Palin Doubles Down on Climate Denial, Denies Being a Denier

Environment • Views: 2,792

The one-woman factory of stupid and unapologetic creationist continues to demonstrate her total cluelessness on science, in the latest post at her Facebook page: Sarah Palin | Facebook.

The response to my op-ed by global warming alarmists has been interesting. Former Vice President Al Gore has called me a “denier” and informs us that climate change is “a principle in physics. It’s like gravity. It exists.”

Perhaps he’s right. Climate change is like gravity – a naturally occurring phenomenon that existed long before, and will exist long after, any governmental attempts to affect it.

She denies being a denier, then denies that humans are causing global warming. The willful ignorance. It burns.

However, he’s wrong in calling me a “denier.” As I noted in my op-ed above and in my original Facebook post on Climategate, I have never denied the existence of climate change. I just don’t think we can primarily blame man’s activities for the earth’s cyclical weather changes.

And that, of course, is a textbook example of climate change denial.

Former Vice President Gore also claimed today that the scientific community has worked on this issue for 20 years, and therefore it is settled science.

Whereas, Sarah Palin spent about ten minutes reading some right wing blogs and became an instant scientific expert.

Well, the Climategate scandal involves the leading experts in this field, and if Climategate is proof of the larger method used over the past 20 years, then Vice President Gore seriously needs to consider that their findings are flawed, falsified, or inconclusive.

And that isn’t just denial — it’s dishonesty. Remember, this comes from a woman who wrote in her book that she “didn’t believe in the theory that human beings — thinking, loving beings — originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea” or from “monkeys who eventually swung down from the trees.”

Jump to bottom

363 comments
1 Kragar  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:12:16pm

Willful ignorance is not a character trait I fancy in a political candidate.

2 Cato the Elder  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:13:31pm

One of her criteria for being human is “thinking”. LOL.

3 Cineaste  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:14:41pm

The dumb leading the blind…

4 Stanghazi  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:16:45pm

“Climategate” based on stolen e-mails. Sarah Palin a “victim” of stolen emails. It’s OK if it suits your purpose, eh Sarah?

5 Locker  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:16:55pm

I’m starting to replace the words ‘Sarah Palin’, in my head, with ‘Broken Record’ because it always seems to be more of the same with her.

6 darthstar  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:17:09pm

Bachmann, Inhofe, Palin…it’s getting hard to keep up with the threads on Republican craziness around here.

7 spoosmith  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:17:37pm

Scented candle.

8 Kragar  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:18:04pm

re: #2 Cato the Elder

One of her criteria for being human is “thinking”. LOL.

Things like “I’m hungry” or “These slacks make me look to hippy.” More than that and you get all brainy and noone really likes that.

9 Political Atheist  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:18:33pm

re: #1 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Good thing she is not one. Only formerly.

10 Racer X  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:18:36pm

I just want to state, again, for the record, that I, Racer X, am not, and have never been, a Republican.

Thank you.

11 Kragar  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:18:57pm

Know whats sad? Tina Fey’s parody of her is looking more and more accurate as time goes on.

12 Cineaste  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:19:19pm

re: #6 darthstar

Bachmann, Inhofe, Palin…it’s getting hard to keep up with the threads on Republican craziness around here.

It’s like a Rat King of stupid.

13 Cineaste  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:19:57pm

re: #11 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Know whats sad? Tina Fey’s parody of her is looking more and more accurate as time goes on.

Well wasn’t most of her “parody” actually just using Palin’s own words?

14 JoyousMN  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:20:13pm

This morning at work I mentioned how cold it was today and our local climate change denier got right to work, saying with a mocking laugh, “and they talk about Global warming!” I replied, “Well it’s probably more correct to call it Global Climate Change.” But it’s not going to make any difference.

15 Haole  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:20:23pm

I wish my Facebook could get this much attention.

16 Kragar  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:21:38pm

re: #13 Cineaste

Well wasn’t most of her “parody” actually just using Palin’s own words?

Maybe, I’m just going off of memory.

17 McSpiff  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:21:44pm

re: #15 Haole

I posted about getting a free gift certificate 4 hours ago, and I have 7 comments on it so far. You need friends without lives ;-)

(Its exam time here)

18 recusancy  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:21:48pm

clipped from dkos but for anyone interested:

If you’re not yet plugged in and want to follow some of the doings at the climate conference in Copenhagen without intermediaries, here are some entry points:

The daily program.

Virtual participation.

Live streaming video when the forum is in session.

19 Political Atheist  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:22:00pm

re: #14 JoyousMN

If you are in MN… Global warming would bring you what ten below instead of fifteen below at this time of year? Who would even notice? Burrr!

20 RogueOne  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:22:28pm

re: #10 Racer X

cough*Green Balloon*cough*cough

21 freetoken  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:22:58pm

Sarah Palin’s name raised at the press conference by the UNFCCC today in Copenhagen as the typical American AGW denier:

[Link: www2.cop15.meta-fusion.com…]

Go to around 17:40.

22 Kragar  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:23:09pm

re: #15 Haole

I wish my Facebook could get this much attention.

Posture yourself as a political figure, then make some grossly inaccurate and false statements regarding policies and positions, then sit back and watch the fun roll in.

23 Shiplord Kirel  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:23:16pm
Well, the Climategate scandal involves the leading experts in this field, and if Climategate is proof of the larger method used over the past 20 years, then Vice President Gore seriously needs to consider that their findings are flawed, falsified, or inconclusive.

That is what gets me about this whole CRU e-mail scandal. How do e-mails from a few people at one institution suddenly discredit all the climate research done by thousands of people all over the world?
If I am caught conspiring to prove that the Moon really is made of cheese, and admit privately that I did so in return for hookers and booze paid for by George Soros, would that overthrow our entire body of knowledge about the composition of the Moon? A few conspiraloons might think so but rational people would not. That brings us to Sarah Palin…

24 JoyousMN  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:23:19pm

re: #19 Rightwingconspirator

LOL if it weren’t going to devastate the planet, we’d be all for it up here.

25 Locker  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:24:05pm

re: #22 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Posture yourself as a political figure, then make some grossly inaccurate and false statements regarding policies and positions, then sit back and watch the fun roll in.

If you augment it by saying “God” and “Our Great Nation” about 200 times while additionally adding a waving American flag background it would be even more effective.

26 Kragar  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:25:42pm

re: #25 Locker

If you augment it by saying “God” and “Our Great Nation” about 200 times while additionally adding a waving American flag background it would be even more effective.

Plus, throw in some subtle attacks against your rivals, like implying they hate America and probably weren’t born here anyways, thats a sure fire bet for WIN.

27 Basho  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:26:01pm
This morning, Gore appeared on MSNBC, where Andrea Mitchell read from Sarah Palin’s Facebook page to ask the former vice president questions about climate change.


[Link: www.washingtonmonthly.com…]

28 Nanook37  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:26:28pm

re: #25 Locker

If you augment it by saying “God” and “Our Great Nation” about 200 times while additionally adding a waving American flag background it would be even more effective.


You also have to mention “Real America” and “common sense solutions”…

29 Political Atheist  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:26:48pm

re: #24 JoyousMN

Twice in the last two years I had the real pleasure of speaking to midwest jewelers on palladium and gold refining. Both summertime, and Minneapolis rocks. Love that very cosmopolitan downtown. The skyways look like an essential thing to have in deep winter.

30 Scriptorium  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:26:50pm

All this heat about defending a status quo of jobs, industry, and lifestyle would be better redirected towards the status quo of a functional planet. Jobs, industry, and lifestyle can and should be re-aligned around clean water, renewable resources, sustainable food and energy production, and efficient habitations.

The Sarah Palins need to think more about their great granchildren and less about their fans, underwriters, and voters.

31 Scriptorium  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:28:01pm

re: #11 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Know whats sad? Tina Fey’s parody of her is looking more and more accurate as time goes on.

I vote Fey for Palin!

32 SteveMcG  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:28:02pm

re: #10 Racer X

Racer, I always have been, and alway will be. It’s my party and I’m not leaving just because there’s a bunch of morons in charge. There’s nowhere else to go. If you’re an independent, the only way to vote in a primary is if there’s a question. At least in a Republican primary I can vote against Pat Toomey, even if I have to write somebody in. I compared the radical right to a cyclone that has pieces flying off as it spins faster and faster. The other problem is that as it spins faster the people left inside become more and more detached from reality and immune to any logic or proof or persuasion.

33 Nanook37  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:28:56pm

re: #13 Cineaste

Well wasn’t most of her “parody” actually just using Palin’s own words?


In the one where they recreated the CBS interview, Tina did use Palin’s exact words for at least one of the answers as nothing could be written that was any more strange/funny than what Sarah actually said.

34 war_eagle  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:29:27pm

California Tea Party Proposes Initiative to Make Christmas Music Mandatory

They put a finer point on it, and have opt-out clauses for parents that don’t want their children participating. And to be fair it is just one Tea Partier who proposed it (with support from the local chapter president.) For some reason it just struck me as hilarious. I have this mental picture of the Governator taking National Guard troops to a middle school in order to force the principal to sing “O’ Silent Night” in front of his students at gunpoint.

35 Vicious Babushka  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:29:34pm

I got a hate post on my blog:

What a crude, juvenile tactic it is to call your fellow Americans “wingnuts.” I suppose the writer thinks it shows some wit. It doesn’t; it does show some hate, though.

36 Sharmuta  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:31:13pm
I have never denied the existence of climate change. I just don’t think we can primarily blame man’s activities for the earth’s cyclical weather changes.

This is the AGW equivalent of creationists accepting micro-evolution but not macro.

37 Locker  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:31:54pm

re: #35 Alouette

I got a hate post on my blog:

Yea didn’t you know that wingnut means “You go to hell! You go to hell and you die!” in Swahili?

38 war_eagle  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:31:59pm
39 JoyousMN  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:32:53pm

re: #29 Rightwingconspirator

When I was young my Grandmother and older sister lived in Minneapolis. My family used to go visit them in June.

Can I tell you that June is the most absolutely perfect month in Minnesota? The temps are perfect: 75+ during the day, 55-60 at might. No bugs have arrived yet. It is just spectacular here. But…June is like the bride who loses 50 lbs just in time for her wedding. It’s a one time event in our calendar. Bummer, but it surely is nice while it lasts.

40 humpty dumpty was pushed  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:33:40pm

Gore vs. Palin. They are perfectly matched opponents for an ideological mud-rasslin’ match over global warming.

41 Sharmuta  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:33:46pm
I just don’t think we can primarily blame man’s activities for the earth’s cyclical weather changes.

Sarah again shows she doesn’t know the difference between weather and climate.

42 bosforus  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:33:47pm

re: #35 Alouette

Could likely be this David Becker (link is a google search for David Becker lgf). He probably got to your blog through your nick link while lurking here.

43 Stanghazi  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:34:08pm

Laura Ingraham asked Ms. Palin if she’d be willing to debate Al Gore, part of her response:

PALIN: I don’t know, I don’t know. Oh, he wouldn’t want to lower himself, I think, to, you know, my level to debate little old Sarah Palin from Wasilla.

[Link: thinkprogress.org…]

44 Mad Al-Jaffee  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:35:00pm

re: #39 JoyousMN

I went to a wedding in Minneapolis in June, seven years ago. It was really nice. And I spent a couple of days in Wisconsin after the wedding. Also a great time to visit there.

45 Basho  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:35:11pm
As I noted in my op-ed above and in my original Facebook post on Climategate

Noted peer-reviewed scientific publications.

46 SpaceJesus  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:35:13pm

She probably doesn’t even know what to believe. I highly doubt she actually writes anything herself, it’s probably just some well-paid staffers.

47 Political Atheist  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:35:33pm

re: #35 Alouette

I get one from time to time. Like I said to CJ- Reject was never so much fun.

48 bosforus  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:35:37pm

re: #42 bosforus

Or not. Lots of different David Beckers in those search results.

49 Varek Raith  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:37:16pm

re: #46 SpaceJesus

She probably doesn’t even know what to believe. I highly doubt she actually writes anything herself, it’s probably just some well-paid staffers.

Your karma is improving! Oh the horror!
/:)

50 Basho  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:37:21pm

re: #46 SpaceJesus

She probably doesn’t even know what to believe. I highly doubt she actually writes anything herself, it’s probably just some well-paid staffers.

How do you explain how she got through the layers of fact-checkers and editors of facebook?

51 Cineaste  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:38:13pm

re: #32 SteveMcG

Racer, I always have been, and alway will be. It’s my party and I’m not leaving just because there’s a bunch of morons in charge. There’s nowhere else to go. If you’re an independent, the only way to vote in a primary is if there’s a question. At least in a Republican primary I can vote against Pat Toomey, even if I have to write somebody in. I compared the radical right to a cyclone that has pieces flying off as it spins faster and faster. The other problem is that as it spins faster the people left inside become more and more detached from reality and immune to any logic or proof or persuasion.

Some states allow you to vote in any primary you choose regardless of your party affiliation.

52 Stuart Leviton  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:38:21pm

re: #35 AlouetteMazel Tov!

53 SteveMcG  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:38:41pm

re: #51 Cineaste

PA isn’t one of them.

54 Locker  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:38:47pm

re: #50 Basho

How do you explain how she got through the layers of fact-checkers and editors of facebook?

Maybe that’s related to her recent outburst that facebook is an example of liberal media bias because the spell checker keeps criticizing her comments.

/

55 darthstar  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:39:04pm

re: #43 Stanley Sea

Laura Ingraham asked Ms. Palin if she’d be willing to debate Al Gore, part of her response:
PALIN: I don’t know, I don’t know. Oh, he wouldn’t want to lower himself, I think, to, you know, my level to debate little old Sarah Palin from Wasilla.

“little old Sarah Palin from Wasilla”…she has a point. Who gives a rat’s ass what some lady from a small town in Alaska with a sketchy college degree in communications studies thinks about Global Warming?

Al Gore should respond, and say, “Ms. Palin’s right. I won’t lower myself to her level of discourse.” and leave it at that.

56 Vicious Babushka  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:39:50pm

re: #48 bosforus

Or not. Lots of different David Beckers in those search results.

Including a fictional character from a lame Dan Brown novel.

57 lawhawk  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:44:04pm

re: #37 Locker

Mr. Garrison. Is that you? /Cartman - I’m just asking questions…

58 Basho  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:44:41pm

I think noted climatologist Sarah Palin knows more about global warming than many of you think. After all she reads every single magazine and newspaper that’s in circulation.

59 Sharmuta  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:44:46pm

re: #55 darthstar

“little old Sarah Palin from Wasilla”…she has a point. Who gives a rat’s ass what some lady from a small town in Alaska with a sketchy college degree in communications studies thinks about Global Warming?

Al Gore should respond, and say, “Ms. Palin’s right. I won’t lower myself to her level of discourse.” and leave it at that.

That would feed the “they fear Sarah” meme. Were this debate to happen, he should do it and let her show her ignorance off some more.

60 HoosierHoops  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:44:53pm

re: #49 Varek Raith

Your karma is improving! Oh the horror!
/:)

I saw Spacejesus go to the stalker blog a couple of months ago and just tear them a new asshole.. They had no answer to his posting to them…
You go boy…He walked into the Den of Lions cowards and blew them off…I laughed all day about it..He deserves some updings..
I may not agree with alot of what he says..But he is a stud that fears no man.

61 Varek Raith  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:45:29pm

re: #60 HoosierHoops

Indeed. :)

62 Basho  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:45:45pm

re: #60 HoosierHoops

I saw Spacejesus go to the stalker blog a couple of months ago and just tear them a new asshole.. They had no answer to his posting to them…
You go boy…He walked into the Den of Lions cowards and blew them off…I laughed all day about it..He deserves some updings..
I may not agree with alot of what he says..But he is a stud that fears no man.

I was a fan of SpaceJesus before he was famous…

63 Jeff In Ohio  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:45:57pm

re: #53 SteveMcG

Niether is Ohio. Though you can switch at the polls during primary time.

64 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:47:37pm

Stupid Question Alert:
Does “primary” (as in primary driver) mean 51% or some other percentage?
As a layperson, it doesn’t seem very scientific to me to use such language rather than expressing it as a percentage or a range of percentages.
Am I missing something here…?

65 Jeff In Ohio  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:47:48pm

re: #55 darthstar

First he would need to sigh deeply at the sheer preposterousness of the suggestion.

66 SteveMcG  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:48:34pm

re: #64 Spare O’Lake

Don’t know the answer, but the only stupid question is the one not asked.

67 Mad Al-Jaffee  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:48:46pm
68 Basho  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:49:01pm

re: #64 Spare O’Lake

Primary means: of first rank, importance, or value.

69 Cato the Elder  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:49:21pm

re: #14 JoyousMN

This morning at work I mentioned how cold it was today and our local climate change denier got right to work, saying with a mocking laugh, “and they talk about Global warming!” I replied, “Well it’s probably more correct to call it Global Climate Change.” But it’s not going to make any difference.

Neither is Copenhagen.

70 Ojoe  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:49:23pm

I also wish Gore would not abuse the notion of a physical principal.

That would be a simply stated thing like one of Newton’s laws, not a complicated derivative phenomenon like change in the climate.

But, evidently Gore is not too bright.

71 Ben Hur  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:49:57pm

re: #54 Locker

Hey,

Quick post to tell you that I went back and scanned our comments from yesterday and saw your response about serving in Desert Storm.

I got way ahead of myself with my “discovering the Mid-East on 9/11.”

Bad assumption and I owe you an apology.

Thanks for your service, especially in that conflict as it was so close to (one of my) home(s).

BH

72 Jeff In Ohio  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:49:59pm

re: #64 Spare O’Lake

If this is a car insurance question, I always took it ti mean the main user of the vehicle. So if 2 people used the car, then yes, more then 50%. If 3, more then 34%, etc.

73 Basho  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:50:09pm

re: #68 Basho

So you can have something be 30 percent responsible but still primary because there are many other factors.

74 darthstar  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:50:12pm

re: #59 Sharmuta

That would feed the “they fear Sarah” meme. Were this debate to happen, he should do it and let her show her ignorance off some more.

Sarah could hold up Trig in the debate and say nothing more and her supporters and Fox news would say that she won against Al Gore. Far better for Gore to dismiss her and let them claim he’s afraid of her than agree to debate something as serious as this with her. Debating her only validates her as a voice on this issue.

And the only reason she’s talking about this now is because President Obama is in Copenhagen. When he gets back, she’ll revert to her ‘death panel’ commentary on the Health Care Reform bill and get equal coverage for that bullshit she spews.

75 SteveMcG  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:50:19pm

re: #65 Jeff In Ohio

Then he slaps his forehead and rolls his eyes. Then he just looks at the floor and shakes his head. Then he says “Jesus Fuckin Christ”.

76 Kragar  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:50:44pm

re: #64 Spare O’Lake

Stupid Question Alert:
Does “primary” (as in primary driver) mean 51% or some other percentage?
As a layperson, it doesn’t seem very scientific to me to use such language rather than expressing it as a percentage or a range of percentages.
Am I missing something here…?

I would think whatever has the largest percentage of a subset could be considered the primary driver. It would depend on the relationships present in the data.

77 Jeff In Ohio  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:51:10pm

re: #75 SteveMcG

Um, OK. Your not my father-in-law or you?

78 RogueOne  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:51:20pm

OT: I posted an update to the controversy in Maricopa Co. involving a deputy swiping a defense atty’s files. Balko @ theagitator.com has a round-up of all the insanity:

[Link: www.theagitator.com…]

Amongst the updates:

Then it gets weird. Yesterday, Arpaio and Thomas criminally charged Judge Donahoe (the judge who held Arpaio’s document-swiping deputy in contempt) on bribery charges. Except there was apparently never any actual bribe. They didn’t like how Donahoe had ruled on some motions related to Arpaio’s investigation into the construction of a new tower for the county courthouse. Apparently, Donahoe’s “bribe” was merely his employment with the court system that benefits from the tower. Oh, and he’s also retiring soon.

79 SteveMcG  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:52:21pm

re: #77 Jeff In Ohio

Just a know it all.

80 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:53:55pm

Tea Partiers: We’ll force you to sing Christmas carols, you ungrateful brats!

Have a happy holidays and remember: singing is mandatory or you get the lash!

81 webevintage  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:53:58pm

re: #27 Basho

[Link: www.washingtonmonthly.com…]

It must have been painful to not just say “you have got to be fucking kidding me Andrea?”…

The one-woman factory of stupid
That is Palin in a nutshell, though you could use it for Michelle Bachman too.

82 Sharmuta  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:54:06pm

re: #71 Ben Hur

For anyone who wants to call you unpersuadable again, they can put this in their pipe and smoke it.

83 Cato the Elder  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:54:15pm

re: #55 darthstar

“little old Sarah Palin from Wasilla”…she has a point. Who gives a rat’s ass what some lady from a small town in Alaska with a sketchy college degree in communications studies thinks about Global Warming?

Al Gore should respond, and say, “Ms. Palin’s right. I won’t lower myself to her level of discourse.” and leave it at that.

Gore should absolutely challenge her to a debate.

Trouble is, Sarah would come up with “scheduling problems” at the last minute.

Hell, the idiot has yet to even hold a real press conference.

84 lostlakehiker  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:55:03pm

Argh. An argument between two avatars of wrong. Gore is right that the planet is warming and that we are the only plausible explanation for that fact. He’s wrong, in spades, about the specifics of what that entails, and about why giving him money on the scale of billions is the answer.

Palin is wrong about everything else, but right about how some on the left are profiteering.

Neither is wholly sincere, to put it mildly.

The scientific community has worked on this for over a century. Arrhenius got the ball rolling. As always with science, no story is a “wrap”. There are always aspects of reality that our excellent but limited understanding has not yet unriddled. But there are some things we do understand, and on those points, the science is pretty well worked out. As with Newton and Einstein, what we now know may be imperfect and wrong in some particulars, but Newton’s physics is good enough to be a useful guide to action. Our current understanding of the effects of greenhouse gases on the climate is good enough to move the debate into the next phase: the problem is real. Fine. What do we do about it? This calls onto the stage engineers, economists, crop scientists, etc. What mix of mitigation, rationing CO2 outputs, geoengineering fixes, and energy sources that don’t put CO2 into the air is our best answer?

Hint: it’s probably not capping and trading and selling indulgences labeled “carbon offset”.

85 djughurknot  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:55:11pm

SpaceJesus, how on earth did you rack up such a magnificent red number? Not that I aspire, but damn.

86 recusancy  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:55:12pm

re: #70 Ojoe

I also wish Gore would not abuse the notion of a physical principal.

That would be a simply stated thing like one of Newton’s laws, not a complicated derivative phenomenon like change in the climate.

But, evidently Gore is not too bright.

The green house effect is “like a principal in physics”.

87 Sharmuta  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:56:14pm

re: #85 djughurknot

SpaceJesus, how on earth did you rack up such a magnificent red number? Not that I aspire, but damn.

He was once pushing -2000!

88 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:56:27pm

re: #85 djughurknot

SpaceJesus, how on earth did you rack up such a magnificent red number? Not that I aspire, but damn.

He’s a funny, funny man :D

89 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:56:32pm

re: #68 Basho

Primary means: of first rank, importance, or value.

That can’t be true!
If that is the extent of the scientific concensus, then human activity might only be responsible for as little as 1% or as much as 99%.
Help please, I’m getting a migraine!

90 freetoken  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:56:51pm

re: #85 djughurknot

It use to be a much bigger red number until many around here found SpaceJesus…

91 Obdicut  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:56:57pm

re: #3 Cineaste

The dumb leading the blind…

re: #84 lostlakehiker

When has Gore asked for money on the scale of billions to be given to him to stop global warming?

92 Sharmuta  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:57:50pm

re: #60 HoosierHoops

I saw Spacejesus go to the stalker blog a couple of months ago and just tear them a new asshole.. They had no answer to his posting to them…
You go boy…He walked into the Den of Lions cowards and blew them off…I laughed all day about it..He deserves some updings..
I may not agree with alot of what he says..But he is a stud that fears no man.

SpaceJesus should hit up LGF Watch sometime too- that would be fun.

93 darthstar  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:58:01pm

re: #83 Cato the Elder

Gore should absolutely challenge her to a debate.

Trouble is, Sarah would come up with “scheduling problems” at the last minute.

Hell, the idiot has yet to even hold a real press conference.

Nope…first, she wouldn’t allow the media. Next, she’d claim the media was filtering her. The debate she’d have with herself would be entertaining, though.

Gore shouldn’t validate Palin…nor should Andrea Mitchell by asking what he thinks of her opinions. She might as well have asked him, “ObomaISaMuzlin at HotAir says global warming is fake. How do you respond to this critic?”

94 Sharmuta  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:58:56pm

SpaceJesus for Comeback Lizard of 2009!

95 Obdicut  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:59:11pm

re: #91 Obdicut

Sorry Cineaste, just had you in the post from an earlier reply. Not addressing you, apologies.

96 RogueOne  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:01:26pm

Can someone please explain to me how Al Gore became a “real man of genius”? You might believe Palin is an inbred moron but dumber than Gore? That’s crossing the line of bad taste.

97 lostlakehiker  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:01:36pm

re: #64 Spare O’Lake

Stupid Question Alert:
Does “primary” (as in primary driver) mean 51% or some other percentage?
As a layperson, it doesn’t seem very scientific to me to use such language rather than expressing it as a percentage or a range of percentages.
Am I missing something here…?

On the time scale of a few hours, night and day are the primary drivers. On a time scale of a few months, winter and summer are the primary drivers. On a time scale of decades, which is the main driver, CO2 from human activity, or nature’s vagaries, is anybody’s guess. A Krakatoa can make a big difference for several years. Even a Pinatubo eruption has a noticeable effect.

On a time scale of several decades, all these other things average out and our output of greenhouse gases, which consistently pushes up the levels of those gases in the atmosphere, becomes the primary driver. The longer the time window you’re talking, the more primary it gets.

Unfortunately, we don’t have a perfect handle on natural variability, so it’s difficult to put precise numbers on these things. Put it this way: the future 50 years from now, and the future 50 years down the road in a hypothetical world where CO2 levels had been magically reset to 250 ppm and held there, instead of our 380 going on 500, would have little overlap in their likelihood for this or that hot a summer or cold a winter. Almost certainly, the hypothetical world would be substantially cooler, 2 degrees C, say, than the projected real future.

98 Cato the Elder  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:01:39pm

re: #93 darthstar

Nope…first, she wouldn’t allow the media. Next, she’d claim the media was filtering her. The debate she’d have with herself would be entertaining, though.

Gore shouldn’t validate Palin…nor should Andrea Mitchell by asking what he thinks of her opinions. She might as well have asked him, “ObomaISaMuzlin at HotAir says global warming is fake. How do you respond to this critic?”

Great. So AGW is now so settled that no critics should be debated anymore?

Nothing haughty or hierophantic about that. I’m sure such a tactic will do wonders in bringing round the remaining skeptics.

“I’m so right, I don’t even need to talk to anyone who disagrees with me!”

99 djughurknot  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:02:44pm

I feel like- I feel as though once I hit my 50 post threshold, that I should downding SpaceJesus on principle, just to contribute to the percieved legacy, not out of any spite. From there, of course, up or down dings as appropriate.

100 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:02:54pm

I for one don’t believe in the radical liberal theory that human beings — thinking, loving beings — originate as one anonymous, unthinking cell and then multiply into a giant clump of cells and then into a human-shaped thing inside the thorax of another human. I mean, how ridiculous is that? It’s obvious that children come from a stork that drops them off at your door, I saw it on the cartoons.

101 freetoken  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:02:57pm

BTW, I see UncommonDescent is still squawking about “climategate”… and they have a dig at Al Gore’s comment about gravity too…

Birds of a feather deny together.

102 MKELLY  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:05:58pm

Would you gents please put out a list of definitions for what a denier, skeptic, etc is. I want to know what epithet you use for me.

103 RogueOne  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:06:04pm

re: #101 freetoken

Birds of a feather deny together.

CERN, deniers and haters of science.
[Link: cdsweb.cern.ch…]

104 Charles Johnson  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:06:16pm

re: #101 freetoken

BTW, I see UncommonDescent is still squawking about “climategate”… and they have a dig at Al Gore’s comment about gravity too…

Birds of a feather deny together.

They edited a comment someone posted today, to take out a link to LGF. I saw the referral from their Wordpress back-end.

105 Sharmuta  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:06:20pm

Nobel speech update:

The conservative John Bolton, the U.N. ambassador under President George W. Bush, found Obama’s speech “pedestrian, turgid, and uninspired.” Bolton told the National Review website that “the speech was also typical of Obama in its self-centeredness and ‘something for everybody’ approach.”

[snip]

And not all conservatives are critical.

Peter Wehner, a director of “strategic initiatives” in the Bush White House, writes on National Review that that while some of Obama’s remarks were “simplistic and pedantic and much too long,” the speech a whole was “significant and heartening.” Wehner notes that Obama “praised the United States for the burden it has borne and the sacrifices it has made on behalf of peace, justice, and stability.”

William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, blogs here about the similarities between Obama and George W. Bush on the specter of nuclear terrorism.

But… WHAT ABOUT THE WORD COUNT?! Have no fear!

By the way, our Gannett colleague Chuck Raasch reports that Obama mentioned “war” at least 44 times and the terms “peace” or “peaceful” at least 32 times.

106 Locker  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:06:23pm

re: #71 Ben Hur

Hey,

Quick post to tell you that I went back and scanned our comments from yesterday and saw your response about serving in Desert Storm.

I got way ahead of myself with my “discovering the Mid-East on 9/11.”

Bad assumption and I owe you an apology.

Thanks for your service, especially in that conflict as it was so close to (one of my) home(s).

BH

Respect man.

107 Charles Johnson  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:07:04pm

re: #103 RogueOne

CERN, deniers and haters of science.
[Link: cdsweb.cern.ch…]

Oh brother.

108 subsailor68  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:07:11pm

re: #91 Obdicut

re: #84 lostlakehiker

When has Gore asked for money on the scale of billions to be given to him to stop global warming?

Hi Obdicut! I don’t think he’s asked for money, but he’s certainly positioned himself to become a billionaire. (For the record, as a committed capitalist, I don’t have a problem with folks becoming billionaires!)

;-)

Al Gore could become world’s first carbon billionaire

(Granted it’s the Telegraph, but Kleiner Perkins is, in fact, a venture capital company.)

109 Ojoe  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:07:20pm

re: #86 recusancy

“Principle” (sp)

110 Locker  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:08:23pm

re: #82 Sharmuta

For anyone who wants to call you unpersuadable again, they can put this in their pipe and smoke it.

I didn’t know you could smoke that stuff! It’s gotta be cheaper than quality bud around these parts. :-)

111 recusancy  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:08:23pm

re: #109 Ojoe

“Principle” (sp)

Just spelled it the way you did.

112 lawhawk  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:08:38pm

re: #105 Sharmuta

And Palin liked Obama’s speech. Fancy that.

113 srjh  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:08:57pm
Former Vice President Gore also claimed today that the scientific community has worked on this issue for 20 years, and therefore it is settled science.

20 years?

Joseph Fourier (of Fourier Transform fame - the scientists and engineers will know who I’m talking about) came up with the theory in 1824, and it was pretty well established by the turn of the 20th century.

It took a while to gain significant traction, since scientists… well they actually are skeptics and require strong evidence to back strong claims. But the evidence has been continuously coming in over a longer period than 20 years and it’s all pointing towards the same unmistakable conclusion. That Sarah Palin is an idiot. That the temperature of the earth is increasing, and that human emissions are largely responsible.

The skeptical scientists are convinced. The contrarian pundits, shills, crackpots, suckers and political punchlines could have all the evidence in the world and they’d still deny the reality of global warming. You’re never going to put a dent in that level of stubbornness.

114 RogueOne  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:09:12pm

re: #107 Charles

Oh brother.

I’m just pointing out that just because I might be a skeptic doesn’t mean I’m in denial, or hate science, or believe the earth is flat.

115 Charles Johnson  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:09:50pm

re: #114 RogueOne

I’m just pointing out that just because I might be a skeptic doesn’t mean I’m in denial, or hate science, or believe the earth is flat.

Did you notice that the link you posted has absolutely nothing to do with AGW?

116 Sharmuta  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:12:04pm

re: #112 lawhawk

And Palin liked Obama’s speech. Fancy that.

Bolton looks like the big sore loser today- incapable of giving the President any credit. You really have to reach to find nothing in this speech worth praising.

117 RogueOne  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:12:58pm

re: #115 Charles

The whole hour episode points out there are a lot of issues we still have zero idea on how they affect the planet and that there are issues we don’t even know enough about to be able to add to the climate models. The presenter never suggests warming isn’t happening or even that he has a clue as to how the unknowns affect anything, just that there are a lot of things we don’t understand as of yet.

118 Obdicut  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:13:03pm

re: #108 subsailor68

Oh, I get it, because he owns companies that benefit from cap-and-trade.

Okay, that makes sense. Sorry, didn’t get it at first.

119 Velvet Elvis  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:13:36pm
120 recusancy  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:13:40pm

re: #116 Sharmuta

Bolton looks like the big sore loser today- incapable of giving the President any credit. You really have to reach to find nothing in this speech worth praising.

Bolton wishes Obama would go in there and punch the committee in the face, yell Go U.S.A!, take the medal and walk out. Oh, and grow a glorious mustache.

121 lawhawk  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:13:41pm

Breaking:

Official says that US has killed a high ranking al Qaeda terrorist in a UAV airstrike. They wont confirm who was killed except to say that it wasn’t Osama bin Laden.

122 Charles Johnson  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:14:27pm

Sorry - I got the wrong page somehow — yes, Jasper Kirkby is a well-known denier of AGW. I’m not going to chase down the debunking of these people any more.

123 RogueOne  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:14:47pm

re: #115 Charles

BTW, near the end of the video they show off their “cloud simulator” which really is pretty neat.

124 Sharmuta  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:14:59pm

re: #121 lawhawk

Breaking:

Official says that US has killed a high ranking al Qaeda terrorist in a UAV airstrike. They wont confirm who was killed except to say that it wasn’t Osama bin Laden.

Please let it be zawahiri.

125 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:16:21pm

re: #25 Locker

If you augment it by saying “God” and “Our Great Nation” about 200 times while additionally adding a waving American flag background it would be even more effective.

Caveat: Don’t add the word Damn or use kerosene. That diminishes the effect.

126 freetoken  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:16:44pm

re: #122 Charles

They’re going to ride the cosmic ray hypothesis into their graves. It’s too attractive of an out to let it just die quietly.

127 subsailor68  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:17:28pm

re: #118 Obdicut

Oh, I get it, because he owns companies that benefit from cap-and-trade.

Okay, that makes sense. Sorry, didn’t get it at first.

I’m not a huge Al Gore fan, but to be fair to the guy he sees an opportunity and takes advantage of it - the way we all would like to. The companies he’s investing in are cutting edge - and there’s always a risk associated. I guess the only potential problem is that he’s lobbying his old colleagues for fed dollars for these technologies, but he’s sure not alone in doing that!

128 Stanghazi  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:18:17pm

I’m sorry, I cannot give Palin a break. Here’s the quote of her approval of Pres. Obama’s speech:

“I liked what he said,” Palin told us in a phone interview. “I talked too in my book about the fallen nature of man and why war is necessary at times.”

129 SixDegrees  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:18:28pm

re: #115 Charles

Did you notice that the link you posted has absolutely nothing to do with AGW?

Maybe not. But it does seem to be about another possible mechanism for warming (cosmic rays) posited in an attempt to explain the otherwise seeming lack of a driver for historical warming cycles. If such a mechanism is shown to exist, it will represent a fundamental change in understanding of climate inputs that will have to be incorporated into current models.

130 Cato the Elder  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:18:55pm

re: #118 Obdicut

Oh, I get it, because he owns companies that benefit from cap-and-trade.

Okay, that makes sense. Sorry, didn’t get it at first.

I’m sure he’ll donate any money he doesn’t need for his houses, limousines, planes and yachts to help people displaced by his displacement.

131 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:18:58pm

re: #97 lostlakehiker


On a time scale of several decades, all these other things average out and our output of greenhouse gases, which consistently pushes up the levels of those gases in the atmosphere, becomes the primary driver. The longer the time window you’re talking, the more primary it gets.

Look, I just want to know whether the scientific concensus, namely that human greenhouse gas emmissions is the primary driver of climate change, has also concluded what percentage (or range) this represents.
Yes or no.
And if yes, then what is the percentage (or range)?
And if no, then who are these bozs trying to kid?

132 Gus  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:18:59pm

re: #105 Sharmuta

Nobel speech update:

I’ve got a preemptive word count!

133 Charles Johnson  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:19:01pm

re: #128 Stanley Sea

I’m sorry, I cannot give Palin a break. Here’s the quote of her approval of Pres. Obama’s speech:

“I liked what he said,” Palin told us in a phone interview. “I talked too in my book about the fallen nature of man and why war is necessary at times.”

Wow. “The fallen nature of man.”

Religious fanatic much?

134 Kragar  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:19:23pm

re: #128 Stanley Sea

I’m sorry, I cannot give Palin a break. Here’s the quote of her approval of Pres. Obama’s speech:

“I liked what he said,” Palin told us in a phone interview. “I talked too in my book about the fallen nature of man and why war is necessary at times.”

The fallen nature of man is why war is necessary? WTF?

135 Sharmuta  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:20:07pm

re: #128 Stanley Sea

I’m sorry, I cannot give Palin a break. Here’s the quote of her approval of Pres. Obama’s speech:

“I liked what he said,” Palin told us in a phone interview. “I talked too in my book about the fallen nature of man and why war is necessary at times.”

Is anyone going to call her a narcissist for turning the question into something about her?

136 ignoranceisfatal  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:20:10pm

re: #128 Stanley Sea

“I liked what he said,” Palin told us in a phone interview. “I talked too in my book about the fallen nature of man and why war is necessary at times.”

And Obama’s supposed to be the self-obsessed one…

137 Kragar  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:20:11pm

re: #133 Charles

Wow. “The fallen nature of man.”

Religious fanatic much?

Its God’s will apparently.

138 wrenchwench  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:20:17pm

re: #133 Charles

Wow. “The fallen nature of man.”

Religious fanatic much?

She’s just showing that she believes in the Theory of Gravity.

139 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:20:19pm

As disgusted with those who would deny the science for political reasons, I am equally if not more disgusted with those who would use the science as an excuse for redistributing wealth by dictate.

By nature moderate voices are not as loud but I sure would like to hear more debate about how we can use the powers of our industry and educational institutions to find clean(er) enegry solutions and interim measures to get us there.

140 Obdicut  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:20:47pm

re: #127 subsailor68

I think that’s perfectly fair.

And I do think that Gore is not the best choice as the spearhead of the politics for AGW, since he’s too polarizing.

141 Charles Johnson  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:22:38pm

Well, I couldn’t resist looking up Jasper Kirkby. Sigh. Why do I bother? I know what I’m going to find.

Some links on the thoroughly debunked denialist talking point that cosmic rays cause global warming:

[Link: www.realclimate.org…]

[Link: www.realclimate.org…]

[Link: www.realclimate.org…]

142 Kragar  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:22:43pm

And yup, she did use exactly those words:

Palin’s reaction to Obama speech.

143 ignoranceisfatal  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:22:48pm

re: #140 Obdicut

And I do think that Gore is not the best choice as the spearhead of the politics for AGW, since he’s too polarizing.

The biggest problem Gore has is that he doesn’t (nor can he possibly) have a good handle on the science. As a result, he’s going to misstate (and sometimes exaggerate) things, leaving himself open to accusations of overhype.

144 recusancy  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:22:54pm

re: #140 Obdicut

I think that’s perfectly fair.

And I do think that Gore is not the best choice as the spearhead of the politics for AGW, since he’s too polarizing.

Who do you propose? Anyone who spearheaded it would be quickly demonized and thought of in the same light as Gore. Granted he’s not warm and embracing and a little robotic, but he’s smart and willing. Nobody’s stopping someone else from being a public spokesman.

145 Jack Burton  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:23:22pm

re: #135 Sharmuta

Is anyone going to call her a narcissist for turning the question into something about her?

Word count!

/

146 Cineaste  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:23:34pm

This whole nonsense reminds me that during the campaign, McCain would say that Palin was an expert on mental illness because she had a child with Down Syndrome. It was an absurd claim - the child was an infant and she had only been living with the knowledge for a year or so. How does that make her more of an expert than my friend who has a 20-year-old child with Down’s and has been through all of that boys childhood and adolescence. It’s this inane belief that being aware of, or in proximity to, something makes you knowledgeable. She also was an expert on Russia because she was next to it. She was an expert on oil pipelines because she negotiated over one (that still hasn’t been built).

It’s nonsense and it’s a deep-seated belief among that crew that education is “elitist” and that going with your gut is better than thinking things through. Pathetic…

147 Basho  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:23:50pm

re: #138 wrenchwench

Laughed out loud at that one.

148 recusancy  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:23:50pm

re: #143 ignoranceisfatal

The biggest problem Gore has is that he doesn’t (nor can he possibly) have a good handle on the science. As a result, he’s going to misstate (and sometimes exaggerate) things, leaving himself open to accusations of overhype.

Do you have examples of his bad handle on the science?

149 Sharmuta  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:24:10pm

re: #145 ArchangelMichael

Word count!

/

“War” at least 44 times!

150 subsailor68  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:24:24pm

re: #139 DaddyG

As disgusted with those who would deny the science for political reasons, I am equally if not more disgusted with those who would use the science as an excuse for redistributing wealth by dictate.

By nature moderate voices are not as loud but I sure would like to hear more debate about how we can use the powers of our industry and educational institutions to find clean(er) enegry solutions and interim measures to get us there.

Hi DaddyG. I’m with you on that, which is why I don’t have a problem with Al Gore and his venture capital deals - he’s investing his, and his partners’, money in these start-up companies. But it’s also why I might have a problem with lobbying his old colleagues, if the result is wealth redistribution to serve a political agenda.

151 Kragar  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:24:34pm

re: #143 ignoranceisfatal

The biggest problem Gore has is that he doesn’t (nor can he possibly) have a good handle on the science. As a result, he’s going to misstate (and sometimes exaggerate) things, leaving himself open to accusations of overhype.

The Earth’s core example just being another part of a long list on why the man should be a silent partner at best if he wants to be involved.

152 Gus  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:24:36pm

re: #149 Sharmuta

“War” at least 44 times!

I’m getting 35 times.

153 Varek Raith  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:25:07pm

re: #149 Sharmuta

“War” at least 44 times!

He’s mongering war, now?
/

154 RogueOne  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:25:22pm

re: #122 Charles

Sorry - I got the wrong page somehow — yes, Jasper Kirkby is a well-known denier of AGW. I’m not going to chase down the debunking of these people any more.

I had never heard of him before today. I did a quick google search on him+CERN and came up with this article from 2007. You’re right tho, he does seem to be popular with Wattsupwiththat. Either way, it’s CERN. I put as much stock in their work as I would NASA:

[Link: www.canada.com…]

155 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:25:39pm

re: #144 recusancy

Who do you propose? Anyone who spearheaded it would be quickly demonized and thought of in the same light as Gore. Granted he’s not warm and embracing and a little robotic, but he’s smart and willing. Nobody’s stopping someone else from being a public spokesman.

He’s demonstrated a bias towards the other end of the spectrum of the deniers. Then he used the hype to push for schemes that don’t reduce emmissions but do work well for personal gain.

He didn’t just get demonized for no reason. Neither did Palin. I’m not impressed by either one of them and their respective grasp on most of the topics they profess wisdom and knowledge about. They are politicians first and foremost. Their expertise is in lobbying and speechifying.

156 Gus  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:25:41pm
157 Kragar  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:25:44pm

re: #148 recusancy

Do you have examples of his bad handle on the science?

He recently claimed the Earth’s core was several million degrees while conducting an interview and made no effort to correct himself.

158 RogueOne  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:25:57pm

re: #141 Charles

I should refresh before I post. Looks like you beat me to it.

159 Obdicut  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:26:01pm

re: #144 recusancy

A scientist.

160 Basho  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:26:04pm

re: #146 Cineaste

Sounds like the crazy talk of a fruit fly studying elitist bookworm..

161 darthstar  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:26:09pm

re: #98 Cato the Elder

Great. So AGW is now so settled that no critics should be debated anymore?

Nothing haughty or hierophantic about that. I’m sure such a tactic will do wonders in bringing round the remaining skeptics.

“I’m so right, I don’t even need to talk to anyone who disagrees with me!”

No, I’m just saying that Palin has the credibility of the average teabagger.

162 Summer Seale  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:26:49pm

re: #133 Charles

Wow. “The fallen nature of man.”

Religious fanatic much?

You betcha! Now…I’m not sayin’ that, you know, we’re all believers or sayin’ exactly that, you know, well some of us came from trees and some of us didn’t, or however that goes! But…you know…when I was up there, runnin’ a big family and a small town, I knew deep down inside, somebody up there was watchin’ me and, well…isn’t that just what it’s all about? It’s not about fruit flies in France! It’s not about if the weather is warmin’ up on a cold day! It’s about America, folks! America and big families and smiles on hard workin’ American faces and, you know, you betcha gosh darnit! I just love this country…

163 ignoranceisfatal  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:27:17pm

re: #148 recusancy

Do you have examples of his bad handle on the science?

I have to concede that I’m combining a few second- and third-hand things I’ve heard with the assumption that, as a politician without significant scientific training, he can’t possibly have the background or the time to acquire a deep knowledge of the subject.

164 recusancy  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:28:54pm

re: #157 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

He recently claimed the Earth’s core was several million degrees while conducting an interview and made no effort to correct himself.


I don’t think he said that. He said as hot as the surface of the sun.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

165 Jack Burton  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:28:55pm

re: #162 Summer

I read that and could hear her accent in my head.

166 Locker  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:28:56pm

re: #162 Summer

You betcha! Now…I’m not sayin’ that, you know, we’re all believers or sayin’ exactly that, you know, well some of us came from trees and some of us didn’t, or however that goes! But…you know…when I was up there, runnin’ a big family and a small town, I knew deep down inside, somebody up there was watchin’ me and, well…isn’t that just what it’s all about? It’s not about fruit flies in France! It’s not about if the weather is warmin’ up on a cold day! It’s about America, folks! America and big families and smiles on hard workin’ American faces and, you know, you betcha gosh darnit! I just love this country…

The scariest part about this is… I can’t tell if it’s a joke or a real quote.

167 ignoranceisfatal  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:29:36pm

re: #165 ArchangelMichael

Me too! Indeed very well crafted.

168 SixDegrees  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:29:48pm

re: #141 Charles

I’ve read through these, and a couple other linked articles, and I don’t see the stated discrepancy between solar irradiance and past warming cycles addressed. I’d raise an eyebrow at a cosmic ray mechanism, too, until it was demonstrated, but it looks as though it’s an attempt to explain existing data, albeit with an unconventional agent.

Or is the discrepancy a lie, too? Or has it been explained in other ways?

169 recusancy  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:30:10pm

re: #163 ignoranceisfatal

I have to concede that I’m combining a few second- and third-hand things I’ve heard with the assumption that, as a politician without significant scientific training, he can’t possibly have the background or the time to acquire a deep knowledge of the subject.

Well… That’s not a good basis for argument then is it? He’s been studying this since he was in college.

170 justnobody  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:30:50pm

Oh for the love of God, please stop comparing climate change to gravity. Gravity is a simple and elegant theory that explains everyday phenomena and can be verified in high-school experiments. Climate change attempts to explain a trend in temperatures whose mere existence is in question by means of complex computer models. Anyone who has any experience with computer modeling knows that you can “prove” basically anything with it.

Let’s just put it this way: physics never needed a Nobel-prize winning UN panel to prove that gravity is right.

171 Killgore Trout  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:31:09pm
172 freetoken  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:31:13pm

On the climate-related legislation, looks like Kerry has gotten Lieberman and Graham on board a re-written bill:

Senators revise climate bill to court GOP support

They admit though that they still don’t have 60 votes.

173 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:31:21pm

I can’t believe I just got downdinged for calling Al Gore and Sarah Palin politicians.

It takes all kinds.

174 darthstar  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:31:40pm

re: #138 wrenchwench

She’s just showing that she believes in the Theory of Gravity.

I think she’s showing off that she actually read a book this year. “Her own” book, sure, but it counts.

175 Basho  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:31:47pm

re: #156 Gus 802

China now has the world’s fastest train.

Wonder how well Palin’s book is selling over there…

176 lawhawk  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:32:01pm

re: #156 Gus 802

600 miles of high speed dedicated track. That’s impressive. It would never fly in the US - not with eminent domain laws and NIMBY preventing anything from being built in that scope and size. China doesn’t have to worry about such things though; they’ll just move people - entire cities - etc. to get the public works done (think Three Gorges and the massive relocation necessitated by that sprawling dam project).

177 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:32:09pm

One last try.
Let’s grant that human activity is more responsible for global warming than any other factor. This is what I understand to be the scientific consensus.
Is there also a concensus as to what percentage of global warming is caused by human activity?
If so, what is the percentage?
If not, then Houston I have a problem.

178 Gus  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:32:15pm

re: #171 Killgore Trout

Nuts!

Thank you General McAuliffe. /

179 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:32:19pm

re: #10 Racer X

I just want to state, again, for the record, that I, Racer X, am not, and have never been, a Republican.

Thank you.

Me neither, but seriously, whatever’s wrong with her is not about being a Republican.

180 Kragar  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:32:22pm

re: #164 recusancy

I don’t think he said that. He said as hot as the surface of the sun.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

His exact words: “But two kilometers or so down, in most places, there are these incredibly hot rocks — ’cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot.”


181 Varek Raith  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:32:32pm

re: #170 justnobody

You’d be surprised about just how little we know about gravity…

182 Bob Levin  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:32:33pm

I’m not a scientist and so I read along trying to learn this issue. Here are some questions. 1)Is this issue a bottom line issue—that there needs to be a qualitative change in the kind of technology we use as well as a change in the energy to power our technology? 2) Or, does there have to also be some agreement that humans are causing a change in climate, as opposed to the earth and its ecosystem (of which we are a part) going through long cycles of a particular climate? 3)Are there implications to believing that we need new technology but that the climate change might be part of a larger natural cycle?

183 lawhawk  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:32:59pm

re: #164 recusancy

Actually. He did.

184 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:33:10pm

re: #156 Gus 802

China now has the world’s fastest train.


Yeah. But you can’t go through a McDonald’s drive through with it. That will never work in the US. /

Seriously that is very cool and I hope our own HSR efforts in the US take off. I’d love to travel cross country by train. Our local mass transit in Atlanta could use a serious boost too.

185 darthstar  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:33:10pm

re: #170 justnobody


Let’s just put it this way: physics never needed a Nobel-prize winning UN panel to prove that gravity is right.

There is no gravity…the earth sucks.
/

186 wrenchwench  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:33:30pm

re: #174 darthstar

I think she’s showing off that she actually read a book this year. “Her own” book, sure, but it counts.

She may have even dropped it once or twice (just to be sure).

187 Gus  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:33:31pm

re: #176 lawhawk

600 miles of high speed dedicated track. That’s impressive. It would never fly in the US - not with eminent domain laws and NIMBY preventing anything from being built in that scope and size. China doesn’t have to worry about such things though; they’ll just move people - entire cities - etc. to get the public works done (think Three Gorges and the massive relocation necessitated by that sprawling dam project).

Yeah, the only way to do that here would with elevated tracks.

188 Kragar  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:33:50pm

re: #183 lawhawk

I’m sure he’ll have a snappy comeback.

189 Gus  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:34:02pm

re: #187 Gus 802

Or I should say the easiest way. Elevated track would still disturb the humans.

190 freetoken  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:34:13pm

re: #177 Spare O’Lake


If so, what is the percentage?

Attribution is a big research area, but here is an often reproduced image, this time at SkepticalScience:


Image: forcings.gif

191 SixDegrees  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:35:20pm

re: #170 justnobody

Oh for the love of God, please stop comparing climate change to gravity. Gravity is a simple and elegant theory that explains everyday phenomena and can be verified in high-school experiments. Climate change attempts to explain a trend in temperatures whose mere existence is in question by means of complex computer models. Anyone who has any experience with computer modeling knows that you can “prove” basically anything with it.

Let’s just put it this way: physics never needed a Nobel-prize winning UN panel to prove that gravity is right.

I don’t think anyone questions that the earth is currently warming. That much seems quite certain and has been verified in several different ways that all reinforce one another.

192 Bloodnok  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:35:38pm

re: #174 darthstar

re: #138 wrenchwench

She probably quit halfway through, of course.
I think she’s showing off that she actually read a book this year. “Her own” book, sure, but it counts.

193 Cato the Elder  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:35:43pm

re: #133 Charles

Wow. “The fallen nature of man.”

Religious fanatic much?

I did not realize that this basic idea behind all Judeo-Christian theology now automatically makes one a religious fanatic.

Of course, we see evidence all around us every day that man’s nature is improving even faster than his mobile phone technology.

Nope, man’s nature will not be any kind of impediment to perfecting the world and running the climate like a giant turbine in a nuclear plant.

194 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:36:13pm

re: #176 lawhawk

600 miles of high speed dedicated track. That’s impressive. It would never fly in the US - not with eminent domain laws and NIMBY preventing anything from being built in that scope and size. China doesn’t have to worry about such things though; they’ll just move people - entire cities - etc. to get the public works done (think Three Gorges and the massive relocation necessitated by that sprawling dam project).


I think it would be more difficult with the eminent domain issues but once you get outside of the metro areas there is a whole lot of open land and existing corridors for rail and highways that could be used to run interstate routes.

The NIMBY problem is a serious one however. I wouldn’t advocate a communist dictatorship as a solution. (Unless of course I’m in charge- I’d be a happy joy nice dictator /)

195 Cineaste  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:36:21pm

re: #181 Varek Raith

You’d be surprised about just how little we know about gravity…

It’s true - explain it. Not models of how to predict it. Explain what causes gravity. What actually pulls you to the ground?

196 recusancy  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:36:25pm

re: #183 lawhawk

Actually. He did.


Ok… Then he’s wrong there. It’s as hot as the surface of the sun but not millions of degrees. That doesn’t make his point about geothermal moot though.

197 Bloodnok  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:36:34pm

re: #192 Bloodnok

Argh. I blame a very low numbered IE.

198 Locker  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:36:39pm

re: #177 Spare O’Lake

One last try.
Let’s grant that human activity is more responsible for global warming than any other factor. This is what I understand to be the scientific consensus.
Is there also a concensus as to what percentage of global warming is caused by human activity?
If so, what is the percentage?
If not, then Houston I have a problem.

Why do you have a problem? Even if 1% of Global Warming is caused by humans what if it’s that 1% pushes us across the danger threshold? Would you seriously be ok with it if nature was a 51% contributor and humans were a 49% contributor? Oh well we aren’t the “primary” contributor so we shouldn’t do anything?

Additionally it doesn’t take a consensus on every single aspect of things before we can increase our understanding or plan some positive action. This is the same argument I see by creationists who discount evolution because every single fact and nuance isn’t completely explained or understood.

199 wrenchwench  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:36:44pm

re: #192 Bloodnok

Try that one again, I think it’s worth it.

200 ignoranceisfatal  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:36:48pm

re: #177 Spare O’Lake

Is there also a concensus as to what percentage of global warming is caused by human activity?
If so, what is the percentage?
If not, then Houston I have a problem.

This is a false dichotomy. We don’t have to know exactly what the percentage is to know that there’s a good chance we’re facing a problem.

201 Cato the Elder  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:36:50pm

re: #184 DaddyG

Yeah. But you can’t go through a McDonald’s drive through with it. That will never work in the US. /

Seriously that is very cool and I hope our own HSR efforts in the US take off. I’d love to travel cross country by train. Our local mass transit in Atlanta could use a serious boost too.

They built that stretch of track in four years.

Here it would take forty just to shut up the NIMBYs.

202 Bloodnok  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:37:29pm

re: #174 darthstar

re: #138 wrenchwench


I think she’s showing off that she actually read a book this year. “Her own” book, sure, but it counts.

She probably quit halfway through, of course.

203 brookly red  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:37:36pm

re: #194 DaddyG

I think it would be more difficult with the eminent domain issues but once you get outside of the metro areas there is a whole lot of open land and existing corridors for rail and highways that could be used to run interstate routes.

The NIMBY problem is a serious one however. I wouldn’t advocate a communist dictatorship as a solution. (Unless of course I’m in charge- I’d be a happy joy nice dictator /)

/yeah, that’s what they all say…

204 Cineaste  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:37:51pm

re: #193 Cato the Elder

I did not realize that this basic idea behind all Judeo-Christian theology now automatically makes one a religious fanatic.

FTFY - I don’t think Judaism has the notion of fallen/sin the way Christianity does.

205 lawhawk  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:38:08pm

re: #196 recusancy

Actually, the recent geothermal pilot plants have run into trouble because of earthquakes caused by the introduction of liquids into the rock strata. It’s forced the shutdown of the tests, and increased wariness of where to put the geothermals. It’s not the same as tapping surface geothermal features like in Iceland.

206 Cato the Elder  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:39:00pm

re: #204 Cineaste

FTFY - I don’t think Judaism has the notion of fallen/sin the way Christianity does.

The story of Adam and Eve is in the first part of the first book of the Hebrew Bible.

207 SixDegrees  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:39:57pm

re: #184 DaddyG

Yeah. But you can’t go through a McDonald’s drive through with it. That will never work in the US. /

Seriously that is very cool and I hope our own HSR efforts in the US take off. I’d love to travel cross country by train. Our local mass transit in Atlanta could use a serious boost too.

I would also like to see rail transport used more in the US. Especially as everyone complains about pollution, it’s worth noting that rail is the most energy efficient way to move really huge amounts of stuff over long distances, quickly. Someone posted some figures here in the past, and the difference between rail and the next best method - trucks - was stunning, around an order of magnitude I think.

For personal transportation, maybe not so much. I’d love to take a transcontinental rail trip, but there are times when getting from Michigan to California in just a few hours is hard to beat.

208 Bob Levin  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:40:05pm

re: #206 Cato the Elder

Yeah, but those passages are quite complex, even though folks like to read them simply.

209 Gus  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:40:36pm

re: #201 Cato the Elder

They built that stretch of track in four years.

Here it would take forty just to shut up the NIMBYs.

How about a NIMBY Reduction Act of 2010?

210 lawhawk  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:40:59pm

re: #201 Cato the Elder

Also, the need for HSR in the US is typically in already densely populated regions, like the NE corridor, the Tampa-Orlando Miami corridor, the NC Tech Triangle, The SF-LA-SD corridor, and the LA-Vegas train to name a few.

You can’t build dedicated HSR in the US without serious amounts of eminent domain, even if you were going to build along existing highway rights of way because you’d still want it to link up with existing rail connections and infrastructure.

211 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:41:48pm

re: #204 Cineaste

FTFY - I don’t think Judaism has the notion of fallen/sin the way Christianity does.

Even within Christianity there is a huge range on what fallen means. They vary from the extreme of mankind is carnal and evil to mankind is automatically redeemed from the effects of sin.

Bashing someone’s religion does not take a lot of thought and understanding however. Its the same kind of thought process that causes someone to contest scientific findings without having even read them in the first place.

212 Kragar  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:42:10pm

Gore Pulls Slide of Disaster Trends

Mr. Gore was sharply criticized for using the data to make a point about global warming by Roger A. Pielke, Jr., a political scientist focused on disaster trends and climate policy at the University of Colorado. Mr. Pielke noted that the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters stressed in reports that a host of factors unrelated to climate caused the enormous rise in reported disasters (details below).

Dr. Pielke quoted the Belgian center: “Indeed, justifying the upward trend in hydro-meteorological disaster occurrence and impacts essentially through climate change would be misleading. Climate change is probably an actor in this increase but not the major one — even if its impact on the figures will likely become more evident in the future.”

213 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:42:38pm

re: #209 Gus 802

How about a NIMBY Reduction Act of 2010?


I can’t upding you enough. (As long as I’m excluded from the act).

214 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:43:05pm

re: #34 war_eagle

California Tea Party Proposes Initiative to Make Christmas Music Mandatory

They put a finer point on it, and have opt-out clauses for parents that don’t want their children participating. And to be fair it is just one Tea Partier who proposed it (with support from the local chapter president.) For some reason it just struck me as hilarious. I have this mental picture of the Governator taking National Guard troops to a middle school in order to force the principal to sing “O’ Silent Night” in front of his students at gunpoint.

John Winthrop would have taken the bullet, rather than be a party to such Papist foolery.

215 Cineaste  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:44:10pm

re: #206 Cato the Elder

The story of Adam and Eve is in the first part of the first book of the Hebrew Bible.

granted - I meant more the persistent notion of fallen man. Though your point is well taken. We don’t have the Christian “died for our sins” type dialectic at work.

216 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:44:32pm

re: #210 lawhawk

Also, the need for HSR in the US is typically in already densely populated regions, like the NE corridor, the Tampa-Orlando Miami corridor, the NC Tech Triangle, The SF-LA-SD corridor, and the LA-Vegas train to name a few.

You can’t build dedicated HSR in the US without serious amounts of eminent domain, even if you were going to build along existing highway rights of way because you’d still want it to link up with existing rail connections and infrastructure.


We just got through a court battle between MARTA (Metro Atlanta Rapid Transit) CSX, the state DOT and a few other interested parties over rail corridors intersecting with the beltway project (an effort to expand light rail in Atlanta and ring the city with parklands. Even those who want to agree don’t do it so well.

217 Jadespring  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:45:16pm

re: #206 Cato the Elder

The story of Adam and Eve is in the first part of the first book of the Hebrew Bible.

Yes but the way it’s interpreted into theology is different. ‘Fallen Nature” is a direct reference to the theology around original sin which didn’t start until Paul came around or more correctly when Christian theologians interpreted Paul into that theology.

218 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:46:11pm

re: #34 war_eagle

California Tea Party Proposes Initiative to Make Christmas Music Mandatory

They put a finer point on it, and have opt-out clauses for parents that don’t want their children participating. And to be fair it is just one Tea Partier who proposed it (with support from the local chapter president.) For some reason it just struck me as hilarious. I have this mental picture of the Governator taking National Guard troops to a middle school in order to force the principal to sing “O’ Silent Night” in front of his students at gunpoint.

As though the schools don’t have Christmas music already.

219 Cato the Elder  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:46:12pm

re: #34 war_eagle

I have this mental picture of the Governator taking National Guard troops to a middle school in order to force the principal to sing “O’ Silent Night” in front of his students at gunpoint.

There is no song called “O’ Silent Night”, and there is never any case where the vocative “O” is correctly followed by an apostrophe.

220 Cineaste  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:46:36pm

re: #211 DaddyG

Even within Christianity there is a huge range on what fallen means. They vary from the extreme of mankind is carnal and evil to mankind is automatically redeemed from the effects of sin.

Bashing someone’s religion does not take a lot of thought and understanding however. Its the same kind of thought process that causes someone to contest scientific findings without having even read them in the first place.

I hope you weren’t implying that I was bashing anyone’s religious beliefs. More making a general note about ecclesiastical differences.

221 Sharmuta  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:47:10pm

OT: Jack Nicklaus- Class Act

Jack Nicklaus said the fallout over Tiger Woods’ car crash and allegations of extramarital affairs is “none of my business.”

Thank you, Jack. Are you available to give Rush and Glenn Beck some lessons?

222 RogueOne  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:47:19pm

re: #195 Cineaste

It’s true - explain it. Not models of how to predict it. Explain what causes gravity. What actually pulls you to the ground?

it’s a hug from god.

223 Cineaste  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:47:22pm

re: #217 Jadespring

Yes but the way it’s interpreted into theology is different. ‘Fallen Nature” is a direct reference to the theology around original sin which didn’t start until Paul came around or more correctly when Christian theologians interpreted Paul into that theology.

Entirely correct - and that was my point - though far better stated.

224 SixDegrees  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:47:50pm

re: #177 Spare O’Lake

One last try.
Let’s grant that human activity is more responsible for global warming than any other factor. This is what I understand to be the scientific consensus.
Is there also a concensus as to what percentage of global warming is caused by human activity?
If so, what is the percentage?
If not, then Houston I have a problem.

I don’t believe there is such an estimate, at least not a single one that a lot of people agree on.

I asked a similar question before, and I think the term “f*cktard” was used in response.

I also think it’s important to quantify the problem. It doesn’t seem unreasonable, faced with predictions of dire change ahead if CO2 levels continue to increase, to ask for a metric with which to gauge the success of reductions. If, for example, we reduce atmospheric concentrations of CO2 by, say, 15% over the next ten years, what do the models predict we ought to see in terms of temperature reductions?

Since we’re about to embark on an experiment of global proportions and consequence, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to conduct it with an hypothesis and firm predictions in hand from the start.

225 Gus  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:48:00pm

re: #216 DaddyG

We just got through a court battle between MARTA (Metro Atlanta Rapid Transit) CSX, the state DOT and a few other interested parties over rail corridors intersecting with the beltway project (an effort to expand light rail in Atlanta and ring the city with parklands. Even those who want to agree don’t do it so well.

Any rail crossings? The only way to do it right is with zero crossings.

226 Charles Johnson  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:48:30pm

re: #193 Cato the Elder

I did not realize that this basic idea behind all Judeo-Christian theology now automatically makes one a religious fanatic.

Of course, we see evidence all around us every day that man’s nature is improving even faster than his mobile phone technology.

Nope, man’s nature will not be any kind of impediment to perfecting the world and running the climate like a giant turbine in a nuclear plant.

Actually, there’s very little doubt that Sarah Palin is a religious fanatic. She attended a Pentecostal church, which is about as hardcore fundamentalist as it’s possible to get in the US. And her statements about evolution speak for themselves.

When a politician who was almost elected vice president of the US talks about “the fallen nature of man” as a reason why wars occur, I find that not just absurd, but actually more than a little disturbing. Wars happen for economic reasons or for reasons of national pride, or for many other reasons that have nothing at all to do with the Bible.

227 Cineaste  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:49:54pm

re: #226 Charles

Actually, there’s very little doubt that Sarah Palin is a religious fanatic. She attended a Pentecostal church, which is about as hardcore fundamentalist as it’s possible to get in the US. And her statements about evolution speak for themselves.

There was also the video of her with the snake-charmer priest who was casting the devil out of her…

228 RogueOne  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:49:57pm

re: #198 Locker

Why do you have a problem? Even if 1% of Global Warming is caused by humans what if it’s that 1% pushes us across the danger threshold? Would you seriously be ok with it if nature was a 51% contributor and humans were a 49% contributor? Oh well we aren’t the “primary” contributor so we shouldn’t do anything?

Additionally it doesn’t take a consensus on every single aspect of things before we can increase our understanding or plan some positive action. This is the same argument I see by creationists who discount evolution because every single fact and nuance isn’t completely explained or understood.

Switch that question around. If humanity is causing 1% of the warming and the earth is going to warm at 99% percent of the current rate regardless, is it really worth it to spend a trillion dollars or so?

229 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:50:14pm

re: #85 djughurknot

SpaceJesus, how on earth did you rack up such a magnificent red number? Not that I aspire, but damn.

1. The people who were here before The Great Up-And-Leaving had no sense of humor.

2. Sometimes SJ makes derogatory comments about the American South.

230 wrenchwench  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:50:23pm

re: #226 Charles

When a politician who was almost elected vice president of the US talks about “the fallen nature of man” as a reason why wars occur, I find that not just absurd, but actually more than a little disturbing.

She wasn’t revising her “monkeys who eventually swung down from the trees” statement?

/

231 recusancy  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:50:47pm

re: #226 Charles

Wars happen for economic reasons or for reasons of national pride, or for many other reasons that have nothing at all to do with the Bible.

If you said that during a Republican primary you’d be toast.

232 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:50:50pm

re: #198 Locker

Why do you have a problem? Even if 1% of Global Warming is caused by humans what if it’s that 1% pushes us across the danger threshold? Would you seriously be ok with it if nature was a 51% contributor and humans were a 49% contributor? Oh well we aren’t the “primary” contributor so we shouldn’t do anything?

Additionally it doesn’t take a consensus on every single aspect of things before we can increase our understanding or plan some positive action. This is the same argument I see by creationists who discount evolution because every single fact and nuance isn’t completely explained or understood.

Are you pulling my chain, or do you really think the percentage is meaningless?
Does human activity account for 1%, 50%, or 99% of global warming? Surely this must be of vital importance to scientists.
If man causes only 1% of the warming, then I suspect we are fucked.
If man causes 50% then at least we have a shot.
If man causes 99% then the problem should be fixable.

Also, don’t forget that the arguments of the “fuck the West” coalition hinge on blaming the West for having caused the problem, and so the percentage is quite relevant to this as well.

233 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:51:11pm

re: #96 RogueOne

Can someone please explain to me how Al Gore became a “real man of genius”? You might believe Palin is an inbred moron but dumber than Gore? That’s crossing the line of bad taste.

Palin is way dumber than Al Gore. It may be tasteless, but it’s simple truth.

234 Cato the Elder  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:51:27pm

re: #210 lawhawk

Also, the need for HSR in the US is typically in already densely populated regions, like the NE corridor, the Tampa-Orlando Miami corridor, the NC Tech Triangle, The SF-LA-SD corridor, and the LA-Vegas train to name a few.

You can’t build dedicated HSR in the US without serious amounts of eminent domain, even if you were going to build along existing highway rights of way because you’d still want it to link up with existing rail connections and infrastructure.

You should look at the population densities in some of the corridors where high-speed trains operate in Europe or Japan.

Even the lines we have are an international joke. Put a German, a Frenchman and a Japanese on the Acela run from Boston to New York and tell them they’re on a high-speed train. Plug ears and try to ignore laughter.

The trains we bought for that route rarely get up beyond half their intended speed, because we couldn’t be bothered (or couldn’t figure out how) to build the necessary railbeds.

235 RogueOne  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:51:52pm

re: #224 SixDegrees


I asked a similar question before, and I think the term “f*cktard” was used in response.

LOL!

236 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:52:11pm

re: #98 Cato the Elder

Great. So AGW is now so settled that no critics should be debated anymore?

Nothing haughty or hierophantic about that. I’m sure such a tactic will do wonders in bringing round the remaining skeptics.

“I’m so right, I don’t even need to talk to anyone who disagrees with me!”

I can see it being a good idea to debate a real scientist who challenges AGW.

Sarah Palin, I am willing to bet, understands a lot less of the science than I do. It would be a massive waste of time.

237 hokiepride  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:52:40pm

OT but kinda related,

[Link: mediamatters.org…]

Glenn Beck’s latest lunacy. Oh man, the “populist” Glenn Beck suddenly
becomes an elitist. What a #$%^^

238 Kragar  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:52:41pm

re: #233 SanFranciscoZionist

Palin is way dumber than Al Gore. It may be tasteless, but it’s simple truth.

Neither one is the intellectual giant their supporters wish them to be.

239 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:52:50pm

re: #102 MKELLY

Would you gents please put out a list of definitions for what a denier, skeptic, etc is. I want to know what epithet you use for me.

You? You’re an am ha’aretz. Why do you ask?

240 RogueOne  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:53:06pm

re: #233 SanFranciscoZionist

Palin is way dumber than Al Gore. It may be tasteless, but it’s simple truth.

That’s crazy talk ;). If gore were any dumber he’d need a helmet.//

241 freetoken  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:53:22pm

re: #224 SixDegrees

Please see the graph I linked above for an approach to quantifying the different drivers in climate change.

As for modeling CO2 reductions… essentially that is already done for us as there were created a variety of emission scenarios that various researchers could use in common, for the last IPCC report. Pick your emissions path, then look at the corresponding output.

Generally speaking, the the biggest issue is the long term effects, that accumulate over decades, not intra-decadal changes.

242 darthstar  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:54:38pm

Dear god…she’s actually implying that President Obama got his material from her book. Note that the USA Today actually corrected her grammar for her by punctuating and trimming her quote as if it were a complete sentence (bolded section)

Transcript:


Palin: “I liked what he said, in fact, I thumbed through my book quickly this morning to say ‘Wow, that that sounded really familiar’ because I talked in my book too about the fallen nature of man and why war is necessary at times and history’s lessons when it comes to knowing what it is that we engage in warfare and a couple of the other things he said were I thought, wow, those were a ni-nice, a broad message so broad I just wrote about those and a lot of Americans right now are getting to read off of my take on when war is necessary. Personally, of course, as a blue-star mom, I and so many other blue-star families we worry about the safety of our soldiers, but my son an tens of thousands of other men and women of America have made the right decision to put some things on hold at this point in their lives so that they can serve something greater than self. I’m so extremely proud of him and all of our troops, and personally of course I’m on my knees more than ever praying for his safety along with all of his fellow troops and of course war is the last thing any American I believe wants to have to engage in but its necessary. We have to stop these terrorists over there. We’ve learned our lesson from 911. George Bush did a great job of reminding Americans every single day he was in office what that lesson is, and by the way I’d like to see President Obama follow more closely in the footsteps of George Bush and his passion for keeping the homeland safe, his passion for respecting honoring our troops, and I certainly believe that the mission is necessary right now, both in Iraq and the surge strategy that’s needed in Afghanistan.


I left off a couple of ‘ums’ and ‘ahs’, but that’s her entire quote. Word. Fucking. Salad.

And yes, this is why I highly doubt that she writes her own facebook posts.

243 badger1970  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:54:48pm

re: #240 RogueOne

That’s crazy talk ;). If gore were any dumber he’d need a helmet.//

Not funny, even with the tag.

244 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:54:59pm

re: #134 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

The fallen nature of man is why war is necessary? WTF?

Well, if we were not fallen, how would war be possible?

245 Cato the Elder  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:55:53pm

re: #226 Charles

Wars happen for economic reasons or for reasons of national pride, or for many other reasons that have nothing at all to do with the Bible.

Wars happen, in other words, because of man’s nature. Selfish, arrogant, short-sighted, haughty, violent, uncooperative, and boorish.

You don’t need the Bible to explain that. The Bible is a valid interpretation of observable data in that regard, however. One among many.

246 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:55:59pm

re: #220 Cineaste

I hope you weren’t implying that I was bashing anyone’s religious beliefs. More making a general note about ecclesiastical differences.


I’m sorry - my bad. I was trying to build on your comment and did so in a clumsy manner. The point being that Judeo Christian ideas are not monolithic but indeed are very nuanced and differ from group to group.

247 Obdicut  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:56:01pm

re: #228 RogueOne

Switch that question around. If humanity is causing 1% of the warming and the earth is going to warm at 99% percent of the current rate regardless, is it really worth it to spend a trillion dollars or so?

That’s not the correct way to look at it.

Imagine a scale, with two sides, warming and cooling. If there are more forcers towards warming than there are towards cooling, the scale tilts, and warming accelerates. It’s not just that warming is occuring, but the more on the warming side, the faster that warming occurs. Rate matters.

Now, ‘normally’, on earth, that scale tips back and forth between various degrees of warming and cooling. There are ranges on both sides where humans could not survive as we currently are, at least not in the numbers that we have with anything close to the technology that we have.

So even if we had been living the ideal lifestyle with no carbon, no climate effects— we would eventually have to manipulate the climate to continue our civilization.

However, we’re not doing that: we’re accelerating the warming, far before we’ve achieved the necessary technology to adapt to the climate that will come.

The reason to cut back on CO2 is not just to ‘stop’ warming, because that may be too late— it’s to slow it. From that point of view, it doesn’t matter that AGW is indeed anthropogenic— it just matters that reducing CO2 is the best way to reduce the accleration of warming.

It just also so happens that we are causing the change in CO2, which is the forcer for warming in the current moment, so the solution can be constrained to our own behavior.

Does that make sense?

248 Cineaste  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:56:02pm

re: #232 Spare O’Lake

Are you pulling my chain, or do you really think the percentage is meaningless?
Does human activity account for 1%, 50%, or 99% of global warming? Surely this must be of vital importance to scientists.
If man causes only 1% of the warming, then I suspect we are fucked.
If man causes 50% then at least we have a shot.
If man causes 99% then the problem should be fixable.

Also, don’t forget that the arguments of the “fuck the West” coalition hinge on blaming the West for having caused the problem, and so the percentage is quite relevant to this as well.

be precise - are you asking if it contributes to the warming of the globe or global warming. It’s an important distinction. The effect we have is on the surplus absorption of heat by the atmosphere and we are the primary contributor to the additional absorption. Not to the heat itself and not to the basic level of heat needed to maintain life.

Work this problem:

1) CO2 heats up the atmosphere - agree or disagree?

2) We have removed enormous amounts of CO2 conversion ability through deforestation - agree or disagree?

3) We add more CO2 to the atmosphere than would be there without burning fossil fuels - agree or disagree?

4) At some point, a warmer atmosphere will be dangerous for humanity - agree or disagree

If you agree with those statements, then we are warming the atmosphere and at some point that will be a problem. When do you propose stepping in?

249 darthstar  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:56:06pm

re: #202 Bloodnok

She probably quit halfway through, of course.

No, she finished it, because apparently she’s the voice on the audio version of her book…yes, you can listen to Sarah read her book in your car on a small set of 47 CDs.

250 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:56:25pm

re: #170 justnobody

Oh for the love of God, please stop comparing climate change to gravity. Gravity is a simple and elegant theory that explains everyday phenomena and can be verified in high-school experiments. Climate change attempts to explain a trend in temperatures whose mere existence is in question by means of complex computer models. Anyone who has any experience with computer modeling knows that you can “prove” basically anything with it.

Let’s just put it this way: physics never needed a Nobel-prize winning UN panel to prove that gravity is right.

You don’t think Newton would have gotten a Nobel?

251 RogueOne  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:57:27pm

re: #243 badger1970

Not funny, even with the tag.

Didn’t mean to be offensive. My apologies.

252 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:57:48pm

re: #222 RogueOne

it’s a hug from god.


No it comes from the other direction. It’s either god pushing on us or the devil sucking us in (fallen nature and all). /

253 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:57:56pm

re: #206 Cato the Elder

The story of Adam and Eve is in the first part of the first book of the Hebrew Bible.

We do not derive from it a doctine of original sin.

254 Bloodnok  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:58:03pm

re: #242 darthstar

Dear god…she’s actually implying that President Obama got his material from her book. Note that the USA Today actually corrected her grammar for her by punctuating and trimming her quote as if it were a complete sentence (bolded section)

Transcript:


I left off a couple of ‘ums’ and ‘ahs’, but that’s her entire quote. Word. Fucking. Salad.

And yes, this is why I highly doubt that she writes her own facebook posts.

I tried to say the bolded sentence out loud but I ran out of breath, passed out and hit my head. Strangely the injury helped me to understand just what in the hell she was talking about.

255 Cato the Elder  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:58:04pm

re: #236 SanFranciscoZionist

I can see it being a good idea to debate a real scientist who challenges AGW.

Sarah Palin, I am willing to bet, understands a lot less of the science than I do. It would be a massive waste of time.

She is a representative of a certain movement, however. Demolishing her in public would be vastly entertaining at the very least.

On the other hand, given Al Gore’s famous tendency to show all the sprightly debating skills of a cigar-store Indian, maybe he’d better pass.

256 badger1970  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:58:19pm

re: #251 RogueOne

No problem, I knew it wasn’t in malice.

257 recusancy  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:58:38pm

re: #238 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Neither one is the intellectual giant their supporters wish them to be.

Nobody thinks Gore is an intellectual giant. But he is an intelligent person. Intelligent people make mistakes and exaggerations here and there. If he doesn’t correct them later then he hurts his own cause.

258 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:58:38pm

re: #244 SanFranciscoZionist

Well, if we were not fallen, how would war be possible?


Lots and lots of water balloons. /

259 Jack Burton  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:59:46pm

re: #245 Cato the Elder

Wars happen, in other words, because of man’s nature. Selfish, arrogant, short-sighted, haughty, violent, uncooperative, and boorish.

You don’t need the Bible to explain that. The Bible is a valid interpretation of observable data in that regard, however. One among many.

Not really since mankind did not in fact descend from a perfect state into imperfection which is what Genesis implies. Humans have always been imperfect, selfish, arrogant, short-sighted, haughty, violent, uncooperative and boorish, and very likely always will be. The only thing that changes, barely, are methods used to express these aspects of human nature.

260 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:59:53pm

re: #227 Cineaste

There was also the video of her with the snake-charmer priest who was casting the devil out of her…

I hate to criticize his work, but there may be a little devil left.

261 darthstar  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:59:53pm

re: #254 Bloodnok

It’s amazing how she can keep talking and talking until her words eventually come around to a point she thinks she’s trying to make.

You can listen for yourself (it was painful for me to do this, by the way) at the bottom of this article

262 Cineaste  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 1:59:54pm

re: #255 Cato the Elder

She is a representative of a certain movement, however. Demolishing her in public would be vastly entertaining at the very least.

On the other hand, given Al Gore’s famous tendency to show all the sprightly debating skills of a cigar-store Indian, maybe he’d better pass.

Let’s let the guy who called the skeptic on air an arsehole do it!

263 Bloodnok  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:00:04pm

re: #249 darthstar

re: #202 Bloodnok


No, she finished it, because apparently she’s the voice on the audio version of her book…yes, you can listen to Sarah read her book in your car on a small set of 47 CDs.

I don’t think they build guardrails strong enough to withstand my car should I be forced to listen to that in an enclosed space.

264 Sharmuta  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:00:11pm

re: #242 darthstar

She didn’t even write that book. She had a ghost writer.

265 SixDegrees  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:00:50pm

re: #241 freetoken

Please see the graph I linked above for an approach to quantifying the different drivers in climate change.

As for modeling CO2 reductions… essentially that is already done for us as there were created a variety of emission scenarios that various researchers could use in common, for the last IPCC report. Pick your emissions path, then look at the corresponding output.

Generally speaking, the the biggest issue is the long term effects, that accumulate over decades, not intra-decadal changes.

That may be the biggest issue, but if you can’t demonstrate actual progress over a reasonable timespan, you’re facing an ongoing uphill battle.

If the answer to the question of when we will see amelioration of warming is “many decades from now,” I’d suggest you have a serious marketing problem, particularly when balanced against the cries that something must be done now, within a matter of weeks or months, and it has to be a lot if we’re to avoid imminent catastrophe.

266 Bob Levin  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:01:18pm

re: #247 Obdicut

So this really is a bottom line of change the technology, just reduce the carbon emissions? It’s a matter of understanding that warming is taking place, a warming that could be part of a natural cycle?

267 Sharmuta  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:01:57pm

Is Sarah Palin trying to tell me President Obama ripped off Lynn Vincent?

268 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:02:18pm

re: #249 darthstar

No, she finished it, because apparently she’s the voice on the audio version of her book…yes, you can listen to Sarah read her book in your car on a small set of 47 CDs.

I would rather have root canal.

269 darthstar  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:02:27pm

re: #264 Sharmuta

She didn’t even write that book. She had a ghost writer.

Yes…and I thought she’d have a ghost-reader as well, but was surprised when I looked up the audio book online and it said she narrated it herself…of course, her having to “thumb through” her own book doesn’t indicate she has much knowledge of what she allegedly wrote inside it.

270 Kragar  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:02:36pm

re: #244 SanFranciscoZionist

Well, if we were not fallen, how would war be possible?

I dont think fighting for something marks one as fallen.

271 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:02:44pm

Respectfully, I don’t know about this and would like a bit of clarification.

Charles wrote that:

And that isn’t just denial — it’s dishonesty. Remember, this comes from a woman who wrote in her book that she “didn’t believe in the theory that human beings — thinking, loving beings — originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea” or from “monkeys who eventually swung down from the trees.” ”

Did Palin write that book?

I’m making that as a sort of funny comment. Obviously Charle’s deeper point is correct.

Once someone starts denying evolution and other basic science, why, for the love of all that is sane, would you trust them to say anything else correct about science?

If you had a “mathematician” proudly proclaim that 8 X 9 = 17 - and really meant it, made speech after speech to that effect, would you trust them to tell you about differential geometry?

If you had a doctor, who proudly went on about his miracle cure for back pain that involved leaches, drinking lots of sea water and administering gatorade enemas, would you trust them to make a medical decision for you?

And yet, such luminaries of science as Palin, Beck, Rush et al - and their corporate backers are taken as legitimate?

One of the things that has caused me to lose it here in the past has been how simple the underlying principles of AGW are to actually understand. For certain the interactions of those principles are quite complicated. For certain, there are still questions about exactly how bad things will get how soon. However, there is no question that CO2 is a GHG. There is no question that we have dumped gigatons of it into the atmosphere, and there is no question that it must cause warming. To think otherwise is exactly akin to thinking that adding four tablespoons of motor oil to your coffee wouldn’t change the taste.

Moreover the questions that still exist about how bad and how soon are nowhere near as uncertain as the denier squad would like you to believe. There is no way that adding four tablespoons of motor oil to your coffee is a good thing. It really will make you sick if you drink it. We know this. It might even kill you.

So any debate about how bad and how soon, has to stat from the very real world observations of how things are already changing for the worse. Just like drinking the motor oil you will get sick. The best case is that you only get really ill.

However, the realities of AGW are uch more concrete than that. The things coming down the pike are very real. There are those who take as some article of faith that science can not predict the future. This could not be further from the truth. The enire point of science is to predict what will happen by deducing and applying the physical laws we have figured out. Every single scientific triumph ever, was a result of our predictions coming true.

So how is it that people are so willfully blind about such obvious things? And once they have demonstrated that ignorance, why trust them to say a damn thing that is sensible?

272 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:02:54pm

re: #226 Charles

Actually, there’s very little doubt that Sarah Palin is a religious fanatic. She attended a Pentecostal church, which is about as hardcore fundamentalist as it’s possible to get in the US. And her statements about evolution speak for themselves.

When a politician who was almost elected vice president of the US talks about “the fallen nature of man” as a reason why wars occur, I find that not just absurd, but actually more than a little disturbing. Wars happen for economic reasons or for reasons of national pride, or for many other reasons that have nothing at all to do with the Bible.

As a Jew, I understand the “fallen nature of man” to mean that mankind knows the difference between right and wrong and has a tendency to screw up; and that most of mankind is doomed to struggle in order to put bread on the table.
These are hardly controversial propositions, and are perhaps not too different from the reasons which you articulated.
Maybe Palin meant something different.

273 reine.de.tout  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:03:04pm

re: #245 Cato the Elder

Wars happen, in other words, because of man’s nature. Selfish, arrogant, short-sighted, haughty, violent, uncooperative, and boorish.

You don’t need the Bible to explain that. The Bible is a valid interpretation of observable data in that regard, however. One among many.

If you are a Christian (or not, for some, I guess), then what you say is true - the elements of man’s nature that are “fallen” are the things that cause wars.

But not everyone is a Christian in this country, and it seems to me a candidate or political party wishing to appeal to a broad range of voters would avoid putting things in terms unique to their faith beliefs.

274 Ben Hur  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:03:34pm

re: #261 darthstar

Today in Dead history: The Grateful Dead made their first appearance at the Fillmore Auditorium on this date in 1965.

275 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:03:50pm

re: #264 Sharmuta

She didn’t even write that book. She had a ghost writer.

I still want to read it. How sick IS that.

276 Summer Seale  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:03:55pm

re: #226 Charles

Well, some people think that and..they’re probably mostly in France…But, ya know…it’s really about how everyone is just loved by our Creator and everything is just…well…just wonderful in our loving him back. Now…I know some people say they don’t believe in him…but again, they think they fell off of some trees a couple hundred years ago! Now, I’m no scientist, but I betcha that probably resulted in some brain damage and caused their liberal thinking and all. And all I have to say is…you think you fell off of some trees and you don’t believe in the fall of man??

Gosh, I just love you guys…you guys are so great…here lemme keep going a bit cuz I’m almost at the end of this card they gave me…

So anyway, you know, darnit if it isn’t hard to just finish off with your applause, I’m blushin’ here, gee…here, let me bring out my husband, and Trig, and Jenny and Jess and Rambo, and Tom Tom and, well darnit, bring out Hagey and Dammer, and Thumper too! And yes, come on out mom and dad and, hey I brought along some eskimos too, to show you I just know about all those weather things as well, and huntin’ moose and elk…ain’t I just amazing?

277 darthstar  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:04:56pm

re: #267 Sharmuta

Is Sarah Palin trying to tell me President Obama ripped off Lynn Vincent?

It would be fun to wear a mic and camera and go up to her at a signing and say something like, “I just love what you said about corporate welfare in your book!” and have her acknowledge it and say “Gee, thanks!” rather than be able to say “I never wrote about that!”

278 Sharmuta  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:05:14pm

re: #269 darthstar

Yes…and I thought she’d have a ghost-reader as well, but was surprised when I looked up the audio book online and it said she narrated it herself…of course, her having to “thumb through” her own book doesn’t indicate she has much knowledge of what she allegedly wrote inside it.

Yes- lol! “I had to thumb through my own book to refresh my memory on my own beliefs.”

279 freetoken  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:05:22pm

re: #271 LudwigVanQuixote

There are those who take as some article of faith that science can not predict the future.

Indeed, I quoted some of the Palinistas from Facebook which explicitly stated this.

280 Jadespring  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:06:00pm

re: #269 darthstar

Yes…and I thought she’d have a ghost-reader as well, but was surprised when I looked up the audio book online and it said she narrated it herself…of course, her having to “thumb through” her own book doesn’t indicate she has much knowledge of what she allegedly wrote inside it.

Actually now that you point it out that reference is pretty funny. It’s like ‘oh I think I might have wrote about that, better go check. Oh hey fancy that. I did!”

281 Sharmuta  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:06:14pm

re: #272 Spare O’Lake

As a Jew, I understand the “fallen nature of man” to mean that mankind knows the difference between right and wrong and has a tendency to screw up; and that most of mankind is doomed to struggle in order to put bread on the table.
These are hardly controversial propositions, and are perhaps not too different from the reasons which you articulated.
Maybe Palin meant something different.

I think the issue is we all accept that human nature is flawed, but we don’t need to use religious terminology to get that point across.

282 SixDegrees  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:06:26pm

re: #248 Cineaste

I think Spare’s question is valid. See my posts above: if we’re going to embark on this global experiment, it’s important to know what we ought to expect if we achieve a given level of CO2 reduction.

Let’s say everyone on the planet really hunkers down, dons hair shirts and manages to cut CO2 concentrations by half over the next ten years - and measurements show that warming, instead of decreasing or leveling off, is accelerating. Now, that may simply be due to some natural process that would have taken place regardless, but unless you put those predictions out there up front, the reaction to such news from the masses huddled in the dark and cold is not going to be a pleasant one.

283 Gus  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:06:39pm

December 10, 2009, 3:10 pm
Judge Halts Wind Farm Over Bats

A federal judge’s ruling that stopped construction of a West Virginia wind farm to protect an endangered bat underscores the growing conflicts between green energy and imperiled wildlife

284 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:07:23pm

re: #283 Gus 802

They won’t let us live in caves either. WTF?

285 recusancy  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:07:29pm

re: #269 darthstar

Yes…and I thought she’d have a ghost-reader as well, but was surprised when I looked up the audio book online and it said she narrated it herself…of course, her having to “thumb through” her own book doesn’t indicate she has much knowledge of what she allegedly wrote inside it.

To be fair, Obama read his own books for the audio tapes. He won a grammy for it. lol

286 Gus  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:07:55pm

re: #284 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

They won’t let us live in caves either. WTF?

I don’t even know what to think anymore.

287 wrenchwench  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:08:11pm

re: #260 SanFranciscoZionist

I hate to criticize his work, but there may be a little devil left.

lol

288 Kragar  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:08:42pm

re: #283 Gus 802

December 10, 2009, 3:10 pm
Judge Halts Wind Farm Over Bats

Apparently, the fans change the air pressure significantly, causing the bats lungs to explode as they fly in the area. Same thing is happening in CA.

289 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:09:01pm

You know folks demonizing people is wrong. It doesn’t matter if they are already dumb (according to your best objective measurements of their intelligence) or smart, or left or right. Making them out to be the worst possible version of themselves is just mean spirited and destructive to any healthy dialogue.

Unfortunately there is a lot of payback going on in the blogosphere and I see even respected Lizards being hypocritical about bashing those they disagree with while being defensive about those they don’t.

290 RogueOne  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:09:52pm

re: #247 Obdicut

That’s not the correct way to look at it.


Now, ‘normally’, on earth, that scale tips back and forth between various degrees of warming and cooling. There are ranges on both sides where humans could not survive as we currently are, at least not in the numbers that we have with anything close to the technology that we have.

So even if we had been living the ideal lifestyle with no carbon, no climate effects— we would eventually have to manipulate the climate to continue our civilization.

However, we’re not doing that: we’re accelerating the warming, far before we’ve achieved the necessary technology to adapt to the climate that will come.

The reason to cut back on CO2 is not just to ‘stop’ warming, because that may be too late— it’s to slow it. From that point of view, it doesn’t matter that AGW is indeed anthropogenic— it just matters that reducing CO2 is the best way to reduce the accleration of warming.

I’d love to stay and continue but my spouse is wondering why i haven’t left work yet and I locked the doors over an hour ago. Quick question, at how many PPM does CO2 have to reach before you believe the planet will be uninhabitable and why? I’ll try to come back later and read your response and since we’ll always be talking about this subject we’ll take it up again then.

291 simoom  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:09:59pm

re: #119 Conservative Moonbat

Gasp! Whitehouse Serves Acorn Cookies! It’s Cookiegate!

Sounds like Rep King is hoarding acorns for the winter: :P

King pocketed several of the acorn cookies at the White House soiree and even stowed a few at home in his freezer.
292 reine.de.tout  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:10:40pm

re: #289 DaddyG

You know folks demonizing people is wrong. It doesn’t matter if they are already dumb (according to your best objective measurements of their intelligence) or smart, or left or right. Making them out to be the worst possible version of themselves is just mean spirited and destructive to any healthy dialogue.

Unfortunately there is a lot of payback going on in the blogosphere and I see even respected Lizards being hypocritical about bashing those they disagree with while being defensive about those they don’t.

Those are the times I try to remember “scroll” and “gaze”.

293 Varek Raith  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:10:54pm

re: #291 simoom

For a possible future investigation, no doubt.
/

294 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:11:33pm

re: #292 reine.de.tout

Those are the times I try to remember “scroll” and “gaze”.


You are a better woman than I (even overlooking the fact that I am not a woman). I tend to get too engaged.

295 wrenchwench  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:11:43pm

re: #289 DaddyG

You know folks demonizing people is wrong. It doesn’t matter if they are already dumb (according to your best objective measurements of their intelligence) or smart, or left or right. Making them out to be the worst possible version of themselves is just mean spirited and destructive to any healthy dialogue.

Unfortunately there is a lot of payback going on in the blogosphere and I see even respected Lizards being hypocritical about bashing those they disagree with while being defensive about those they don’t.

But it’s so much fun. I guess that’s why they call it “temptation.”

296 SixDegrees  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:12:06pm

re: #283 Gus 802

December 10, 2009, 3:10 pm
Judge Halts Wind Farm Over Bats

Better get used to burning sheep dung for warmth and cooking, I guess.

Serious proposal: I’m not a wind power zealot, but one location that would work really well would be a few miles offshore in Lake Michigan. The wind blos more or less constantly out there, you could place them far enough offshore so as not to spoil the view from the lakefront, and ice wouldn’t be a problem in deep water. The technology to do this is simple, off the shelf oil derrick stuff in what that industry would consider “shallow” water.

And there aren’t any bats out that far.

297 RogueOne  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:13:23pm

Cya people. Enjoy the rest of your day.

298 Ben Hur  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:13:30pm

re: #283 Gus 802

I used to think that was BS, until I saw this video:

(Lies! That’s not an eagle!)

299 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:13:42pm

re: #288 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Apparently, the fans change the air pressure significantly, causing the bats lungs to explode as they fly in the area. Same thing is happening in CA.

Poor batses. Is there any way to shoo them out of the area? Set up bat repellent?

There was some guy during the Second World War who got funding for a lunatic project involving dropping bats attached to small incindiary devices out of planes. Idea was they’d nest in Japanese buildings, and then when they detonated, cause fires.

Besides the general stupidity of this plan, the key problem turned out to be that when you dropped the bats out of the plane, their wings tore off in the slipstream.

People should be nicer to bats.

300 Obdicut  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:13:47pm

re: #290 RogueOne

In short, our ability to survive at our current population various climate conditions is directly tied to technology and it’s availability.

It’s not as simple as “beyond this many PPM, we can’t survive”.

There’s some point where it’d become a runaway greenhouse effect, but I have no clue how close to that we are.

It’s about preventing a huge die-off due to changing climate, that we should address climate change.

301 Cato the Elder  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:13:51pm

re: #281 Sharmuta

I think the issue is we all accept that human nature is flawed, but we don’t need to use religious terminology to get that point across.

Abraham Lincoln would have disagreed with you.

302 Stanghazi  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:14:18pm

Sharmuta IIRC wrote a great post earlier today about the Nobel speech by Obama. Nice. Then I read Sarah Palin’s actual quote about the speech.

And I was not happy with the USA Today’s edited “quote” to begin with. Talk about a downer moment.

303 DaddyG  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:14:24pm

re: #295 wrenchwench

But it’s so much fun. I guess that’s why they call it “temptation.”


Now mind you I don’t mind the traditional skewering of the politico’s and moderate doses of mockery and sarcasm - I just think there is a line to be drawn at some point.

Agreeeing or disagreeing with someone doesn’t mean they are fair game for racism, sexism, agism or religious bigotry.

304 cliffster  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:15:12pm

re: #298 Ben Hur

That’s horrible

305 Gus  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:15:40pm

re: #298 Ben Hur

I’ve seen that one before. It’s a turkey vulture right or a condor? Kind of sad to watch.

306 Kragar  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:15:46pm

re: #299 SanFranciscoZionist

Poor batses. Is there any way to shoo them out of the area? Set up bat repellent?

There was some guy during the Second World War who got funding for a lunatic project involving dropping bats attached to small incindiary devices out of planes. Idea was they’d nest in Japanese buildings, and then when they detonated, cause fires.

Besides the general stupidity of this plan, the key problem turned out to be that when you dropped the bats out of the plane, their wings tore off in the slipstream.

People should be nicer to bats.

Right up there with anti-tank dogs in the stupidity and cruelty categories.

307 Girth  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:16:08pm

re: #277 darthstar

It would be fun to wear a mic and camera and go up to her at a signing and say something like, “I just love what you said about corporate welfare in your book!” and have her acknowledge it and say “Gee, thanks!” rather than be able to say “I never wrote about that!”

It would be fun to ask her a question that would prove that she hasn’t read her own book.

308 Jaerik  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:17:05pm

At this point I’m just cheering her on.

When folks on the right try to claim my raucous laughter is actually somehow fear or hatred of her, I just go along with it now. Whatever. You’re right, I’m terrified. Whatever you say.

Reading farther into Palin as being representative of a certain portion of the American population is that… dunno, I don’t have a word for it. The stupid is too expansive to wrap my head around into a cohesive opinion or statement, and I’ve just given up. It is like pouring water on sand, or trying to catch a cloud. I have reached abject Stupid Fatigue. I’m exhausted.

If there is a God, please make her the GOP candidate next time around. That’s all I can ask at this point.

309 Obdicut  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:17:32pm

re: #266 Bob Levin

While you’re right to say that reducing carbon emissions would be the best thing to do even if it were a natural warming cycle, it is not, in fact, a natural warming cycle, but because we have been dumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

310 freetoken  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:18:02pm

re: #282 SixDegrees


… the next ten years - and measurements show that warming, instead of decreasing or leveling off, is accelerating…

Ten years is not long enough. We know that the movement of water throughout the ocean takes longer than that - the vertical mixing can be quite slow. El Nino/La Nina changes can take that long. Etc.

This is the second law of thermodynamics in action. Like dropping a raw egg… you can’t put it back in the shell again. Once started down a path one can’t go back and undo it.

Mitigation is about avoiding the worst possible outcomes, not undoing what has already happened.

Finally, even if the world cut emissions in half we would still be changing the atmosphere, albeit much more slowly.

311 bosforus  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:18:08pm

re: #305 Gus 802

I’ve seen that one before. It’s a turkey vulture right or a condor? Kind of sad to watch.

The last five seconds are the worst. Poor bird.

312 SixDegrees  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:18:35pm

re: #302 Stanley Sea

Sharmuta IIRC wrote a great post earlier today about the Nobel speech by Obama. Nice. Then I read Sarah Palin’s actual quote about the speech.

And I was not happy with the USA Today’s edited “quote” to begin with. Talk about a downer moment.

Newt Gingrich praised the Nobel speech today.

I’m sure they’re already fantasizing about tearing his testicles from his body over at Malkin’s site.

313 bosforus  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:18:43pm

re: #305 Gus 802

And yes, it looks like a turkey vulture to me.

314 reine.de.tout  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:19:29pm

re: #295 wrenchwench

But it’s so much fun. I guess that’s why they call it “temptation.”

Which the prayer says lead us not into.

315 Political Atheist  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:21:08pm

Politico has an interesting piece…
excerpt
President Barack Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize speech Thursday is drawing praise from some unlikely quarters – conservative Republicans – who likened Obama’s defense of “just wars” to the worldview of his predecessor, Republican George W. Bush.

The remarks drew immediate praise from a host of conservatives, including former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

“I liked what he said,” Palin told USA Today. “Of course, war is the last thing I believe any American wants to engage in, but it’s necessary. We have to stop these terrorists.”

316 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:21:16pm

re: #170 justnobody

Oh for the love of God, please stop comparing climate change to gravity. Gravity is a simple and elegant theory that explains everyday phenomena and can be verified in high-school experiments. Climate change attempts to explain a trend in temperatures whose mere existence is in question by means of complex computer models. Anyone who has any experience with computer modeling knows that you can “prove” basically anything with it.

Let’s just put it this way: physics never needed a Nobel-prize winning UN panel to prove that gravity is right.

You really haven’t kept up with the theories on Gravity have you? Things aren’t as static nor are they as complete as you imply.

Let’s be blunt, the climate changes, is changing and will change. How it changes has finally become something that people can affect. Now, what we do with that ability is up to us. Do you think that massive desertification in Africa, along with massive deforestation in the Amazon (just to name 2 examples) will have negligible impact on the climate? and the two examples I’ve given have nothing to do with greenhouse gases or carbon credits or what not. These are tangible global scale effects that are caused by people on some level or another.

Once we start including the effects of having massive amounts of greenhouse gasses pumped into the atmosphere, not only are you looking at global warming, but acidification of the oceans, changes on the oceanic and atmospheric currents affecting the climate, and I’m sure there are other ways that our changes to the composition of the atmosphere has affected the entire planet, these are just ideas that are at the top of my head.

What’s going to happen when the fertile regions of the Earth change from the altered climate patterns? Even if more of the Earth became fertile ground, the changes themselves will induce massive famines and wars as people find themselves unable to feed themselves and people will fight to get to places where they can eat.

If you think it’s existence is in question, why don’t you invest in purchasing some land in the Maldives, after all, since they’re planning on abandoning their entire country due to rising sea levels, you’ll get some really good deals, and if this is all just fabricated models you’ll get some great profit later when the islanders want to move back… right?

317 Locker  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:22:30pm

re: #232 Spare O’Lake

Are you pulling my chain, or do you really think the percentage is meaningless?
Does human activity account for 1%, 50%, or 99% of global warming? Surely this must be of vital importance to scientists.
If man causes only 1% of the warming, then I suspect we are fucked.
If man causes 50% then at least we have a shot.
If man causes 99% then the problem should be fixable.

Also, don’t forget that the arguments of the “fuck the West” coalition hinge on blaming the West for having caused the problem, and so the percentage is quite relevant to this as well.

I didn’t say it was meaningless. I was answering your statement that you had a problem with the global warming arguments if you didn’t have an exact percentage. If that’s not what you meant, no biggie.

318 SixDegrees  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:22:48pm

re: #310 freetoken

Ten years is not long enough. We know that the movement of water throughout the ocean takes longer than that - the vertical mixing can be quite slow. El Nino/La Nina changes can take that long. Etc.

This is the second law of thermodynamics in action. Like dropping a raw egg… you can’t put it back in the shell again. Once started down a path one can’t go back and undo it.

Mitigation is about avoiding the worst possible outcomes, not undoing what has already happened.

Finally, even if the world cut emissions in half we would still be changing the atmosphere, albeit much more slowly.

It’s my understanding that the earth has already warmed abnormally. I would expect to see that problem abate in some predictable manner, tied to reductions in atmospheric CO2.

Seriously, if you’re saying that no change will be seen for more than a decade, you better find another way to pitch this.

319 simoom  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:24:45pm

re: #27 Basho

This morning, Gore appeared on MSNBC, where Andrea Mitchell read from Sarah Palin’s Facebook page to ask the former vice president questions about climate change.

[Link: www.washingtonmonthly.com…]

That back and forth was covered on Good Morning America today:

I really wish the media would stop inserting her Facebook screeds into major policy debates, particularly when she is so unsure of her positions that she refuses to come out of hiding and defend them before a critical audience (interview w/ a journalist, press conference, etc).
320 What, me worry?  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:24:57pm

re: #308 Jaerik

hehe We have little TVs in our elevators at work that give 1-2 sentence news feeds. Last week it said something about a number of Republicans or conservatives (I don’t recall) who want Cheney to run as Pres with Sarah as VP. I embarrassed myself as I burst out laughing, but hell, this is the best ticket out there. Unfortunately the article said that Cheney wouldn’t accept the nomination. Bummer, man.

If Cheney runs as president, Obama will get 90% of the vote.

321 Political Atheist  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:27:08pm

re: #288 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I think that was wind energy advocates heads exploding. In California we see some birds get struck at wind farms. I seriously doubt the air pressure lung thing.

Advocacy-The art of making the perfect the enemy of the good.

Will PETA have a delegation at Copenhagen?

322 Jadespring  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:28:16pm

re: #272 Spare O’Lake

As a Jew, I understand the “fallen nature of man” to mean that mankind knows the difference between right and wrong and has a tendency to screw up; and that most of mankind is doomed to struggle in order to put bread on the table.
These are hardly controversial propositions, and are perhaps not too different from the reasons which you articulated.
Maybe Palin meant something different.

If Palin is pentencostal then the differences lie in how you deal with or get out of the state of being fallen. Your understanding at it’s basic is based on acts or actually doing good or bad things. Screw-ups are a matter of choosing right and wrong and humans by nature struggle with that because we’re human. The pentecostal (generalized as there are nuance differences) understanding is that it’s an actual state of being, that you have no choice over and the only way to deal with is to accept Jesus who died as an atonement for that sin. Doesn’t matter what you actually do, good or bad, if this piece is missing. The extreme fundemental view is that you could be the absolute best person in the world in thought word and deed but if there’s no recognition of the blood sacrifice, Jesus, then no salvation and your still ‘fallen’. Basically it’s impossible for humans to deal with it on their own.

323 freetoken  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:28:35pm

re: #318 SixDegrees

… tied to reductions in atmospheric CO2.

As far as I know, no one is proposing actively reducing atmospheric CO2 other than the geo-engineering speculators.

That itself is the problem - we just keep adding.

Over time the CO2 gets absorbed by plants, the ocean surface, or on new rock faces.

If you want to see significant temperature reductions within a decade, then you have to take up one of the geo-engineering proposals and look at how much they claim they can reduce CO2, and how fast they can do it.

324 Political Atheist  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:30:42pm

re: #323 freetoken

Or cut the solar input-Deliberate global dimming. It’s being talked about.

325 Mr.Boots  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:30:42pm

It sounds like she is now having her Facebook comments ghost-written. She has never been that articulate or succinct.

326 SixDegrees  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:32:07pm

re: #323 freetoken

As far as I know, no one is proposing actively reducing atmospheric CO2 other than the geo-engineering speculators.

That itself is the problem - we just keep adding.

Over time the CO2 gets absorbed by plants, the ocean surface, or on new rock faces.

If you want to see significant temperature reductions within a decade, then you have to take up one of the geo-engineering proposals and look at how much they claim they can reduce CO2, and how fast they can do it.

I don’t want to see any particular thing. I’m asking what we can expect to see and by when if we achieve some particular, measurable reduction over a given length of time. What does the hypothesis this grand, global experiment we’re about to embark on predict will happen?

You seem to be telling me that, no matter what we do, no matter how fast we do it, we will see no change at all.

This is not a good pitch.

327 Locker  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:32:49pm

re: #282 SixDegrees

I think Spare’s question is valid. See my posts above: if we’re going to embark on this global experiment, it’s important to know what we ought to expect if we achieve a given level of CO2 reduction.

Let’s say everyone on the planet really hunkers down, dons hair shirts and manages to cut CO2 concentrations by half over the next ten years - and measurements show that warming, instead of decreasing or leveling off, is accelerating. Now, that may simply be due to some natural process that would have taken place regardless, but unless you put those predictions out there up front, the reaction to such news from the masses huddled in the dark and cold is not going to be a pleasant one.

See that’s the problem. What if it is accelerating after a large and concerted effort. Why would that make you think that it’s due to some natural, unalterable process rather than thinking “man it would have been WAY worse if we didn’t do anything at all”?

This sure seems like a simple issue made tremendously complicated by deliberate misunderstanding. Lets make it simple again. Problem, our global glass of CO2 is overly full and spilling onto the floor. Nature makes it too but human activity pours tons of extra CO2 into the glass. How many measurements do you really need to accept that this is a problem and that we have a role in it?

Do people really believe that the amount of CO2 created by humans is so small that it has no effect? That seems like straight up, bald faced ignoring of reality.

328 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:33:27pm

For the record, climate change is much much more simple than gravity. It is also just as real.

329 Political Atheist  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:39:15pm

re: #328 LudwigVanQuixote

Hey good to see a post from you. Gravity Question-Newton simple or Einstein simple?

330 Political Atheist  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:42:10pm

re: #327 Locker

It’s worth adding that in the CO2 equation, human activity is where our influence lies. We can not effect volcanic activity or the ocean on that scale so our activity is the “efficient” place to reduce.

331 Locker  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:43:02pm

re: #330 Rightwingconspirator

It’s worth adding that in the CO2 equation, human activity is where our influence lies. We can not effect volcanic activity or the ocean on that scale so our activity is the “efficient” place to reduce.

Excellent point. Address the areas where you CAN have an effect. Well said.

332 darthstar  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:43:52pm

re: #285 recusancy

To be fair, Obama read his own books for the audio tapes. He won a grammy for it. lol

I would expect that from Obama.

333 Stanghazi  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:46:19pm

re: #332 darthstar

I am AMAZED that USA Today filtered Sarah’s “quote”.

334 Political Atheist  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:50:39pm

re: #316 bloodstar

Upding for a fascinating link!

335 SixDegrees  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:51:46pm

re: #327 Locker

See that’s the problem. What if it is accelerating after a large and concerted effort. Why would that make you think that it’s due to some natural, unalterable process rather than thinking “man it would have been WAY worse if we didn’t do anything at all”?

This sure seems like a simple issue made tremendously complicated by deliberate misunderstanding. Lets make it simple again. Problem, our global glass of CO2 is overly full and spilling onto the floor. Nature makes it too but human activity pours tons of extra CO2 into the glass. How many measurements do you really need to accept that this is a problem and that we have a role in it?

Do people really believe that the amount of CO2 created by humans is so small that it has no effect? That seems like straight up, bald faced ignoring of reality.

Who are you arguing with? I’ve never made any of the statements you seem to be attempting to refute.

336 Locker  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 2:53:21pm

re: #282 SixDegrees

I think Spare’s question is valid. See my posts above: if we’re going to embark on this global experiment, it’s important to know what we ought to expect if we achieve a given level of CO2 reduction.

Let’s say everyone on the planet really hunkers down, dons hair shirts and manages to cut CO2 concentrations by half over the next ten years - and measurements show that warming, instead of decreasing or leveling off, is accelerating. Now, that may simply be due to some natural process that would have taken place regardless, but unless you put those predictions out there up front, the reaction to such news from the masses huddled in the dark and cold is not going to be a pleasant one.

337 Bob Levin  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 3:01:30pm

re: #309 Obdicut

There aren’t any practical implications for me to be more hesitant in drawing a conclusion about the causes though, right? I only say this because I feel I need a certain amount of expertise which I’m never going to get. But I’ve always been in favor of cleaner ways of using energy. But if there is some practical implication, I’ll need to know that.

338 freetoken  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 3:17:20pm

re: #326 SixDegrees

What I am saying is that the actual choices presented to us is:

1) warming;
2) more warming;
3) heaps and heaps of warming.

The geo-engineering ideas, such as actively pursuing global dimming as alluded to above, aren’t really on the table because way too much is unknown about them.

Reducing emissions is not the same as reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Even under aggressive CO2 emission reduction schemes we end up still increasing the total atmospheric CO2 concentration.

It is about how much risk you want to take, and how much change you can handle. To make it even more fuzzy, you will not be the ones suffering from your risk taking but your grandchildren.

This is the heart of why Dr. Hansen is complaining about Copenhagen: none of the proposals really stop the increase in CO2, they just attempt to slow it down to different degrees.

Even tiny Tuvalu, who are the ones throwing in the procedural monkey-wrenches into Plenary sessions at Copenhagen, with their aggressive plan cannot stop us from continuing to add to the problem. At best, they are hoping to slow down the human perturbations to the climate system long enough so that someday we can figure our way out of this.

However, as I stated last night to Gus, IMO the low lying islands are screwed because there is no hope that the world will do anything serious soon enough.

So I am rejecting your thought experiment of us actually reducing CO2 atmospheric levels - it just isn’t in the cards in the foreseeable future.

339 Obdicut  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 3:17:25pm

re: #337 Bob Levin

I’m not sure I understand your question. The causes are very well known— it’s humans putting CO2 into the atmosphere, with a very high degree of certainty.

May I ask you to rephrase what you’re asking?

340 freetoken  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 3:18:31pm

pimf “are”

/and probably plenty of other grammar problems…

341 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 3:20:49pm

re: #329 Rightwingconspirator

Hey good to see a post from you. Gravity Question-Newton simple or Einstein simple?

Neither is a complete picture of gravity. They are both very accurate and true descriptions of the universe - in the domains they cover, but whatever the true nature of gravity is, down to the quantum scale, is going to be vastly more complex than either - or if we are lucky, fabulously elegant, but after wading through many years of vastly more complex issues than either.

342 Bob Levin  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 3:37:48pm

re: #339 Obdicut

This isn’t just a scientific argument, but a political one as well. So when it comes to voting, to signing petitions, to anything that a layman can do, I can do that. When it comes to talking about percentages of carbon output, the details of the Copenhagen conference, the geological history of the earth, I’m lost—not that I don’t understand any of it, I just don’t understand enough to be able to argue the point with conviction. I can be knocked over by anyone with more information. The best I could do would be to repeat talking points, and I don’t like doing that.

So while I understand that humans are putting vast amounts of carbon in the atmosphere, and viscerally I’ve never liked that—that’s as far as I can go.

I’m asking, do I need to go farther and if so, why.

343 Obdicut  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 3:40:52pm

re: #342 Bob Levin

Well, the science is actually very easy to understand— if one adds CO2 to an atmosphere, the atmosphere warms. We are adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a faster rate than the environment can soak it up through any means.

Therefore, the basic assumption is warming, and the empirical observations confirm it.

The reason ‘why’ is that it’s always better to understand things as well as is within your capability, and as you appear to be an intelligent person, you can handle the basic physics of CO2 just fine, I think.

The details are hard; the basic understanding should be easy.

344 Bob Levin  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 3:52:45pm

re: #343 Obdicut

Basically I do understand that. And I can think of a handful of arguments to refute my basic understanding. And you would be able to refute those arguments.

So, I end up entering this labyrinth, and I don’t want to go in. I don’t want to argue against your position, because that, in essence, is arguing for doing nothing about the problem. It’s saying there is no problem.

But I want to see a different technology, I want to see vast changes in the kinds of energy we use and how we use it. So, in order to help bring about this change, do I have to know the details?

345 Obdicut  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 3:58:23pm

re: #344 Bob Levin

No, you really can’t think of any arguments to refute that basic understanding. There aren’t any.

But I want to see a different technology, I want to see vast changes in the kinds of energy we use and how we use it. So, in order to help bring about this change, do I have to know the details?

No, but you’ll be a lot more convincing if you also understand the basic science behind AGW— or at least if you say that scientific consensus is amazingly unusual, and the scientific consensus behind AGW is overwhelming and needs to be acted upon.

Consensus is not an ordinary thing in science. For it to happen, as it has for AGW, takes an amazing clarity of evidence.

I fully believe you can understand, but if you feel that you can’t, just remember that, sociologically, scientists are not geared to agree. When they do, it’s significant in the largest way.

346 freetoken  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 4:03:04pm

re: #343 Obdicut

Well, the science is actually very easy to understand— if one adds CO2 to an atmosphere, the atmosphere warms. …

Just to clarify, all other things being equal to when one didn’t dump lots of CO2 in the atmosphere, then the surface of the planet (solid and water) and the troposphere warm.

We are doing actions that can lead to cooling too, it is just that our adding GHG to the atmosphere overwhelms them.

347 Obdicut  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 4:05:16pm

re: #346 freetoken

Yes. And that math is pretty simple, too, given what CO2 is.

348 Bob Levin  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 4:10:31pm

re: #345 Obdicut

Consensus is not an ordinary thing in science. For it to happen, as it has for AGW, takes an amazing clarity of evidence.

I fully believe you can understand, but if you feel that you can’t, just remember that, sociologically, scientists are not geared to agree. When they do, it’s significant in the largest way.

That helps. I can do sociology. I can swim in those waters. And Charles is refuting the claims that there is no consensus, no broad agreement. And I could verify that by simply finding out which journals are respected in various fields and taking a layman’s look. In other words, for a layman, the answer is in the library, not graduate level science courses.

349 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 4:13:41pm

re: #345 Obdicut

No, you really can’t think of any arguments to refute that basic understanding. There aren’t any.

No, but you’ll be a lot more convincing if you also understand the basic science behind AGW— or at least if you say that scientific consensus is amazingly unusual, and the scientific consensus behind AGW is overwhelming and needs to be acted upon.

Consensus is not an ordinary thing in science. For it to happen, as it has for AGW, takes an amazing clarity of evidence.

I fully believe you can understand, but if you feel that you can’t, just remember that, sociologically, scientists are not geared to agree. When they do, it’s significant in the largest way.

That was an excellent response!

350 garhighway  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 4:16:20pm

It isn’t that the science is hard. It isn’t. It’s that the politics are hard, given the amount of money the corporate deniers have spent to muddy the waters.

I have no doubt that the free market can generate the technology to help us fix this, if we build a system that properly encourages such innovation. But so long as we obsess over whether China is getting too good a deal and let that impede progress, the problem just gets worse.

The hole is getting deeper every day. But if we spend time whining about whether attendees at Copenhagen flew there or whether Al Gore made too much money on his book, we aid and abet the deniers. That is the conversation they want us to have. So long as we are distracted, they get to do business as usual without regard to the damage they cause.

351 Bob Levin  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 4:24:52pm

Okay, I’m beginning to get this, and the politics are downright insane. Every single time in history there has been a significant innovation in the efficiency of energy use, there has been ensuing prosperity.

There was a time when England had nearly shorn itself of trees, using them for their fleet, the making of glass, burning them for warmth and for cooking. Eventually the trees came back, but only after innovation allowed for the use of coal, which eventually gave way to the use of oil—which is where we are now.

The argument so many anti GW folks make is that the solution will kill the world economy.

See, that’s me doing some sociology.

352 Obdicut  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 6:23:26pm

re: #351 Bob Levin

Climate change will really, really, really kill the world economy.

353 EE  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 6:43:48pm

There is more evidence of the merger of science and politics. It’s getting difficult for the public to tell where one ends and the other begins. And that erodes the public’s confidence in science.

354 Charles Johnson  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 7:42:53pm

re: #353 EE

What’s eroding “the public’s confidence in science” is a very determined and very well-funded PR campaign by the Republican Party and the energy industries, to sow confusion and doubt by spreading disinformation and lies.

355 kittysaidwoof  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 8:33:40pm

There’s far more money to be made on the other side of the argument and skepticism about doomsday scenario is not limited to US, it is abound and increasing throughout Europe where there are pretty much no mainstream parties not in the doomsday camp. And there is a very good reason for that. It provides perfect grounds for increasing taxation.

Also Palin’s position on evolution, which to me is silly, is harmless and should be covered by freedom of religion. So I feel uncomfortable when people demand others to abandon their religious beliefs. It is of course a problem if she wants to stifle teaching of science, which I hope she hasn’t. Has she? But of course due to the fact that you have a significant movement in US that wants to stifle science education I can see how this can be more important issue to you there and it would make sense to pressure her to take a position on the teaching of science.

Oh and I don’t get how you can just omit the word primarily from her sentence like that. The consensus poll in Real Climate only requires you to believe human’s to be a significant contributor not primary contributor. Her inclusion of the word primary means she obviously thinks human’s play a role, just that the role is less than primary. Given she chose this particular word and not for example insignificant sounds to me she is in the consensus camp.

356 kittysaidwoof  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 8:43:28pm

I realize that using word like “on the other side” I actually reinforced the idea that there are just two sides to this argument, which is not what I really believe. Trying to force everybody into just two camps and then demanding purity of though once you’ve been categorized is not conductive to promoting civil discourse on the topic nor to the hope that at some point we start getting sensible solutions.

357 Charles Johnson  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 9:12:54pm

re: #355 kittysaidwoof

I did not leave out any words. Those are exact quotes from her Facebook post, copied and pasted verbatim. Who are you trying to fool?

358 kittysaidwoof  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 9:31:25pm

you say “then denies that humans are causing global warming” she says “not primary”. She doesn’t actually say what you say she does. What she says clearly indicates she thinks humans are contributing and it even fits humans are a significant contributor, which is the consensus the poll Real Climate links to talks about.

359 Charles Johnson  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 9:41:13pm

re: #358 kittysaidwoof

you say “then denies that humans are causing global warming” she says “not primary”. She doesn’t actually say what you say she does. What she says clearly indicates she thinks humans are contributing and it even fits humans are a significant contributor, which is the consensus the poll Real Climate links to talks about.

If you continue lying about what I posted I’m going to block your account.

360 Charles Johnson  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 9:47:01pm

In fact, I’m not going to wait for you to lie any more. So long. Go find another website to do your little denial song and dance, you’re not welcome here.

361 Bob Levin  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 10:11:18pm

re: #345 Obdicut

I just thought I’d mention this, because it’s one of the things that people are thinking about when the topic of Global Warming comes up. And it’s one of those refutations I immediately thought about.

Ever since the sixties there has been one Doomsday prediction after another, the Population Bomb, among others—years ago, Mark Steyn listed about ten if I recall—and it jogged my memory because they all came and went and each crisis never materialized.

So one of the walls you have to break through is that people have grown a natural skepticism to calls of impending disaster. And these were all secular disasters. I’m not even counting the many many religious countdowns to the end of the world.

And that’s a pretty strong argument to overcome because this ennui has become a Pavlovian response every time someone predicts disaster—especially for non scientists who are completely powerless in the face of this. Paradoxically, people have an extraordinary amount of faith in science, that someone will figure out a way to solve this. This psychology is deeply ingrained, even in people who project (as in the psychological defense mechanism) an anti-science stance, because every day, just about every moment, we interact with some technology that we don’t understand—we just flip the switch, tap the keyboard, all with implicit faith that it’s going to work, and something new and wonderful is just around the corner.

The paradoxes just keep coming. Because as you elaborate on this issue, surely you can’t also be saying that this is the one problem that scientists won’t be able to solve. That idea, that science won’t be able to solve a problem, is terrifying in the modern world. Like it or not, this is the swamp of human psychology that you jump into when you talk about GW. And you can see why it’s just so much easier for people to want to simply deny the whole thing.

No doubt you’ve noticed that none of this has anything to do with the objective facts of the effects on CO2 on the atmosphere. And it doesn’t. That’s what you have to fight through; this psychology is just as real and the CO2.

That’s the down side. The up side is that people are also eager to incorporate some item into their lives that will help solve the crisis they don’t fully accept—because of the deeply held faith in science that every person on this planet possesses, whether they want to admit it or not.

363 abolitionist  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 2:39:33am

re: #121 lawhawk

Breaking:

Official says that US has killed a high ranking al Qaeda terrorist in a UAV airstrike. They wont confirm who was killed except to say that it wasn’t Osama bin Laden.

re: #124 Sharmuta

Please let it be zawahiri.

Found this surprisingly info-rich document (PDF) about Zawahiri:
Ayman al-Zawahiri, A Mythic Figure or Fringe Leader within the Islamist Political Movement
[Link: ctc.usma.edu…]

(Please don’t be put off by the title.)


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
Ranked-Choice Voting Has Challenged the Status Quo. Its Popularity Will Be Tested in November. JUNEAU — Alaska’s new election system — with open primaries and ranked voting — has been a model for those in other states who are frustrated by political polarization and a sense that voters lack real choice at the ...
Cheechako
3 weeks ago
Views: 299 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 2