pm

re: #651 kittysaidwoof

I am seriously saying that some extreme environmentalists (I don't really care whether they are scientists or not) are and that it is gaining popularity. I've had more than one conversations on this topic with several friends who are quite warming up to the idea.

If a portion of the idea (that abstaining from having children is a good deed) in connection with an article describing genocide as the proper means of combating AGW gets 55% support of the readership in the biggest daily of Finland, I'd say genocide is now on the table as a polite topic to discuss over tea and biscuits.

Go ahead, show me one serious scientist who's advocating genocide to stop global warming.

This is a ludicrous, stupid, and completely false accusation, and you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to float it here.

655 michael78244  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:04:09pm

re: #643 Obdicut

No I don't think they take the sun into account because it interferes with their belief.

[Link: news.nationalgeographic.com...]

656 Achilles Tang  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:07:11pm

re: #642 michael78244

Did the sun cause it no? How do you know? Because some scientists said so?

Why would anyone think that the largest energy source in our solar system would have anything to do with how warm or cool our planet gets? Scientists have shown that the same warming and cooling trends are happening on Mars. I wonder what man is doing to make that happen?

Look buddy, you are talking out of your ass and your ignorance is showing. It ain't pretty.

657 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:08:50pm

Anyone who's trying to seriously argue the science with 'michael78244' is wasting their time. Please note: he's a creationist. Arguing science with a creationist is like asking a goldfish for stock market tips.

658 Teh Flowah  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:09:35pm

re: #651 kittysaidwoof

I am seriously saying that some extreme environmentalists (I don't really care whether they are scientists or not) are and that it is gaining popularity. I've had more than one conversations on this topic with several friends who are quite warming up to the idea.

If a portion of the idea (that abstaining from having children is a good deed) in connection with an article describing genocide as the proper means of combating AGW gets 55% support of the readership in the biggest daily of Finland, I'd say genocide is now on the table as a polite topic to discuss over tea and biscuits.


If you're arguing about the science, you should talk about the opinion of scientists. If you're arguing about policy, you should do the same with politicians.

"in connection with". Christ How fucking dense are you. Abstaining from having children is so far away from Genocide it's ridiculous. Nice try on trying to equate the two and then muddy the issue by saying 55% of the readers of a newspaper in Finland think that abstaining from having children (I bet it reads "too many children") leads to support for genocide.

659 jayzee  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:11:16pm
asking a goldfish for stock market tips

I wish I did that are year ago instead of going to my broker.

660 Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:11:28pm

re: #634 kittysaidwoof

1. Man is causing global warming which is going to destroy 90% of species and 100% of mankind who are going to suffocate of excess CO2.

No scientist has said anything remotely that hyperbolic.

2. The only way to avert the above is instant reduction of CO2 emissions by 50%.

Actually they want to reduce C02 emissions by 80%. (Ohh Noes!)

3. Cap and trade, cap and fine are impossible to effectively police, at best they shift the emissions from one place in the globe to another and it fails to address the emissions from food production.

I don't think you will too many people on this site who believe cap and trade is the solution, it isn't. Too many people only deny AGW and are not getting involved with trying to steer the politicians toward the best solutions. When you leave it up to them to decide on their own you lose your right to complain about the solutions that they choose.

4. We do not have a technological maggufin to fix it.

Yes we do, nuclear power, grid upgrades, solar, wind, tidal, algae based fuels, and a multitude of other tech is there. The problem is getting them the investment needed to deploy them when carbon fuels are still too cheap.

5. The only absolutely certain way to reduce emissions instantly is to reduce population.

Again, no one except for a handful of "Earth First" type loons is advocating this. It will not happen overnight but over decades, however nothing will happen if we don't ever start.

The point that you are missing is that things ARE going to be done by the government to counter this problem. You can stand on the sidelines and continue to deny any need for change while they steamroll you, or you can get involved.

661 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:11:45pm

re: #650 Teh Flowah

What the hell kind of strawmen are you erecting here.

The strawmen I needed to play a nice Star Trek game. You can take it that I picked them out of my hat. But a lot of them is pretty much standard fair when discussing AGW at least here in Europe. And since the predictions get more dramatic every other week, I am sure there will be a time where those I picked will sound like the rose tinted version.

662 michael78244  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:13:45pm

re: #657 Charles

That is not very nice Charles. Your statement makes me believe you are prejudiced against me and intolerant of any views other than your own simply because I am a so-called "creationist". That is not true is it?

663 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:15:43pm

re: #654 Charles

Go ahead, show me one serious scientist who's advocating genocide to stop global warming.

This is a ludicrous, stupid, and completely false accusation, and you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to float it here.

Huh, where am I supposed to get the scientist? I didn't say scientist, I said environmentalist and I linked the story above with a nice google translation.

Why do I have to be ashamed of relating what is happening? Helsingin Sanomat is by far the largest daily of Finland and Pentti Linkola is a very well known person. For years I figured he is just a crackpot who can be safely ignored, but he is clearly gaining popularity.

664 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:16:29pm

re: #662 michael78244

That is not very nice Charles. Your statement makes me believe you are prejudiced against me and intolerant of any views other than your own simply because I am a so-called "creationist". That is not true is it?

Just like clockwork, the accusation of "intolerance." Is there a script somewhere that you creationists follow?

665 Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:16:29pm

re: #641 tsflanagan

So, climate change in the past was caused by what?

Depends what you are talking about, the mechanism of the ice ages? That is better understood now as being caused by the irregular orbit and tilt of the earth. We will have another one in about 20,000 years.

Again read a book or try google, there is a whole world of interesting info out there.

666 michael78244  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:20:02pm

re: #664 Charles

But, Charles, what am I supposed to think? You said "Arguing science with a creationist is like asking a goldfish for stock market tips". You have labelled me and dismissed me because of that label. What do you call someone who does that?

667 jaunte  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:21:29pm

re: #666 michael78244

You're choosing to make an ass of yourself; I'd say you're making a bad choice, but it's all yours.

668 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:22:56pm

re: #666 michael78244

But, Charles, what am I supposed to think? You said "Arguing science with a creationist is like asking a goldfish for stock market tips". You have labelled me and dismissed me because of that label. What do you call someone who does that?

Thank you!

669 michael78244  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:23:53pm

re: #667 jaunte

I make a good argument and you choose to call me names. What does that say about you?

670 michael78244  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:25:06pm

re: #668 Charles

You are welcome!

671 tsflanagan  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:25:06pm

re: #646 Charles

Charles, you seem to knee-jerkedly ask anyone who has questions whether they are a creationist. That gets near bigotry. I said I did not think you had gotten there yet, and I have followed you since close to the very beginning of LGF. I'm an admirer, but losing steam.

You and Prager once went together on the radio. No more?

672 KSK  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:27:58pm

I would actually prefer that we don't call people, who disagree with the current AGW theories, "deniers". For me that's a sign of intolerance and an unwillingness to have an open democratic debate.

AGW is not an easy thing. Few people will actually have a full understanding of scientific climate models, how they are created and what projections we draw from them.

I still remember Germany in the early 1980s where an incredible hysteria raged on about dying forests. Acid rain was causing the "Waldsterben" and most (German) scientists agreed that there wouldn't be many trees left by the turn of the century.

It didn't happen. The forests are still there. And many of those scientists do not want to be reminded of their alarmist models.

Is AGW a reality? Maybe. Most models seem to agree that the Earth has warmed, BUT less than ONE degree Celsius in 100 years. And there have been warming and cooling periods in these 100 years.

From this alarmist projections have been put forward that the Earth will warm up to 7 degrees Celsius until 2100. And people who think that there is little evidence to back that projection are now called "deniers".

We are now supposed to spend trillions on a theory while millions of people die of hunger we could feed with a few billions.

I am very much in favour of "green" sustainable energy. Reducing CO2 emissions is fine with me, not just for climate reasons but because reducing the burning of fossil fuel is definitely a good thing.

My prediction is that we will hear about "Climate change" for years until people will get fed up. You cannot sustain an apocalyptical threat for decades.

We should simply calm down, promote the use of clean renewable energy. The rest will follow.

PS: I understand that I won't get any positive ratings for this posting. But before you hit the negative button, please think for a moment whether comments made in good faith should be rated negatively simply because you don't agree with the content.

I have been called a "denier" frequently. I don't feel like I am one. I just feel that right now there is no fair debate going on.

Again: I don't "deny" that man-made AGW might be a reality. But when Al Gore sitting in his mansion and flying a private jet tells me that we "only have ten years" to save the planet, I get a little sceptical. Sorry.

673 jaunte  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:29:07pm

re: #669 michael78244

You have neither made a good argument, or responded to evidence to the contrary. Whining about how you're treated as a result doesn't convince anyone. This is a silly tactic, and you're going to get called on it.

674 Achilles Tang  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:30:31pm

re: #657 Charles

Anyone who's trying to seriously argue the science with 'michael78244' is wasting their time. Please note: he's a creationist. Arguing science with a creationist is like asking a goldfish for stock market tips.

I wasn't doing that, but he shouldn't be given the impression that his talking points are recognized for anything but what they are.

675 jdwill  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:32:59pm

re: #672 KSK

FWIW, I hit the plus, but I think it got cancelled out.

Spot on - IMHO.

676 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:33:00pm

Ausador, in politics it doesn't really matter what scientists are saying. What matters is what people believe and perceive to be true. People who believe in something have the tendency to exaggerate and veer to extremes. Therefore in most social gatherings this topic have come up you usually have two camps - those who scream we're all going to die and those who scream nothing is going to happen.

Right now we're at a point where discussing genocide and its technical execution as a solution is acceptable for major dailys in Europe and the article get's favourable poll results (please note that the question on the poll was not whether genocide is the best solution). While I think it unlikely that this will actually be the mainstream position - giving such extreme positions room in the debate will help make less radical solutions such as world-wide one-child policy seem more moderate.

We already have cap and trade in place and we already have huge excises on fuel, so yes, the governments will use AGW to make policy.

677 Obdicut  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:33:22pm

re: #672 KSK

You aren't making arguments in good faith. You talk about the models as though they're what measure temperature rise-- they don't. We know that from direct observation. Models tell us why the temperature is rising; it's rising because of an increase in CO2. Why is CO2 increasing? Because we humans are sending lots of it into the atmosphere.

Perhaps you're arguing in ignorance; that's still arguing in bad faith.

Read www.skepticalscience.com .

678 [deleted]  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:34:51pm
679 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:36:18pm

re: #672 KSK

I would actually prefer that we don't call people, who disagree with the current AGW theories, "deniers". For me that's a sign of intolerance and an unwillingness to have an open democratic debate.

I'm calling deniers "deniers." And there are plenty of deniers on display right here in this thread.

If someone disagrees with the science of AGW, it's up to them to show the evidence for the disagreement. Instead, the anti-AGW crowd concentrates on attacking the science, spreading confusion, and doing public relations.

Show me the research that disproves AGW. It's very telling that there isn't any. Shouldn't the "skeptics" be doing their own research, if their "skepticism" is based on reality?

There are mountains of scientific evidence for global warming, and an overhwelming scientific consensus that it's real and humans are causing it.

On the "skeptic" side, there are mountains of deceptive public relations campaigns and liars like Marc Morano and James Inhofe.

680 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:36:52pm

re: #678 brianstien

Bye now!

681 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:38:59pm

Anyone who dumps one of the current smears going around the idiot blogs is going to lose their account. If you think I don't see what you're doing, you're badly mistaken.

682 michael78244  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:39:28pm

re: #673 jaunte

Where have I "whined"? Dismissing others by calling them names doesn't convince anyone and YOU got called on it. I have been nothing but civil and calm during this discussion and I have been labelled a "whiner" and a "creationist" and an "ass". I have responded with evidence to the contrary and your "silly tactic" is how you have chosen to respond to me. I think you are projecting.

683 Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:39:38pm

re: #672 KSK

I still remember Germany in the early 1980s where an incredible hysteria raged on about dying forests. Acid rain was causing the "Waldsterben" and most (German) scientists agreed that there wouldn't be many trees left by the turn of the century.

It didn't happen. The forests are still there. And many of those scientists do not want to be reminded of their alarmist models.

Wow, what a load of misdirection that paragraph is, so acid rain just stopped all on it's own? No steps were taken to reduce acid and sulpher emissions? No, of course not, the scientists were just wrong about the whole thing!
/

Try telling the whole story, the same thing was happening here and led to the "Clean Air Act" which pretty much stopped it cold.

684 jaunte  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:41:09pm

re: #682 michael78244

Global warming on Mars?
[Link: www.realclimate.org...]

685 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:41:28pm

re: #672 KSK

I completely agree with you. The acid rain forest scare had its echoes in Finland and I remember well the supposed imminent apocalypse. In 87 or 88 then there were record colds we were still told we were entering into a new ice age, but a few years later we were shown a video at school which showed the world in an apocalyptic state in the year 2000 with Paris flooding with thousands dead, etc etc, which was supposed to be caused by AGW which prediction was also at that time a supposed scientific consensus. Some time in early 00s the prominent popular science magazine did a feature picturing the animals that will evolve after humanity is extinct of AGW with very dire predictions for 2010. It looks like that won't happen either.

686 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:44:11pm

re: #682 michael78244

Where have I "whined"? Dismissing others by calling them names doesn't convince anyone and YOU got called on it. I have been nothing but civil and calm during this discussion and I have been labelled a "whiner" and a "creationist" and an "ass". I have responded with evidence to the contrary and your "silly tactic" is how you have chosen to respond to me. I think you are projecting.

You are a creationist. Own it.

687 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:50:03pm

re: #683 ausador

Wow, what a load of misdirection that paragraph is, so acid rain just stopped all on it's own? No steps were taken to reduce acid and sulpher emissions? No, of course not, the scientists were just wrong about the whole thing!
/

Try telling the whole story, the same thing was happening here and led to the "Clean Air Act" which pretty much stopped it cold.

It's pretty amazing to see these people try to float these weird talking points and false claims, even as they feign outrage about being called "deniers."

688 Basho  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:50:47pm

A lot of people here defending AGW. Where's Wendya to tell them all to "fuck off"? Did she have a meltdown and get banned too?

689 insanity police  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:51:45pm

The denial of the "deniers" doesn't pass the smell test. Pump a bunch of chemicals or pollutants or emissions into the atmosphere and of course it won't be good. But the deniers would have us believe that it's no biggie, and has no bad effects. Whether it creates a hazardous environment, warming, or whatever, it's easy to see that it's not good. Even laymen should be able to see that.

690 michael78244  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:52:35pm

re: #686 Charles

And you are apparently prejudiced against those you label as a "creationist". Own that.

691 freetoken  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:52:56pm

re: #687 Charles

It's pretty amazing to see these people try to float these weird talking points and false claims, even as they feign outrage about being called "deniers."

I wonder if we will see any tobacco-is-good-for-you claims eventually floated? Certainly Singer et. al. would like to get that money flow started again.

692 Basho  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:54:00pm

re: #690 michael78244

And you are apparently prejudiced against those you label as a "creationist". Own that.

Gee, I really hope he is. Those people are idiots.

693 insanity police  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:54:02pm
And you are apparently prejudiced against those you label as a "creationist". Own that.

Since when is it bad to condemn ignorance? Creationism is not credible.

694 freetoken  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:55:14pm

re: #688 Basho

Long gone, it appears.

695 Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:55:15pm

re: #687 Charles

It's pretty amazing to see these people try to float these weird talking points and false claims, even as they feign outrage about being called "deniers."

I find it hard to believe that any thinking person who knows anything at all about the subject would even try to use acid rain as an argument. If anything it shows the opposite of the point they are trying to make. Man was causeing acid rain and man stopped it without destroying our economies or technological society.

696 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:56:46pm

re: #683 ausador

Wow, what a load of misdirection that paragraph is, so acid rain just stopped all on it's own? No steps were taken to reduce acid and sulpher emissions? No, of course not, the scientists were just wrong about the whole thing!
/

I didn't think KSK wrote that acid rain was not a problem at all. The point is that it turned out not to be the apocalyptic problem that we were then served. IIRC there are plenty of place in the world where acid rains are still a serious problem. Just not events of human extinction.

There's also the problem that previous apocalyptic predictions about AGW have also not materialized. While I am not saying it means there's no AGW, it does sort of take the sting out of the trust the scientific consensus argument. I thought I already did that.

697 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:57:37pm

re: #695 ausador

I find it hard to believe that any thinking person who knows anything at all about the subject would even try to use acid rain as an argument. If anything it shows the opposite of the point they are trying to make. Man was causeing acid rain and man stopped it without destroying our economies or technological society.

Someone up above even tried to claim that the deterioration of the ozone hole was another "hoax," apparently in complete ignorance that this is another case in which human action (the banning of CFCs) did indeed result in improving a very dangerous situation. It's a scientific/political success story, and it's being painted as a "hoax."

698 michael78244  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:59:06pm

re: #693 insanity police

You know I never claimed to be a "creationist". I was labelled that because I disagreed with an earlier post. Please note how many of those type of posts I have responded to since then. I disagree with the notion of man made global warming, which has no scientific evidence, and I am called names and labelled ignorant.

Whatever

699 Basho  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:59:16pm

re: #697 Charles

Err... they realize they have detailed pictures of the hole taken by satellites?

700 Basho  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:59:54pm

re: #698 michael78244

So... are you or not?

701 freetoken  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:00:42pm

re: #698 michael78244

I disagree with the notion of man made global warming, which has no scientific evidence, and I am called names and labelled ignorant...

Why do the Moon and the Earth have different mean temperatures?

702 michael78244  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:02:32pm

re: #697 Charles

Maybe we should bring it back and cool the Earth? I'm sure glad the politicians are looking out for our needs. How have we ever managed to make this far without destroying ourselves?

703 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:02:40pm

]re: #698 michael78244

You know I never claimed to be a "creationist".

You're not only a creationist, you also don't believe in the separation of church and state:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

I disagree with the notion of man made global warming, which has no scientific evidence, and I am called names and labelled ignorant.

You're also apparently utterly impervious to irony.

704 Basho  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:03:59pm

re: #702 michael78244

Maybe we should bring it back and cool the Earth? I'm sure glad the politicians are looking out for our needs. How have we ever managed to make this far without destroying ourselves?

Organized government? Somalia doesn't have one you know...

705 Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:04:41pm

re: #696 kittysaidwoof

Yes, China and India both still have a major problem with it because of all the dirty coal coal plants and the use of high sulpher coal. The west cleaned up it's act enough to stop the acid pollution problem, not only at coal plants but at industries and even the fuel you put into your car or truck was changed. We created a problem for ourselves, then we fixed it, just like we need to do with AGW.

I would advise you not to try useing this argument, it proves the opposite of what you are trying to claim.

706 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:05:56pm

re: #695 ausador

I find it hard to believe that any thinking person who knows anything at all about the subject would even try to use acid rain as an argument. If anything it shows the opposite of the point they are trying to make. Man was causeing acid rain and man stopped it without destroying our economies or technological society.

That's the thing. It was supposed to be a big problem not something relatively easily overcome. Linkola was telling even then that the best way to combat it was genocide. If AGW is like Acid Rain then what's the drama for. Fix it and move on. But of course AGW is supposed to be much bigger problem and it likely is.

707 michael78244  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:07:22pm

re: #700 Basho

Do I believe in evolution? Of course I do! Do I believe in God? Of course I do! The two are not mutually exclusive. I never said they were.

Do I think we came from monkeys? I see no evidence of that. Do I think we were "Poofed" here? I never said that. I plain don't know.

708 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:08:35pm

re: #707 michael78244

Do I think we came from monkeys? I see no evidence of that.

Oh brother.

709 Achilles Tang  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:08:37pm

re: #657 Charles

Huh? What's the ding for? Do you advocate simply ignoring, in which case there's not much point in having him here?

710 Basho  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:09:09pm

re: #707 michael78244

Your main problem seems to be that you don't know how or where to look for evidence. May I suggest asking your local librarian for assistance?

711 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:11:23pm

re: #709 Naso Tang

Huh? What's the ding for? Do you advocate simply ignoring, in which case there's not much point in having him here?

Oops, it was an accident. I reversed it.

712 Achilles Tang  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:12:54pm

re: #711 Charles

Oops, it was an accident. I reversed it.

You need to rest that finger, it seems to be getting strained :=)

713 michael78244  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:14:14pm

re: #703 Charles

I absolutely believe that "Separation of Church and State" was imposed on us by a rogue Supreme Court. The basis was a letter that Thomas Jefferrson wrote that was taken out of context and not the Constitution itself.

Try reading the Constitution especially the "Establishment Clause". Take it in the context of history and how our fore-fathers viewed religion. There is nothing that says the government and religion should be mutually exclusive.

714 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:15:09pm

We have a trifecta! A creationist, a global warming denier, AND a theocrat, all rolled into one.

715 KSK  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:15:27pm

@Charles

You rated msy post negatively but thank you for replying.

"There are mountains of scientific evidence for global warming, and an overhwelming scientific consensus that it's real and humans are causing it."

That's an interesting phrasing you employ here. You only attribute "scientific evidence" for GW, but you only (?) speak of an overwhelming scientific consensus that humans are causing it.

The fact is: We don't know. Of course it's entirely possible that CO2 emissions by humans are causing (some of) the warming (which up to now frankly isn't THAT scary). But we simply cannot prove it and we certainly cannot prove at this point how significant the human contribution to GW actually is.

It's easy to tell your opponent: Prove me wrong. I can't. Not the whole theory. There are certainly scientific finds that don't align with or frankly contradict some of the pro AGW claims.

The fact that I can't prove you wrong doesn't mean that you are right unless YOU prove it.

This is how it is done at court. You don't ask the defendant to prove his innocence and if he can't, he's guilty. He doesn't have to prove anything, YOU have to.

I have spoken to lots of scientists about this. And frankly, the "consensus" is not as widespread as you claim. Most scientists are no climate experts and simply join the bandwagon. It's not good for your career to do otherwise.

I spoke to scientists (who have no bone in this fight) and asked them what they think. Most say yes, human madee AGW is probably true and we need to do something about it. But many also say that in THEIR field they would have to show a lot more to make sweeping claims like the ones climate scientists made.

They are not deniers. Most are rather dry, matter-of-fact people. But they tell me that they cannot voice critical points anymore because they will be shouted down by people who feel that this issue shouldn't be discussed anymore. Most of them actually think that AGW is real but they aren't convinced 100% and feel that no fair discussion is possible at the moment. Quote a critical study and you run the risk of being labelled a "denier". That's like being called a Commie by McCarthy in 1950.

And that worries me. That is not what a free democratic society should be about.

I'm very much aware of those politicians you mention. We have those, too, and many are not acting in good faith. They just have their agenda, and I'm not even going into that creationist nonsense many of US conservatives seem to dwell in.

But in the last 5 TV discussions in Germany about AGW, they invited 4 or 5 smart people all in favour of radical action against AGW... plus one intellectual troglodyte who speaks against it. This is not what I call a fair debate.

The discussion sometimes turns into absurdity. There was one Green advocating the ban of NZ apples because of their "carbon footprint". The fact is, that apples of New Zealand arrive in early spring and storing German apples harvested in fall until spring carries a higher carbon footprint than importing those NZ apples.

Saving energy? Count me in!
Reducing the burning of fossil fuel? I'm all for it.
Green technology? Go for it?

Prevent the Earth from warming more than 2 degrees Celsius in the next hundred years? Ummm... sounds rather vague, doesn't it?

@Obdicut

We certainly do send more CO2 into the atmosphere than ever before. CO2 concentration and climate warming are correlated. But we also know that a warmer climate causes higher CO2 concentrations. Some studies have shown that warming preceded CO2 spikes. Others (which pro AGW people use) show that (in Greenland for example) CO2 spikes preceded warming BUT CO2 increased thousands of years before the warming occurred, not 50 or 100.

All this means that there is a lot more to explore. And most climate scientists readily agree that they do not have all the facts yet.

716 jaunte  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:16:10pm

re: #714 Charles

We have a trifecta! A creationist, a global warming denier, AND a theocrat, all rolled into one.

Maybe it's a parody.

717 Achilles Tang  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:16:22pm

re: #707 michael78244

Do I believe in evolution? Of course I do! Do I believe in God? Of course I do! The two are not mutually exclusive. I never said they were.

Do I think we came from monkeys? I see no evidence of that. Do I think we were "Poofed" here? I never said that. I plain don't know.

You may say you believe in evolution, but you don't understand it if you think it says we came from monkeys, even as you correctly say there is no evidence of that, which suggest you are even more confused than you realize.

718 Obdicut  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:17:25pm

re: #715 KSK

And most climate scientists readily agree that they do not have all the facts yet.

This is a direct lie. 97.5% of all publishing climatologists agree with the theory of AGW.

Is there a consensus?

Why lie? Can't you make your case without lying?

719 Basho  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:19:57pm

re: #715 KSK

How exactly does adding CO2 into the atmosphere not make the earth warmer? If you got warm one night and noticed someone placed a blanket over you wouldn't you claim the blanket was responsible? Or did the warmth cause someone to place a blanket over you?

720 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:23:19pm

re: #716 jaunte

Maybe it's a parody.

It's a graphic demonstration of Poe's Law.

721 KSK  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:25:38pm

@kittysaidwoof

Of course I never denied that acid rain was a problem. Of course it was and it still is.

And of course the air is cleaner now in Germany and Europe (which ironically is a problem for AGW since soot has a cooling effect).

What I'm saying is: In 1984 the sky was falling in Germany and in 1994 Waldsterben was no longer a discussion.

Btw the forests STILL have a problem, trees are still dying. What happened is that the Central European forests can cope with it.

Hell do I want clear skies, a healthy environment and green energy? Yes! But can't we achieve this without doom and gloom prophecies? Aren't those goals no-brainers without AGW theories?

722 Obdicut  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:26:14pm

re: #719 Basho

It's kind of funny/sad that the deniers are taking one of the worst aspects of AGW-- that increasing warmth will prompt more CO2 release from some environments-- and acting as though that's the real explanation for the whole thing, and all the models are just backwards. They're taking the science, bending it into a mangled club, and trying to attack the scientists with it.

723 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:26:18pm

re: #718 Obdicut

This is a direct lie. 97.5% of all publishing climatologists agree with the theory of AGW.

Is there a consensus?

Why lie? Can't you make your case without lying?

And this is the person who got all huffy about the term "denier."

724 Basho  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:27:19pm

re: #719 Basho

I remember Iron Fist's response to this argument was "CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION!"

Deniers actually say that effects precedes causes or even that effects have no causes at all.

725 Achilles Tang  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:28:26pm

re: #715 KSK


But in the last 5 TV discussions in Germany about AGW, they invited 4 or 5 smart people all in favour of radical action against AGW... plus one intellectual troglodyte who speaks against it. This is not what I call a fair debate.

This seems to be the essence of your logic. Nobody denies that there are unanswered questions in this, but the evidence point in one direction, as you seem to agree, which if continued will be disastrous for humans.

If 4 or 5 out of 6 (and probably 99 out of 100 knowledgeable in the field) agree on the trend and causes, why should one shop around to find equal numbers on each side for the purposes of a TV show.

Would you agree that if there were 10 of the leading scientists working on the LHC, on a panel to explain it's function to the world, that they should be balanced with 10 kooks who think it may create a black hole that will end the solar system?

Do you think that children should be taught about evolution and Intelligent Design and then told to go figure out which is correct by themselves (and whatever they choose is OK by you)?

(Sorry Charles. I have verbal runs at the moment)

726 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:30:00pm

re: #718 Obdicut

This is a direct lie. 97.5% of all publishing climatologists agree with the theory of AGW.

Is there a consensus?

Why lie? Can't you make your case without lying?

Huh? How can you make so bold statement?

You link to an article which links to a survey to which some 10 000 was asked to participate and in which some 3000 participated. I don't get how you get from that to the you lie! accusation or a bold statement that 97,5% of climatologists agree. This isn't what the paper you linked says.

It says 97,5% of publishing climatologists who answered their survey said. BTW the question was whether human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures - not even primary nor even warming. If I had to answer to that question I'd say 99,9% yes. But I guess you'd still categorize me as a denier.

727 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:31:45pm

Now that I think about it, did you read the paper Obdicut? If so then it looks to me you lied. Or at least deliberately mislead.

728 Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:31:54pm

re: #706 kittysaidwoof

That's the thing. It was supposed to be a big problem not something relatively easily overcome. Linkola was telling even then that the best way to combat it was genocide. If AGW is like Acid Rain then what's the drama for. Fix it and move on. But of course AGW is supposed to be much bigger problem and it likely is.

It was only supposed to be a "Big Problem" according to the same type of people you are listening to now. The power companies said it would cost billions to clean emissions and drive up electrical rates. The oil companies said it would cost billions to reformulate the gas and diesel to low sulpher and drive up fuel costs. People campaigned against doing anything about it and deniers even said that it wasn't man made and that we couldn't fix it.

It was a miniature version of the AGW debate, in the end the changes that the scientists said were needed were implemented over the lobbyists and corporate objections and the problem went away. No corporations went bankrupt, it didn't ruin our economies, people didn't have to go back to living in caves. These are all things that the opposition said were going to happen if we did what was needed to fix things.

The more you argue this topic the more you show your lack of knowledge on the subject. Your helping me make my point, not advancing your own.

729 Obdicut  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:32:43pm

re: #726 kittysaidwoof

Huh? How can you make so bold statement?

You link to an article which links to a survey to which some 10 000 was asked to participate and in which some 3000 participated. I don't get how you get from that to the you lie! accusation or a bold statement that 97,5% of climatologists agree. This isn't what the paper you linked says.

So you also don't believe in statistics and polling. Okay.

It says 97,5% of publishing climatologists who answered their survey said. BTW the question was whether human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures - not even primary nor even warming. If I had to answer to that question I'd say 99,9% yes. But I guess you'd still categorize me as a denier.

Okay, let me help you out; none of those guys think that humans are making the earth colder.

If you accept that human activity is a significant factor in warming, then you endorse the theory of AGW. Congrats.

730 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:35:15pm

Scientists currently express their degree of certainty about AGW in the 90%+ range. In other words, they are 90%+ certain that if nothing is done to stave off the effects of AGW, there will be serious consequences for the planet, and disastrous consequences for human beings.

Suppose a car mechanic told you there was a 90%+ chance that your brakes were going to fail, and cause you to get into a serious accident on the freeway. Would you say, "Well, that's a 10% chance that I'll be fine, so hand me the car keys and let's just keep driving?"

731 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:36:36pm

Obdicut, I do believe in statistics and polling, that is why I checked what the question was and who were surveyed and how. What I found was hardly conclusive enough to make a boast that 97,5% believe in AGW. A term most people understand as having a wider meaning than simply that human activities is a significant factor in climate change. If they'd surveyed me I would've been quite comfortable to answer yes to that question and be one of the 97,5% and you guys would still call me denier. To me that suggest the survey doesn't really tell us much.

732 Obdicut  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:38:58pm

re: #731 kittysaidwoof

Why was it not conclusive enough?


If they'd surveyed me I would've been quite comfortable to answer yes to that question and be one of the 97,5% and you guys would still call me denier.

I just told you that if you say yes to that you're not a denier, so you can come down off that cross now.

733 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:42:49pm

re: #730 Charles


Suppose a car mechanic told you there was a 90%+ chance that your brakes were going to fail, and cause you to get into a serious accident on the freeway. Would you say, "Well, that's a 10% chance that I'll be fine, so hand me the car keys and let's just keep driving?"

That would depend on what the car mechanic would tell me I need to do to fix the problem. If the car mechanic told me that he'd fix the problem if I signed my house over to him, I'd probably leave the car and walked.

This is why I think it would be far more interesting to discuss the proposed solutions. Besides there seems to be a wide range of predictions how nasty things will happen. Certain human extinction would justify far different measures than loss of value of seaside properties.

734 Basho  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:44:16pm

re: #733 kittysaidwoof

You can't leave planet earth...

735 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:46:44pm

re: #732 Obdicut

Why was it not conclusive enough?

I just told you that if you say yes to that you're not a denier, so you can come down off that cross now.

I think most of whom you call deniers agree that humans are a significant factor to climate change. I don't think I've ever read anything saying we should ignore humans as part of the climate equation. Which is good as we can now declare this argument settled. Now can we argue about the proposed solutions?

736 Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:47:34pm

re: #721 KSK

the Central European forests can cope with it.

LMAO
Yeah, the trees "got better."

/

737 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:48:02pm

re: #734 Basho

You can't leave planet earth...

No, but I can call BS when the proposed solution has nothing to do with fixing the problem.

738 Basho  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:50:29pm

re: #737 kittysaidwoof

No, but I can call BS when the proposed solution has nothing to do with fixing the problem.

What exactly are the proposed solutions that bother you so much? If I remember you said something about genocide, is that really a solution that's taken seriously??

739 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:52:10pm

re: #728 ausador

It was only supposed to be a "Big Problem" according to the same type of people you are listening to now.

Huh? I was at school at the time and mostly listened to our teachers and various environmental activists. I signed various petitions even. I remember quite distinctly being told we are all going to die because of those evil big companies and that time was about to run out or had already ran out..

The more you argue this topic the more you show your lack of knowledge on the subject. Your helping me make my point, not advancing your own.

Umm, I thought I established my ignorance long ago. I don't claim to have superior knowledge over you.

740 KSK  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:54:39pm

@Obdicut

Would you kindly note the difference between "We don't have all the facts yet" and "I believe that..."?

Where is the lie?

741 Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 2:54:53pm

re: #733 kittysaidwoof

We do talk about solutions, frequently, we also mock cap and trade for the joke that it is. There are solutions available that can be implemented over the next three decades or so without createing a phony shell game market in carbon meant to enrich wallstreet.

If the Republican party stopped sideing with the deniers and pushed for realistic solutions instead we would all be better off. We are leaving the solutions in the hands of Obama and the democrats who cannot seem to see beyond cap and trade as a solution.

742 Achilles Tang  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:00:13pm

re: #733 kittysaidwoof

Certain human extinction would justify far different measures than loss of value of seaside properties.

You really stepped in it there kitty.

Never mind seafront values, as you imagine them. How about you go to Google Earth and run the pointer over any part of Washington DC near the river. Try it on downtown Boston, New York and just about anywhere where the majority of Americans live these days. You think these are just rich folk's vacation spots?

743 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:02:38pm

re: #738 Basho

What exactly are the proposed solutions that bother you so much? If I remember you said something about genocide, is that really a solution that's taken seriously??

No, not yet. But it apparently is now one of the fringe possibilities. Universal one-child policy is much more likely possibility given the rise of China. Reducing population is definitely going to have a long term effect. Banning or drastic reduction in meat consumption is another sure way of reducing significant amounts of emissions.

Right now the solutions that have already been enacted are huge fuel excises and cap and trade. There appears to have been no effect.

We have some subsidized wind power and there's a lot under construction, but some are saying the net effect is actually more emissions for apparently there are problems with efficiency.

We have some new nuclear power projects, but the construction of those appears to be much more expensive than predicted as apparently some knowhow has been lost in the years when few were built. The Finnish new type plant at Olkiluoto is seriously behind schedule and over budget. New projects are hampered by protest movements citing risks of operation, immediate damage to nature and the problems of finding safe final storage for spent fuel.

744 Obdicut  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:03:28pm

re: #740 KSK

@Obdicut

Would you kindly note the difference between "We don't have all the facts yet" and "I believe that..."?

Where is the lie?

Here's a good lie:

The fact is: We don't know. Of course it's entirely possible that CO2 emissions by humans are causing (some of) the warming (which up to now frankly isn't THAT scary). But we simply cannot prove it and we certainly cannot prove at this point how significant the human contribution to GW actually is.

745 Basho  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:06:10pm

re: #743 kittysaidwoof

Universal one child policy sounds good. Let's do that!

746 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:08:55pm

re: #742 Naso Tang

You really stepped in it there kitty.

Never mind seafront values, as you imagine them. How about you go to Google Earth and run the pointer over any part of Washington DC near the river. Try it on downtown Boston, New York and just about anywhere where the majority of Americans live these days. You think these are just rich folk's vacation spots?

Ah, this is just what I mean how nasty the consequences are going to be? Are we going to have to relocate some commuities over 100 years? Which isn't a biggie and happens naturally all the time, or are we going to see New York flooded under 5 meters of water in a flash?

So when discussing solutions there are going to be some that are sensible to do in any case - like try to increase renewable energy and decrease dependence on fossil fuel and some that will make sense only in case of imminent certain impending doom - like establishing totalitarian world government and exterminating some population. There's obviously a lot of ground in the middle.

747 Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:09:22pm

re: #745 Basho

Universal one child policy sounds good. Let's do that!

The "Quiverfull" people are never going to go for that one...

748 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:11:46pm

re: #745 Basho

Universal one child policy sounds good. Let's do that!

Excellent. This is why I would like to see a discussion on the solutions up front so that I would know what I am buying. Right now there's very little public discussion about that.

749 Obdicut  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:12:15pm

re: #748 kittysaidwoof

There is tons of discussion about it.

750 Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:14:25pm

re: #746 kittysaidwoof

You are vastly underestimateing what will happen with even "small" sea level rises. Try relocateing almost everyone in Florida, the Low Countries, and the disappearence of entire Island countries.

Play with this map a little and you might see what you are talking about, you can adjust the level of sea rise to see what goes under water:

[Link: flood.firetree.net...]

751 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:15:19pm

There is obviously discussion about it, but it is very limited and usually very superficial.

752 KSK  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:19:30pm

725 Naso Tang

"Do you think that children should be taught about evolution and Intelligent Design and then told to go figure out which is correct by themselves (and whatever they choose is OK by you)?"

No I don't think so, simply because the evolution theory is based on scientific research (and should therefore be taught in science) and "Intelligent Design" is a non-scientific religious belief based on nothing but religious convictions.

I'm not advocating a discussion between a climate scientist and a religious guy who doesn't believe in man made climate change because God alone is responsible for climate... I want a fair and non-pressured scientific debate in which data do not have to be "recalibrated" to align with the "consensus".

Btw a scientific consensus is not set in stone. It can and does change over time.

Karl Popper said that no amount of experiments could ever prove a scientific theory, but a single experiment could disprove one.

@Charles

"Suppose a car mechanic told you there was a 90%+ chance that your brakes were going to fail, and cause you to get into a serious accident on the freeway. Would you say, "Well, that's a 10% chance that I'll be fine, so hand me the car keys and let's just keep driving?"

If he told me that there was a 90%+ chance that my brakes were going to fail in the next 50 years and that it would cost me a million dollars to fix them and actually he couldn't promise me that his fix would work I might just take the chance and drive on. Maybe in 10 years things look differently?

But you see, I am NOT against emission reductions. There is nothing wrong with them. I'm against fear mongering.

753 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:19:38pm

re: #748 kittysaidwoof

Excellent. This is why I would like to see a discussion on the solutions up front so that I would know what I am buying. Right now there's very little public discussion about that.

Of all the ridiculous things you've posted in this thread, that has to be the most ridiculous.

There is nothing BUT discussion going on about solutions. It's all over the news, and in magazines, and on the web.

The idea that we need MORE discussion is nothing but yet another absurd denialist talking point. The intent is to make sure that "discussion" is ALL that ever happens, and no solutions are ever put into effect.

754 Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:20:41pm

re: #751 kittysaidwoof

There is obviously discussion about it, but it is very limited and usually very superficial.

Thats funny, I have only been a member for a couple of months and have participated in several discussions about solutions. Several of which got pretty involved about the specific things that could be done with current technology. The pros and cons were discussed along with ecological impact and costs to the economy, superficial is not what I would call it.

755 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:24:49pm

Ausador, I live in a medieval city. I can see where the seashore used to be in medieval times. It is very far from where it is now. Its not that difficult to imagine having to abandon some buildings and perhaps building some seawalls over the course of 100 or even 50 years. Would avoiding that justify for example one child policy? I don't think so.

If the same were to happen in the course of a few years its already a different matter.

Charles, all I see is some discussion on cap and trade and then a whole lot of babble about changing attitudes etc etc.. Since so many call cap and trade BS, it is not altogether clear what for example you want done.

756 KSK  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:27:16pm

@Obdicut

You call this a lie?
The fact is: We don't know. Of course it's entirely possible that CO2 emissions by humans are causing (some of) the warming (which up to now frankly isn't THAT scary). But we simply cannot prove it and we certainly cannot prove at this point how significant the human contribution to GW actually is.

Do you know the difference between a theory and proven facts?
The difference between "I believe" and "I know"?

I said: We certainly cannot prove at this point how significant the human contribution to GW actually is.

Please produce one climate researcher who will say: I can PROVE the exact amount of human contribution to GW.

He can't, because so many factors contribute to climate. Most are not man made. And most climatologist will in fact agree that climate is a complicated matter we are only beginning to fully understand.

757 kittysaidwoof  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:30:34pm

ausador, I obviously don't mean only here, but more generally and I don't have the time to follow all of the threads here to know all that is discussed, in fact this is the first time I bothered to participate this long.

If in fact there is this very involved debate somewhere about the solutions and all is actually settled then I have no choice but again to stand corrected and lament my ignorance.

758 Obdicut  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:35:52pm

re: #756 KSK

Do you know the difference between a theory and proven facts?
The difference between "I believe" and "I know"?

Ah, the creationist argument.

The theory of gravity is also a theory. So is the theory of evolution.

759 Achilles Tang  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:48:09pm

re: #746 kittysaidwoof

Ah, this is just what I mean how nasty the consequences are going to be? Are we going to have to relocate some commuities over 100 years? Which isn't a biggie and happens naturally all the time, or are we going to see New York flooded under 5 meters of water in a flash?

We are not addressing potential solutions or their problems here. We are addressing your lack of understanding of potential consequences.

Do you think communities, in some scenarios, would have to be relocated in 100 years? Do you expect tens of millions of people to move, along with businesses and ports and infrastructure when they are 6 inches above high tide?

You not realize that only a small amount of rise in mean sea level, which does not cause flooding, can mean a much higher chance of flooding in a storm surge. You do not realize that just a few feet rise will essentially change the entire coastline of the eastern US in particular, for miles inland.

You do not realize that many years before those areas are underwater permanently, they can easily be so during major storms. Yes, New York could be under 5 feet of water in a flash if a major hurricane hit it. In fact much of it could be under water next summer if a Katrina came that way. New Orleans will be one of the first to go, for good, as will much of the Gulf Coast which is perhaps 6 feet above sea level for miles inland.

Your problem seems to be that you have little ability to imagine that which you don't want to see.

760 KSK  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:51:43pm

Obdicut

No this is NOT a creationist argument. Stop that BS. I don't believe in creationism.

The theories of gravity and evolution are based on scientific research and evidence. Creationism is not.

The theory of global warming is based on scientific research and evidence as well. What I'm saying is that as long something is a scientific theory it will evolve over time.

I've learned a lot at school about animal behavior for example. Our knowledge has improved and not everything I learned at school about it still is the scientific consensus today. Which is just the way it should be. In 100 years our knowledge on gravity and evolution will have improved as well. It is even possible that a genius scientist finds a better theory than Darwin had.

But no, he won't base it on the Bible.

761 Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:52:01pm

re: #755 kittysaidwoof

A massive increase in the amount of electricity generated by nuclear power coupled to a corresponding decrease in power from coal and oil.

Updateing the electrical grid from 100 and 60 year old technology to a cutting edge distribution system that minimises "dead heading" and waste. (currently almost 60% of the electricity produced in the US never reaches a light bulb.)

With an updated grid it will be possible to add wind, solar, tidal, and other individually small renewable sources to the available power in an efficient manner.

Movement away from fossil fuel powered automobiles and trucks to electrically powered ones. Over 95% of all the normal travel needs of the average owner could be accomplished by electric propulsion useing todays technology.

Increased access and convience of mass transit in non-rural population areas.

Urgent and well funded research into improveing energy storage technologies to allow the further use of renewable but inconsistant sources of energy.


These are a few of the things that we can do right now, there are many others, none involve genocide or living in caves. None would destroy our economies but would instead create entirely new industries and business market niches. The focus need to be on stopping the use of coal and oil for power and transportation needs, everything else is just noise meant to distract us.

762 Achilles Tang  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 3:54:54pm

re: #756 KSK

Do you know the difference between a theory and proven facts?
The difference between "I believe" and "I know"?

Very disappointed in you. You must have learned this and remembered nothing but the last two entries.

the⋅o⋅ry  [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
Use theory in a Sentence
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

763 Obdicut  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 4:02:37pm

re: #760 KSK

I said you were making the creationist argument that a scientific theory is something that's unproved.

You're in a big muddle now.

764 KSK  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 4:14:17pm

Obdicut

Not at all. Let me requote Popper:

"No amount of experiments could ever prove a scientific theory"

In other words. A scientific theory cannot be proven. It it is proven, it ceases to be a theory.

A scientific theory is developed and backed by scientific evidence, empirical data, finds, facts. All these bundled together form a theory. The more facts and evidence we have, the more plausible the theory becomes, the more it becomes a scientific consensus.

762 Naso Tang

I was thinking of Number 1
Number 2 does not apply because there are no "well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact" contradicting the theory.

What I do believe is that evolution and gravitation have a better (and longer) scientific backing than man made global warming. That's all.

765 Obdicut  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 4:24:29pm

re: #764 KSK

Your explanation is kind of moot. I know what a theory is. I know that AGW is a very strongly supported theory.

766 cenotaphium  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 4:26:00pm

re: #764 KSK

You quote Popper as if he is the end-all to scientific philosophy. Which is kind of funny, given your argument.

767 Achilles Tang  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 5:38:46pm

re: #764 KSK


What I do believe is that evolution and gravitation have a better (and longer) scientific backing than man made global warming. That's all.

That is not to be implied from the earlier generalization that you made, which was the suggestion that AGW is a matter of faith and faith alone. I suggest that you just say it was a dumb post and move on.

768 Teh Flowah  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 5:54:13pm

re: #764 KSK

What I do believe is that evolution and gravitation have a better (and longer) scientific backing than man made global warming. That's all.

You'd be wrong about gravity. We have to use two different sets of rules for gravity because the way we understand it, totally changes when we change the scale of what we are observing. You think it's better supported because:

1. You're ignorant
2. You're stupid.
3. You think gravity is intuitive because you can see that things fall when released even though gravity is not intuitive at all.
4. You think your terrible intuitive abilities count for something when it comes to the more complicated areas of science.

Please stop.

769 Obdicut  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 6:21:35pm

re: #768 Teh Flowah

Yeah. Gravity is pretty much the unanswered question, especially with that neo-Einstein-ian discovery recently.

770 KSK  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:16:35pm

@767 Naso Tang

That is not to be implied from the earlier generalization that you made, which was the suggestion that AGW is a matter of faith and faith alone.

I never made such a suggestion

771 NavyRetired  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 9:18:17pm

The climate has changed from hot to cold for millennium well before we humans were ever in the picture. I am sure that there are things that we could do to SLOW the progression of said climate change, but I am not so conceited as to think that I am the be all and end all when it comes to GLOBAL WARMING. This wonderful world that we live in has handeled much more than what I could ever do to damage the Planet.

772 Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 12:40:55am

re: #771 NavyRetired

There is a known reason for the shifts you are talking about, the Earth's orbit and axial tilt are eccentric, thats how we know that we are in for another ice age (a "small" one) in about 20,000 years. These are known as Milankovitch cycles for the mathematician who first put forward the Theory and and the math behind it.

Those cycles have nothing to do with the current warming trend so you will have to find another explanation.

773 [deleted]  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:26:38pm
774 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 7, 2009 9:36:53pm

Why are so many climate change deniers also complete assholes?


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
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
3 weeks ago
Views: 365 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1