Climate Change And Politics
As with most of the other issues facing us, our political conversation about climate change and what to do about it basically just involves yelling at each other.
Unlike Mitt Romney, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum isn’t straying from the conservative line on the issue of climate change:
Rick Santorum is no Mitt Romney when it comes to global warming science.
Appearing Wednesday on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show, the former Pennsylvania GOP senator jumped at the chance to distinguish himself from his Massachusetts rival by displaying his climate skeptic credentials.
“I believe the earth gets warmer and I also believe the earth gets cooler,” Santorum said. “And I think history points out that it does that and that the idea that man, through the production of CO2 — which is a trace gas in the atmosphere, and the man-made part of that trace gas is itself a trace gas — is somehow responsible for climate change is, I think, just patently absurd when you consider all the other factors, El Niño, La Niña, sunspots, moisture in the air. There’s a variety of factors that contribute to the Earth warming and cooling.”
Santorum’s remarks contrast with those of Romney, who on Friday told a town hall crowd in Manchester, N.H., that “I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that.”
Limbaugh blasted Romney on his radio show for the remarks. “Bye-bye, nomination,” the conservative commentator said.
Later in the program, he turned to Santorum for comment. Unlike Romney and some of the other GOP presidential candidates, the former senator has never backed cap-and-trade legislation or other mandatory policies to curb greenhouse gases.
“To me, this is an opportunity for the left to create — it’s really a beautifully concocted scheme because they know that the earth is gonna cool and warm,” Santorum said. “And so it’s been on a warming trend so they said, ‘Oh, let’s take advantage of that and say that we need the government to come in and regulate your life some more because it’s getting warmer.’ Just like they did in the ’70s when it was getting cooler. They needed the government to come in and regulate your life because it’s getting cooler.
“It’s just an excuse for more government control of your life,” Santorum added. “And I’ve never been for any scheme or even accepted the junk science behind the whole narrative.”
Santorum’s comment strikes me as a perfect example of what’s wrong with the way both sides of the political aisle handle the “climate change” debate (and calling it “climate change” is really kind of silly because the climate is always changing). As I see it, the issue really involves three separate questions, only one of which is political:
I. Is the climate of the Earth changing?
This is in many ways, both the most simplistic, and the most important, question of all. The short answer is, yes the climate is changing. We know from examining fossil records, stone stratas, sediments in the ocean, and ice cores from both poles that the climate has changed dramatically, and many times, over the 4.5 billion years or that the Earth has been a functioning ecosystem. According to some theories, it was dramatic and quick changes in the climate that led to many of the mass extension periods that the Earth has experienced over its lifetime, including the extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs and made the rise of mammals possible. We also know that temporary changes in the climate can occur, such as the various Ice Ages that have shaped the geography of Europe and North America, the “Little Ice Age” of the 16th through 19th Centuries, and the worldwide climate change that happened after the eruption of Mount Krakatoa.
So, yes, the climate is changing, it’s changed before and it will change again. That’s what a living ecosystem does.
The more complicated question is whether the present climate is changing at a faster rate in the past, or at least at a faster rate than we might be able to adapt to without causing major property loss from rising sea levels and disruptions to agriculture. Here, the consensus seems to be that the global climate is changing at a rapid pace, for example there seem to be major changes occurring in Arctic to the point where there might actually be a Northwest Passage in 40 years or so. Given that this is science, though, there’s disagreement on many of these issues. and at least some suggestion that some of the data supporting the consensus hypothesis may be exaggerated. But this is a scientific question, not a political one. Asking a political candidate there opinion on this issue strikes me as making about as much sense as asking them how they feel about String Theory or Quantum Physics. Unless they are actually trained in the field, they aren’t going to know what they’re talking about.
Which brings us to the second question
II. What is causing the climate to change?
Since it’s already pretty clear that the climate of the Earth changes on an ongoing basis, this strikes me as being somewhat of a trick question. The climate will change no matter what conscious or unconscious choice we make. Man is as much part of the ecosystem as cows and whales are, and we all impact the environment in different ways. In fact, man has been impacting the climate of the Earth since the day that the first caveman lit the first fire, sending carbon and other elements into the air. Again, this strikes me as a scienitific question rather than a political, but it’s the one that gets wrapped up the most in politics.
Among some environmentalists, it seems as though the attitude exists that man is somehow an irritant to the Earth’s ecosystem, rather than part of it. They seem to give more of a moral claim to cows, or forest fires, than they do to human beings who build a factory that makes clothes to keep them warm. This is both illogical, and entirely wrong. Man is part of the environment, but that doesn’t mean he has to live like a savage, or that his civilization is a bad thing. The Earth would continue exist if we weren’t around, but it would be a planet full of animals who act mostly on instinct, not an intelligent species. We shouldn’t have to apologize for who we are, and we shouldn’t have to harm our standard of living in the name of some idiotic vision of Gaia.
On the right, though, things aren’t much better. They don’t seem to think we need to worry about anything we do, that we could have continued belching unfitted soot into the skies without worrying about it. That’s simply foolish, as anyone who lived in the Northeastern United States in the 70s and 80s and remembers the term “acid rain” can tell you. Treating the environment foolishly is, well, foolish. And answering the environmentalists by saying we don’t need to do anything is little more than putting your hands over your eyes and playing a game of “See No Evil.”
So, that brings us to the final question.
III. What, if anything, should we do to avert climate change?
This is the only question that I think is wholly political, because it involves making appropriate choices, and keeping in mind a few simple facts.
First, even if we turned off every bit of electricity and every device that spews carbon into the atmosphere, it would likely have very little impact on the immediate future. Not even counting the widespread use of fire before then, the Industrial Revolution has been a fact of life on Earth for more than 200 years, if there is any impact to be had from that, we’re going to feel it whether we like it or not. Of course, doing something like this would be entirely unreasonable, but then so would imposing onerous restrictions on automobile companies that result in more expensive cars that don’t necessarily contribute much to “saving” the environment. There needs to be a cost benefit analysis that takes in account the costs that any of these ideas imposes on society along with the supposed benefits they would bring about, because not every “pro-environment” reform is worth the costs it would impose. We also need to reconsider the idea of whether using a command-and-control model to bring about these changes is really the best way to do things. Several environmental economists have written over the past several years about so-called “Free Market Environmentalism,” and their ideas ought to be considered.
There’s a way of approaching this issue intelligently. Unfortunately, largely because of a view on the right that seems to say any discussion of “climate change” as the pathway to communism, it’s an impossible one to have. Which pretty much describes the status of every important issue facing the country today.
There’s other reasons to “go green” other than climate change. Public health and economic stand out. If we stopped using coal/nat gas/oil for energy production, that would reduce the amount of heavy metals in the air, which would reduce cancer clusters, parkinson’s and a whole host of diseases/long term conditions. Also, getting off fossil fuels and on to renewables will lessen our dependence on those limited resources, which will dramatically help out overall economy(not to mention that we could sell those technologies around the world).
Once again there is zero proof for this and it is not more than a theory, a well debunked one at that.
See it’s not that hard:)
Hey:)
I kind of like part two except for the reliance on debunked theory again.
Part three also I like, but I think the green communism is plan for all to see.Oh and we have scientific consensus on the right too.
Man is part of the environment, but that doesn’t mean he has to live like a savage, or that his civilization is a bad thing.
The vast majority of environmentalists make no arguments to suggest they believe man should live like a savage, or that civilization is a bad thing. Your attempt to lump all the left and environmentalists with the Earth First! crowd is disingenuous. One can live in an advanced civilization while simultaneously trying to reduce the negative impact of that civilization on the environment, and that is the argument of almost all environmentalists.
Your framing of the argument:
The Left: Human civilization is bad for the Earth and we should go back to hunter/gatherer tribes.
The Right: Climate change is a hoax. We should do nothing differently.
The actual argument:
The Left: Humans are contributing to global warming which will have very destructive consequences for humans, animal life, and the future of civilization on our planet. We should work to minimize our negative impact as soon as possible.
The Right: Climate change is a hoax. We should do nothing differently.
See what I’m talking about? Young Earthers are the base and the leadership of the American right. They think the Earth is a 6000 year old gift from a supernatural being that humans can do whatever they want with, because the good ones will just get raptured when it all goes to shit. How can you have a debate about science and policy with people like that involved? You cannot.
Maybe I am picking at nits but… No no I’m not.
Doug, there is a BIG difference between the carbon that comes from a campfire and the carbon that comes from burning an equal amount of coal. The carbon in the wood of a campfire is being released a year or 2 (or3 or 4) early (it would have been released anyway by rotting). The carbon in coal has been locked away in the depths of the earth for hundreds of millions of years, removed from the atmosphere and sequestered. Same with oil, natural gas, methane, etc.
This why we have a problem. It is not just the carbon in the atmosphere (and trees, plants, animals etc) now, it is also all the carbon that has ever existed in the history of our planet, all of it being dumped will nilly into the atmosphere.
As to this:
nothing more needs to be said.
100% of the peer-reviewed science says that humans are impacting/increasing the rate of climate change. one hundred percent. there is no controversy here. there is no right or left, red team or blue team. there is no peer-reviewed science that says humans are not impacting/increasing the rate of climate change. none.
as eloquently stated elsewhere today we can have a political discussion about how to deal with it. it may in fact be that to reverse human’s impact on climate change would require an expenditure and/or cultural change that is impossible. i am open to that point of view. i am not open to any dispute that it is happening – unless and until it is peer-reviewed science. clowns like a. j. strata can cherry pick and stove-pipe data all day long. until it is peer-reviewed it is junk science. if the science was real it would be peer-reviewed.
many changes can be made that just make sense whether you believe in science or not. in many instances you can argue that climate change is besides the point. getting off fossil fuels and dependence on the middle east has benefits far beyond climate change. preserving clean air and reducing the incidence of asthma makes sense whether there is climate change or not. figuring out a way to use abundant natural resources makes sense whether there is climate chnage or not – this is a conservative point of view.
Well I dont think you have to limit it to “Climate is changing”, that is too soft a statement. The climate is warming. The evidence for that is overwhelming, just look at the evidence of the last 200 years.
Is this because of man made greenhouse gases or a natural process as we emerge from the little ice age? That is a more interesting questions. BTW, we are assuming that the little ice age is the abnormal pattern but we live in an long tern age of ice. Are we sure that the little ice age is not actually norm and the warming is abnormal? Our data is actually not very good past 150 years or so.
In any case a large % of the people who actually study this say we are warming and man made gases are contributing to the warming. Fine, they know better than me and as a software guy, I know how stupid even smart people sound when they talk about things they dont understand so I have no problem going with the science.
What to do about it? That is a big issue, much bigger than most people realize. Weather is a discontinuous system. By definition, you can not understand how a discontinuous system will behave based on the size of the inputs. Small inputs can have large results, large inputs can have small results. Because if that I am dubious of schemes that say by reducing carbon we can get the environment to stop warming. Maybe, maybe not.
The state of the climate is different now that it was before the extra carbon was put into the system. One of the characteristics of discontinuous systems is that subtracting what you have added does not get you back to where you starter. Taking carbon out of a system will put you in a different climate that you had before the carbon was added.
Bottom line, we dont actually know what the result will be. I am OK with any scheme that would reduce current emission’s as long as they have a strong secondary benefit. Like a carbon tax would make it cheaper to burn cleaner fuel options resulting in cleaner air. But any scheme that actively pulls carbon out of the climate is a scarily dangerous scheme. We could do a lot more damage than global warming currently is.
Your answer to II, despite calling it a scientific question, has little science in it. In fact, you go off on what you feel environmentalists must feel, in a second-level emotional analysis.
FWIW, nature is full of superposition of signals, and climate is easily that. There are influences ranging literally from the size of the sun to the size of a single atom. The scientific task is not to worry what the environmentalists think, but to extract the impacts of (broadly speaking) industrialization as distinct from the others.
One useful self-check on that is that if the impacts of industrialization are large enough to be seen, then they are real.
I do have to say it is interesting watching the death of empirical science in this and a return to the dialectic appeal to “experts” and calm all has been revealed. Apropos, I guess, empirical science put an
enddamper to the Aristotelean and Church-dominated expert view giving rise to the skeptical, transparent, independently-verified scientific method. And that doesn’t mean you and your cronies get to sign off on each others work, it means providing the data to your worst doubter so that they can search out mistakes.For a reasoned view of “Greenhouse” gases, here is a good article
For a climate prediction that has been tracking the data for over 30 yrs now, go here. in short, in 1979, the prediction was warming until the year 2000 (temps peaked in 2001) and then 30 yrs of very cold. Remember this was contemporary with the environmental community was selling global cooling and the coming ice age.
Oops, I meant to point out that the rise of empirical science facilitated the evil Industrial Revolution with it’s facilitation of innovation through experimental study.
When you put in this claim it really is a red-flag that the rest is horse shit.
Is says that you can’t make a factual argument, not just about current science, but about history as well. There was a brief popular-press hurahh about coming ice ages, and that was all. It wasn’t the scientists, and it wasn’t “the environmental community.”
It was just some sensational press misinterpreting the simple and well known idea that ice ages come and go. Somebody said “hey there hasn’t been one in a while, we’re due.”
That was all.
And yet so many are ready to turn away now ..
I do think some on the left — some — have made this more difficult than it needs to be. There is within the environmentalists a subset who seem to have disdain for their own species and to have a knee-jerk negative response to any change that does not result in more trees.
But the reality is that this small group, obnoxious though they may be, have been seized upon by an utterly irresponsible right wing noise machine and blow out of all proportion.
As we see with GA above: how the hell do you even discuss the topic when a substantial percentage of the GOP are cretins who think the world is 6000 years old? More to the point, how can the GOP discuss the matter intelligently when they have to pander to these people?
On our side we have some people with a palpable dislike of human development. But on the other side we have mental patients who believe in unicorns. This is not a “pox on both houses” situation, it’s a case of “annoying-but-sane” vs. “out-of-their-minds.”
“Hide the Decline.”
I keep pointing to American Theocracy, because the Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is not as unusual as many of us may think (in our educated enclaves).
I would suspect that many here are just quiet YECists
I did not read all of them, but I read enough to see the leaked docs from East Anglia are being ignored by some who post here. I guess if you do not believe in God, you must believe in something. Talk about believing in something not provable. AGW Scientis David Evans debunked AGW last month. The significance of that is he is a former advocate, not an employee of the Oil Industry. Same for Physist William Happer who wrote why this is bunk in the Magazine First Things this month. I know this. Be it getting warmer or cooler. The solution is not political. That is just the opportunity to grow government. You are right Doug. We on the right think it is bunk and that is because there is evidence the data was manipulated to represent a desired outcome. That is not science. Hockey stick anyone? This is what happens when acadamia, science and politics have access to tax dollars.
JKB,
To this crowd, the only problem with your argument are the sources you cite:
William Happer is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University.
What could this person possibly know? He lacks either a law or political science degree. I fear that Happer, Watts, you, me and others will all fall prey to the liberals who now want to tattoo our foreheads to identify us as “deniers”.
Those of us who demand that scientific declarations are made within an open process, available for review by skeptics and with all base data exposed to the light of day are a threat to the religion of global warming. As Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” taught us, when claims are checked and statements are examined, “facts” that liberals were willing to spend hundreds of billions of our money to fix turned into a laughing stock of misrepresentations and outright lies.
People who lack confidence in their own intelligence (most with good reason) tend to be easily led and mislead. They grow hysterical exaggerating each over-hyped particle of junk science and bond in the mob mentality that only they know the real truth. As actual science intervenes, the less dull lemmings will fall away from the crowd, just as the Global Cooling panic subsided when reason prevailed.
Until then, all we can do is prevent the fools from shutting down the entire economy with yet another ill-conceived program to cure an imaginary crisis.
The GOP base has checked in, I see: Dumb, Dumber and Dumbest.
What’s more likely, that pretty much every climate researcher on the planet has been brainwashed into concluding that human activity is driving global warming, or people like Phillips, JKB, and jwest are idiots who reflexively oppose anything supported by liberals and as such gleefully believe any energy-industry funded anti-science crap that comes their way? Occam’s Razor.
Mantis,
You say that research funded by oil companies is tainted, but there have been no claims by anyone that their data is unavailable for review. As with all liberals, you totally discount the motives of someone like Michael Mann who may have thought that through manipulating his data, he could move out of his hovel of a cubical, make more than $39,500 a year and possibly get laid.
Use what little logic and reasoning power you have and ask the hard questions. When people hide something, most times they have something to hide.
Grow government? To do what? Why? I dont know anyone who wants government to be bigger just for the sake of being bigger? This argument always escapes me. Guess you have to be a conspiracy theorist.
Steve
j west and stoner…
link to one – just one – peer reviewed paper that disputes human impact on climate change. just one. remember – it has to be peer-reviewed.
The jwest, the crushing irony is that you want to be an ignorant denier, and you want respect for it.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/david-evans-understanding-goes-cold.html
It’s long. It responds to Evans’ criticisms one by one. I’m no more of a climate scientist (or other sort of scientist) than anyone posting here, but I found it convincing. YMMV.
The three rabid right wingers who have posted so far have displayed, perfectly, what Doug was talking about with respect to having a reasonable conversation about this stuff with folks on the Right.
We could have a conversation with a guy like Doug. I might think he’s wrong about this or that detail, but I get the sense we could sit down and talk about crafting a policy response to the warming. We could talk cost-benifit. We could talk about the diplomacy required to get around the Tragedy of the Commons problem (and despair at the difficulty together).
This is also true with healthcare policy. Again, we’d have disagreements, but we could have a reasonable conversation and, maybe, reach an agreement. Even if not, the disagreement would be grounded in facts to the best of our abilities (that can get tricky, obviously, when you’re dealing with theoretical policies – you don’t know 100% what the outcomes will be, no matter how careful you are).
But that’s not how the conversation is going. It’s not a conversation at all. It’s a screaming match. So yeah, Doug nailed it.
Yes, of course. Here are some quotes from the “reasonable” side in this thread.
Sorry, but I see no attempt to understand, engage or convince. Merely a great deal of “my, aren’t everyone who agrees with me clever and righteous” as evidenced by the oh so witty ad hominems with a little True Scotsmen thrown in here and there. But YMMV.
As should be clear from the above post, most on left treats manmade global warming as a religion. There is no way you can discussed this reasonably with them.
I am from the right but I don’t think the earth is 6000 year old. In their eyes almost if not everyone on the right thinks this even though it is very small % with some of them being liberal.
There are many on the left that won’t acknowledge basic facts. Like that not all carbon from trees ends up in the atmosphere. They also like to pretend that whatever is release in the atmosphere stays there. How long it stays there is very debatable. Estimates range from 10 to 500 year with most thinking it is between 50 to 200 years. So much of your industrial release CO2 may no longer be in the atmosphere. Of course much of the plant growth stimulating CO2 that plants absorbs are not that old. It is a matter of “guessing” the average age of CO2 which is big guest.
Almost all of the global climate “sciences” are still in the infantile stage. However the left treats it as hard unquestionable facts. Also they will only look at and\or acknowledge those finding that fits their agenda.
The interesting thing about that is that the right has a more rational, if marginally less moral, position open to them:
“Climate change is real, but I don’t care.”
I suppose they’ll get there someday, and we’ll be stuck a the cost-benefit talk … but it really is strange. Believing climate change doesn’t really force action. The emotional denial really is non-strategic.
Seriously dude, since I don’t treat it as a religion, this opening tells me to blow off whatever else you have to say. You aren’t being fact based.
I’m actually open minded enough that I went back and forth on climate change belief a few times before I thought concurrent real-time events (rate of ice sheet retreat) cinched it. It was science for me.
So, anybody who waves ‘climate change religion” at me must be a nutter.
I suppose you think the EPA scientists are priests and so won’t really look at this, but still:
Health and Environmental Effects – Polar Regions
Austin pulls a quote and claims it is an unreasonable representation of the rights views:
“…Yes, of course. Here are some quotes from the “reasonable” side in this thread….
The Right: Climate change is a hoax. We should do nothing differently…”
The we have party leader Rush Limbaugh saying: “…We’re in the midst here of discovering that this is all a hoax. The last year has established that the whole premise of man-made global warming is a hoax, and we still have presidential candidates that want to buy into it…”
Again the wingnuts on the so-called right are claiming it is unreasonable to quote them directly.
Sigh.
JP
Anytime you treat science as being unquestionable then you are not treating it as science.
Some others
You claim the right is unreasonable because they supposedly won’t even consider that something must be done to counter manmade global warming. However many of you won’t even consider that something may not need to be done. What does that make those people?
After all I don’t believe anybody has stated what the ideal temperature should be. Also please recognize there is a big difference between not believing that something needs to be done about supposed Manmade Global warming and not believing in “any” environmental protection measures.
I don’t think either side in the debate is particularly open to approaching the issue intelligently…why just lay it on the right? The left treats environmentalism as if it were a religion.
I think the world is getting warmer, but I am not sure what if anything people have to do with that…but even if people did contribute it…we are not going to start washing our clothes on a rock down at the river.
So, if a guy like Romney wants to believe this stuff, he has every right to do it…just so long as he does not try to drive up energy prices in some attempt to stop people from using it. It won’t work.
JP
EPA are hacks and do their masters bidding. They have gotten way out of controlled with their power grabs and need to be yank back. Many of the environmentalist studies have been shown to be greatly misleading or outright lies.
First, start with the basics.
Here’s Ross McKitrick explaining the hockey stick graph.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1k4mFZr-gE&feature=related
Actually if you actually read the papers (try Nature, Science etc), you’ll find that most scientists are pretty cautious about making claims of the relative weight of anthropogenic vs natural causes for climate change. However, outside of published papers most also take the position that if you’re paddling on a river and you’re not sure if the roar you hear ahead is a shootable set of rapids or a huge waterfall, its a good idea to get out and look before you get there.
The climate is an extremely complex system which we’re just beginning to understand. Arguably that suggests “proceed with caution” rather than “full steam ahead”.
Wayne do you know what a “self-sealer” is? They are a very dangerous mental pattern:
“These are arguments that are set up in such a way that nothing could possibly refute them; thus, they seal themselves off from criticism. We can bring out just why they are objectionable in a couple of ways … ” Read it.
Students of philosophy avoid them because they are so corrosive to reason.
Once you say that you don’t believe scientists, because you don’t believe scientists, you are lost.
If the left treated it as a religion, then they would probably take their cues from religious leaders. They do not.
Instead, they take their cues from scientists. Which indicates that they treat it as a science.
Where does the right take their cues from?
TG, the “projection” the right sees might show where they are coming from. If GW threatens religion, then scientists must be a competing religion.
FYI – Ross McKitrick is an economist who works with another guy, Stephen McIntyre, who is a prospecter. McKitrick also is part of an evangelical organization that believes: “…Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory…”
So I guess J West’s point is don’t worry – God has our back. She couldn’t possibly care if we muck up her planet.
Ask for peer-reviewed science – you get youtube.com
My work here is done…
geoerge makes an excellent point – the science is not so black and white as politicians and commenters on political blogs would like it to be. however if posited as a hoax/not hoax duality…
@Mataconis: Was there really any need for the false equivalence “both sides do it” part of your post?
I mean, just look at the comments section. Do you see any lefties embracing the Gaia/savage stuff? Nope. Do you see any rightwingers completely denying the problem? Yes; all of them.
You say:
In fact, on the right, things are much worse. Because the Gaia nonsense is only believed by a very tiny powerless fringe on the left. But climate denialism is the default position of the Republican Party! How can you begin to compare these two groups? They’re wildly out of scale.
Really, what did you gain by including the Gaia part? How did that help your post?
@jwest – you are correct. I don’t know why I try. Of course, a physicist could never understand a natural phenomena like a “climate scientist.” That error right there always amuses me.
I once had a “climate scientist” of an oceanography bent stand right in front of the Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler and tell me diurnal disappearance of the Equatorial current being shown on the ADCP doesn’t happen. That there weren’t diurnal impacts. Which I found odd as when I incorporated the slacking into my drift plan, then next morning I stayed on track and about 10 am local time, the heavy current returned like gangbusters as expected. But what did I know, I just took an measured sensor observation, incorporated it into a real world plan independent of the sensor and found my actual results closely tracked my predicted track. He had one of them pecker head degrees. Fortunately, his opinion was extraneous to my work. It had been my hope that I just had encountered a bad researcher who lacked curiosity and an open mind. Sadly, I think he was the new norm.
Britain is well on its way to destruction with their climate laws, if we can hold off until their suffering becomes evident, there is a chance of saving America.
@mantis – well in crimes, even intellectual ones, it is best to follow the money. Some 19 years ago, I got it right from a guy who oversaw NOAA climate research grants that the reason they didn’t fund hypotheses that didn’t seek to prove AGW, was that they weren’t true. And odd policy for a “scientific” agency. Just decide what was true on the front end? As for the “researchers”, instead of throwing their data on the internet and telling all who challenge them to have at it, show them where they made a mistake, which is how real science is done, Your climate scientists have tried very hard to avoid having their work checked by their skeptics. That in and of itself is a red flag.
I’m reminded of a saying in cryptography. Anyone can design an encryption algorithm they can’t break. Which is why any algorithm worth its salt is exposed to as many attackers, “researchers,” as possible before it is deemed ready for use.
For centuries, bloodletting was settled medical science.
People like Norm made sure the skeptics were branded and burned.
@JKB
Not falling for it. Present some peer-reviewed science to support your position, not personal anecdotes you made up while web surfing for a rebuttal.
For centuries, bloodletting was settled medical science.
No, it wasn’t. Stop lying.
not in the same sense that a cow is (to use your example organism). We certainly ultimately rely on the environment but the fact that we have developed such powerful technology means we are no longer constrained by the environment to particular niches, there are no more natural controls on our population except for the ultimate carrying capacity of the planet itself. And we’re able to dramatically remake the environment , in the most extreme example wiping out the vast majority of land species through world wide nuclear war.
Even without going to that extreme we are essentially terraforming (anthroforming?) the planet from the natural environment to man’s environment. I use the distinction deliberately. Now there’s nothing holy about the natural environment or unholy about man’s environment but the natural environment is a lot more stable and man’s environment is a lot more delicate and easily sabotaged. This is because the natural environment is a product of billions of years of adaption and change to produce the negative feedback loops that create stability while man’s environment has often be produced most chaotically and under fairly asinine assumptions. Moderate disruptions to transport or electrical networks would cause substantial famine in many parts of the world (including here) as just one example.
For centuries, bloodletting was settled medical science.
But now heart transplants are routine. And they work.
There have been a few advances made in other sciences as well.
@Doug
Is the climate of the Earth changing?
Yes, from a period of stability lasting the entire holocene.
What is causing the climate to change?
Something has to force the climate to change. It isn’t the sun, as it has been unusually stable since the 1950’s. In fact, we’re at the tail end of the deepest solar minimum in a century, and yet 2010 was still the warmest year on record.
It isn’t the planet’s orbit, because at this point in the current Milankovich Cycle we should see very mild cooling.
It isn’t cosmic rays, or water vapor or volcanos. Every possibility other than CO2 has been researched and dismissed over the 115 years since anthropogenic global warming was first proposed.
Most “climate” research has nothing to do with AGW. A major recipient of grants is just related to fluid flow, much of it on computational methods for dealing with large scale non-linear systems, and then you have studies on cloud formation (a major unsolved problem in climate models – both short term like your daily weather predictions and long term as what will happen a century for now).
If you follow the money, you’ll find very little of climate research has anything to do with AGW – most of it is pure research on fundamental systems.
That simply isn’t true. For a start, water vapor is almost certainly a larger player than CO2 – the argument is that it hasn’t changed, but there’s still debate on that, as small percentage changes in water vapor can make a large difference, especially since the effect is cross linked to cloud formation. As well, we’re not that certain about variations in the suns affect on cloud formation. Or how plants interact with it (there’s huge debates about incorporating biological systems into the models, they’re mainly parametrized right now, instead of being calculated on first principle … actually also true for cloud formation).
The climate really is extremely complex, and we really don’t understand what’s going on to any great degree. Again, that suggests proceed with caution.
The American Physical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the Royal Society of London, the Royal Meteorological Society, and the IPCC all find that atmospheric warming is taking place and is caused by human activity. To my best knowledge, Richard Lindzen at MIT is the only well known atmospheric scientist who remains skeptical. When he writes on this subject I pay attention – he’s smart, he has integrity, and he asks the right questions. If the doubters posting in this thread had referenced Lindzen, or even Freeman Dyson, a great scientist who doesn’t know dick about atmospheric science but writes about it anyway, or if they talked about the real problems in climate modeling – how to treat boundary layer turbulence, how to parameterize cloud microphysics, difficulties in the numerical procedures, for example – I’d respect their opinions. But they didn’t. They’re ignorant about the subject and about science in general, and they’re stupid to pontificate about things they don’t understand. Charles Barkley was right when he said the Republicans had lost their mind.
TG Chicago says:
Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 16:44
As should be clear from the above post, most on left treats manmade global warming as a religion.
If the left treated it as a religion, then they would probably take their cues from religious leaders. They do not.
Instead, they take their cues from scientists. Which indicates that they treat it as a science.
Where does the right take their cues from?
TG:
What scientists do they take their cues from? Not long ago there were some emails leaked from East Anglia university which pointed to a huge cover up within the AGW camp and so far the reaction from the left has been…so what? They deal with the issue by just putting their hands over their ears and saying lalalalala…..I don’t hear anything..So before they get all snarky and talk about how rational and scientific they are vs the knuckle draggers on the right..maybe they should deal with their own scandals.
Thus far other than scaring people, coming up questionable data and making totally unreasonable and workable demands what have these socalled scientists accomplished.
@George
Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. The only way to increase water vapor in the atmosphere is to increase its temperature. Water vapor can only enhance a pre-existing warming trend.
And since solar activity has been flat for nearly sixty years, it’s highly unlikely solar activity is fundamentally altering the planet’s cloud-cover.
@terrye
Identify one email demonstating a “cover-up”.
The appeals to authority are mind boggling. The use of the word consensus is antithetical to science. The fact that some modelers have gone to great lengths to not disclose their data or methods should be a great big red flag for anyone who claims to support science.
Albert Einstein was awarded his Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect because his theory of relativity was still too controversial. Peptic ulcers are now known to be caused by bacteria even though everyone knew this couldn’t be true for a long, long time. Alfred Wegener died thirty years before his theory of continental drift was accepted. Yada, yada, yada.
“The use of the word consensus is antithetical to science.”
That’s completely untrue. Science is about forming a consensus view of reality through empirical data and models. Really. Relativity didn’t get accepted because Einstein said so but because he was able to convincingly demonstrate the idea and no one was able to convincingly refute it.
@Charles
Hmm, so you’re saying that only long after some brave pioneer puts forward a controversial idea does a consensus emerge.
Sort of like Svante Arrenhius’ anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, which he introduced in 1896. He was completely ignored until the 1940’s, when the air force started funding a lot of atmospheric research and people realized our previous understanding was incomplete. Now, 115 years later, scientists finally accept anthropogenic global warming.
I guess Arrenhius, Einstein and Wegner had a lot in common.
Cliffs notes of the misinformation from the AGW deniers:
JKB: “I get my scientific data from religion web sites (first things)”
Rock: “climategate!!!11!1!1!!!1111”
Wiley: “Of course AGW isn’t happening, ‘first things’ said so”
jwest: “ignore the scientists, go with the oil companies and youtube”
charles austin: “you big meanies, saying the righties here think climate change is a hoax. how dare you”
Wayne: “ignore JKB/Wiley, this is a religion for the left”
Terrye: “i’ll pretend to be reasonable, but actually repeat the standard right wing talking points”
Plenty of reasonable statements from the realists, unfortunately I think every response from the right actually proves Doug’s point that they don’t even think there is a problem and are happy to ignore it.
Global warning started 21,000 years ago during the last glacial maximum. The melting of the alpine glaciers and the polar ice caps is just a continuation of a process that started then.
Fourth question. Is global warming a bad thing?
@Southern Hoosier
Current warming is not a continuation of the onset of the holocence.
@Southern Hoosier
P.S.
The last Glacial Maximum ended 12,000 years ago, not 21,000.
Is global warming a bad thing?
For the Earth? No. For humans, and many other species living here? Yes. It will be extremely destructive over time.
Of course, this all depends on how you define “bad.” A lot of you Christians types seem to revel in the idea of nature killing lots of people. Tradition!
The American Physical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the Royal Society of London, the Royal Meteorological Society, and the IPCC all find that atmospheric warming is taking place and is caused by human activity.
All pawns of George Soros! Or, umm, Alinsky, or something! Socialism!
The climate really is extremely complex, and we really don’t understand what’s going on to any great degree.
Who’s this “we” you reference? Got a mouse in your pocket?
@ Ben Wolf
http://goo.gl/wpSIz
http://goo.gl/t9bKl
Re “Once you say that you don’t believe scientists, because you don’t believe scientists, you are lost.”
I never said that. Taken another way though “Once you say that you believe scientists, because you believe scientists, you are lost”.
If you are not willing to look at findings in a skeptical way and\or consider what the skeptics of those findings say then you just blindly trusting what the scientist\preacher of that finding tells you. Also it is foolish to not look at possible conflict of interest of those scientist\preacher.
Granted that doesn’t mean their findings are completely wrong but it should raise some flags if for example their paychecks and funding depend on their findings. Blindly following those that have been caught misleading and\lying is also foolish. Does it mean they are lying this time? No but the probability is higher.
Blindly following someone wither you call them scientist\preacher\imam\the great zohan\etc is acting religiously. It doesn’t have to be a establish religion.
And yes many of the manmade global warming crowd are “self-sealers”.
If the hurricane season is high it is due to MMGW. If it is low it is due to MMFW. A harsh winter is due to MMGW. If not then it is due to MMGW. Oceans get warmer it due to MMGW. If it gets cooler it is due to MMGW. Whatever happens it is due to MMGW.
Sounds like a self-sealer crowd to me.
@Southern Hoosier
You aren’t getting your terminology right. The maimum extent of glacial coverage was 21,000 years ago during he height of the previous Glacial Maximum. The Glacial Maximum ended 12,000 years ago.
Your second link is also incorrect. The planet is still in an ice age, the same ice age which existed 12,000 years ago and 21,000 years ago.
Extending the growing season in the Arctic regions is a bad thing for food production?
Yeah some plants and animals will loose out. Others will adapt to climate change and still others will do quite will as they extend their range north.
Where can I find the paper which claims all that?
If you are not willing to look at findings in a skeptical way and\or consider what the skeptics of those findings say then you just blindly trusting what the scientist\preacher of that finding tells you.
That’s fine unless if you only listen to skeptics, without understanding they science of which they are skeptical. I’ve encountered very, very few skeptics who actually understand the science they question. On the other hand, almost every single scientist trained and working in the field of climate science today recognizes that human activity is warming the planet.
Granted that doesn’t mean their findings are completely wrong but it should raise some flags if for example their paychecks and funding depend on their findings.
Climate scientists’ paychecks do not depend on their findings. Energy-industry funded denialists, on the other hand, are paid to spread pre-conceived conclusions.
Extending the growing season in the Arctic regions is a bad thing for food production?
No, but drowning cities is a bad thing for the people living in them, and disrupting ecosystems is a bad thing for food production.
Yeah some plants and animals will loose out. Others will adapt to climate change and still others will do quite will as they extend their range north.
Tell it to the dead and starving folks.
I’d suggest reading actual science on the subject.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm
@ Ben Wolf
It seems like everyone has their terminology wrong execpt you.
http://goo.gl/jr8Km
@Southern Hoosier
You’ve switched from the term Last Glacial Maximum to Late Glacial Maximum. You aren’t very good at this.
If our coastal cities were in danger of drowning, wouldn’t our government be taking some sort of action? Like a building moratorium below the 20 foot contour? Or begin moving cites inland? Or building levies to protect coastal areas? Or not rebuilding places like New Orleans?
glancing thru this thread? I can only say, “Boy, am I glad I have a life.”
Wayne, the idea that the scientific consensus on AGW has formed due to conflict of interest regarding funding or paychecks is ludicrous. One of the silliest statements of the thread, on par the with laugher from James Inhofe (R-Idiot) where he claimed AGW was a hoax created by the weather channel.
It’s pretty funny you’re including the warning about following those who aren’t honest, especially as the deniers still haven’t stopped pushing the climategate lie yet. (For those safely in their cocoon, yes all the investigations cleared the scientists.)
Can I assume you’re taking your own words to heart, and no longer giving credence to those that pushed the dishonest story to begin with?
And you seem to be confusing the Last Glacial Maximum with the Late Glacial Maximum
Yeah some life posting on the internet.
Of course World of Warcraft isn’t much of a life either.
Shorter SH: If global warming were real, wouldn’t our gov’t be spending BILLIONS of dollars to protect BLACK people?
SH… My brain can not wrap around the mental gymnastics you are employing. Please…. Stop… You are going to give me a stroke.
It always amazes me how racist, like yourself, can take any issue and find some way to turn it in to a racial one.
I wouldn’t know. You sound like the voice of experience. Just exactly what IS World of Warcraft? I spent my day in my garden…You know, growing things?
Nahhhhh…. things don’t grow because “THE BLACK PEOPLE (or at least, the slightly “brown people) WON”T LET THEM!!!!”
FU, SH. Come back when you have an actual point of view. ( An argument wouldn’t hurt either.)
G Spot sez: “…it is not more than a theory…”
Genesis isn’t even a theory. It is a Fairy Tale!
It always amazes me how a racist piece o’ sh*t like you will try and hang it on others:
“The major factor is race, not population density. DC is 65% Black,”
Your words SH. You can run, but you can’t hide. I got you.
So what is your problem with Black people?
I think you spent too much time out in the sun and it has fried your brain.
If our coastal cities were in danger of drowning, wouldn’t our government be taking some sort of action?
If you mean the United States, we are largely not at the greatest risk for many of the eventual sea level rise effects, and as wealthy as we are we do have a lot more ability to take action. Much of the rest of the world is not so lucky. Of course, that doesn’t mean we won’t be blessed with crop disruption, decreased fresh water supply, more wildfires, decline of marine life, and other fun stuff.
The OECD estimates that “climate change could triple population at risk from coastal flooding by 2070. I’m sure the 100 million people at risk will be comforted to know that potatoes are growing better in Greenland.
I found this interesting, a semester of lectures. Global Warming for non-science majors by David Archer, professor in the Department of The Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago.
http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/lectures.html
@ Doug Mataconis
I think OzarkHillbilly (used to be tom p) language is over the top.
In addition to the point that Michael Reynolds made above I think that attempts to deal with the problem politically have been hampered because the leadership has been lousy. Leading by example might be nice.
Something for the commentariat to chew on: production of greenhouse gases is roughly proportional to income. The top 1% of income earners produce much, much more than the median American income earner does.
I think OzarkHillbilly (used to be tom p) language is over the top.
Did you issue complaints like that when you were at Stormfront?
@Southern Hoosier
You’re a slow student, but I’m patient and will continue to teach you and give you guidance,
@ mantis
I’m thinking of the East coast cities, like New York, Boston. D.C, Miami etc and what it would cost if they ever did flood. There is not much you can do for places like Bangladesh.
Global warming leads to increased evaporation which leads to increased precipitation, One of the driest places on Earth is Antarctica.
No didn’t have to.
No. Once again you oversimplify. Increased evaporation leads to increased precipitation in some places. In others it creates drought, such as the one Texas is currently experiencing. Increased evaporation also provides additional fuel for storms, but precipitation is not what causes sea-level rise as you suggest. Melting ice sheets do that.
Global warming leads to increased evaporation which leads to increased precipitation, One of the driest places on Earth is Antarctica.
Why don’t you move there now and get the jump on everyone? It’s probably white enough for you.
Right, but only land based ones.
@ mantis
Why don’t you and Ozark move to Philadelphia?
http://goo.gl/a5VM2
When threads like this degenerate into flame wars and race baiting, I’m reminded of a quote by Will Rogers:
@ Rock,
If some people set around reading about electric fences and others made observations of electric fences and no one took the risk of urinating on the electric fences, no one would know for certain if it was on or off. It is the people that take the risks that advance civilization.
If you look at the actual state equations used in most of the climate models (they’re public domain, a good starting point is the NOAA web site), you’ll find the parametrization of cloud cover and heat input is coupled (ie non-linear), and can be initiated locally over a global range.
Similarly, the arguments over solar activity relate not to averages, but to time variants. Really, I haven’t met or worked with a single climate modeller, including those involved with the IPCC, who claims we have a good understanding of what’s going on in any quantitative sense. The argument is always that our lack of knowledge should make us err on the side of caution, not that we can predict with great accuracy what the climate will look like a century from day if current trends continue.
Well, I meant “we” as in humanity – its really not a controversial statement. You’ll be hard pressed to find a single climate researcher who believes we have anything like a complete understanding of our climate.
But I get your point, anonymous posters shouldn’t talk about personal experiences. Fair enough. Look, both people are 100% certain there is no anthropogenic climate change and those who are 100% certain there is anthropogenic climate change should just visit their local university and talk to someone (typically within the physics department, though often also in the earth sciences department) who’s area of research is climate related. I think both groups will be surprised at how much is understand, and how much is still a mystery … its a very complex topic, and though huge progress has been made, its still in its infancy.
Which is pretty typical for science. If we only acted on science when we were 100% certain we’d never do anything, because every physical system gets mind numbingly complex when its really studied in detail. The preponderance of evidence suggests that there is anthropogenic induced climate change, and that should be the base point for decisions. However, this is science, not theology, and that could be in error – which is why there is still so much research going on. If it was thoroughly understood no one would be researching it.
These are not equivalent:
we really don’t understand what’s going on to any great degree.
we have anything like a complete understanding of our climate.
We’re in agreement on the rest. I was just being snarky.
JKB: doesn’t matter what you link to if the site is written by anyone gullible, uninformed or dishonest enough to have a climategate section that doesn’t include links to the multiple reports exonerating the scientists.
Climategate was a complete fabrication, so it says volumes when the deniers have still push it.
SH:
The hermetic circularity of your ‘reasoning’ is quite spectacular. You’re essentially saying this: ‘The government doesn’t need to do anything to address the problem. Why? Because there isn’t a problem. How do we know there isn’t a problem? Because the government isn’t doing anything to address the problem. Therefore we know there isn’t a problem. After all, if there was a problem, the government would be taking steps to address the problem.’
That’s awesome. I’m impressed.
@ jukeboxgrad
Cute. But that still doesn’t answer the question.
If you don’t understand why your “question” isn’t being taken seriously, that means you don’t understand what I said.
No, your inability to understand what I said isn’t “cute.” It’s pathetic.
Here, this might help. Try explaining the rhetorical purpose of your question. That is, consider various possible answers and elaborate on the potential meaning and significance of those answers. Or explain how one could possibly know which of the potential answers is the correct one.
In other words you can’t answer the quesion.
No, of course I can answer the question. Anyone can answer the question, including you. That’s the whole point.
Here’s something else that might help. Explain whether or not you agree with the following statements.
Government, like all things created by humans, is quite imperfect and fallible. For example, sometimes it puts a lot of effort into addressing problems that don’t exist, or aren’t important (exhibit A: the war in Iraq). On the other hand, it sometimes puts little or no effort into addressing problems that actually do exist, and are quite important (choose your own favorite example; I’m sure you can think of some). Therefore, the presence or absence of government effort to solve a particular problem tells us not much about the actual existence or non-existence of that particular problem (or the importance or unimportance of that problem).
Let’s say you just arrived here from Mars, and your assignment was to make a list of the Earth’s most important problems. You then decided to pursue your assignment by making a list of the problems that governments were making the most effort to solve. This might have some usefulness, but it would be a big mistake to view this as a sufficient method for completing your assignment.
And let’s try it another way. Some people say that illegal immigration is a threat to the US. But if that was true, wouldn’t our government be taking more action?
If I need to use even thicker crayons, just speak up.
@ jukeboxgrad
Despite all the rhetoric coming out of EPA, NASA, and other government agencies, despite Cap and Trade legislation, despite government grants spent on junk science, the government does not see global warming, melting ice and flooding coast plains as a problem.
As far as illegals go, that is a whole different issue. There are too many people in high places getting rich off of illegals to want to do any thing about it
Right, because they have a political motive, for creating and attempting to solve nonexistence problems.
@jukeboxgrad:
I was thinking about answering SH’s answer in a way similar to yours (though your explanation was better-worded), but I realized that it’s useless to engage him in dialogue. A racist climate-denier isn’t worth your time. If only there was an “ignore” function on these comment threads…
SH:
Let’s assume that you are correct, that “the government does not see global warming … as a problem.” What is your purpose in making this observation? What exactly does this actually prove about whether or not global warming is or is not actually an actual problem? Does your observation tell us something meaningful about the nature of global warming, or does it tell us something meaningful about the nature of government?
Are you seriously claiming that there aren’t “many people in high places getting rich off of” our current consumption of fossil fuels? Really?
=============
TG:
It’s not about him. It’s about other people paying attention, and the inadvertent public service he provides.
@SH, from U.S. Navy Climate Change Roadmap
“Phase 2, which is targeted for fiscal years 2011 and 2012, identifies as a priority the development of recommendations for Navy investments to meet climate change challenges. These challenges include protecting coastal installations vulnerable to rising sea levels”
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=53562
Tlaloc, no. Einstein was never ever to validate his theory. Others validated his theories rather well though. The theory certainly was not accepted because no one was able to refute it. That’s just plain silly. There is a generally a rather clear distinction in physics between the theorists and the experimentalists.
Ben Wolf and David M, seriously, try to work with what I am saying rather than what you imagine I am saying or what you would rather I be saying to make your strawman burning parties easier. Jeez.
george, some excellent comments. Unfortunately, many politicians have seized on the uncertainty and made some rather significant attempts to advance their political goals all in the interest of solving this problem that we can’t even fully get our hands around yet. That’s what some of us are really complaining about.
The government is being hypocritical. The government could care less if global warming is real or not. The only thing the government cares about is how to seize more control over our lives. Then the member of the government finds ways to exempt themselves from what they force on us.
When did I claim that?
SH:
Let’s assume this is true. Did you already forget what you said? You said this:
If “the government could care less if global warming is real or not,” then why should “our government be taking some sort of action?”
Let’s assume that “our coastal cities [are] in danger of drowning.” Let’s further assume that “our government [isn’t] taking some sort of action” (even though Scott just presented proof otherwise). You’ve asked how this could be, but you’ve answered your own question: because “the government could care less if global warming is real or not.”
I realize that expecting your various statements to be consistent with each other is expecting too much.
You said this:
The claim you made (“different”) is false if there are indeed “many people in high places getting rich off of” our current consumption of fossil fuels.
This is another instance of how expecting your various statements to be consistent with each other is expecting too much.
Another liberal lie. If you people are so smart, I would think that you wouldn’t have to make up lies and repeat lies..
OK the Navy recognizes the problem. Why doesn’t the civilian government?
OK so I answered my own question, how is that being inconsistent?
Not sure of the connection between illegals and fossil fuel.
You answered this question yourself when you said this:
Likewise, “There are too many people in high places getting rich off of [our consumption of fossil fuels] to want to do any thing about it.” That is, the same argument applies, unless you want to claim that there aren’t “many people in high places getting rich off of [our consumption of fossil fuels].” I already explained this, but you seem to be having trouble keeping up.
Because the argument you implied by asking the question is contradicted by your own answer.
That’s because you’re not paying attention.
@ jukeboxgrad
You have a strange way of twisting around everything I say and answering nothing that I ask. Just more liberal double talk.
Uh, no. The one who is “answering nothing” is you. Simple question: are there “many people in high places getting rich off of [our consumption of fossil fuels]?”
If yes, then please explain why your logic about immigration (“there are too many people in high places getting rich off of illegals to want to do any thing about it”) doesn’t apply to the question you asked (“OK the Navy recognizes the problem [of global warming]. Why doesn’t the civilian government?”).
You said that the government is ignoring the problem of illegal immigration because “there are too many people in high places getting rich off of illegals.” Trouble is, there are also “many people in high places getting rich off of” our high consumption of fossil fuels. So the logic that explains why the government is (allegedly) ignoring the former problem applies exactly the same way to explain why the government is (allegedly) ignoring the latter problem.
If you claim otherwise, you should explain why. So far, you haven’t.
LOL used to believe in evolution here, it’s garbage Harry…you can’t date anything past what you can compare it too, simple logic and truth.
If you think you can perform evolution in a lab and repeat it or that it has ever been done your on crack.
There are no change fossils, none. trillions of missing links and all that.
There are petrified trees that go through the layers of freaking rock that the global flood laid down, explain that dagger?
There are mass graveyards of animal fossils all over the world. Perhaps they had a suicide pack and the other animals were so traumatized as they came upon it that instead of eating them they killed themselves also? lol….
Harry, these fools preach Life form non life and x men mutant leap evolution because all of their bunk theories have been proven to be just plan goofy or fabricated bro.
I could go all day making fun of this nonsense, but it will do no good for the delusional God deniers….
It never does.
Harry I now your a si fi fantasy fan, me too, heck you write it. Think about it bro, please.
So G.A., you’re saying evolution is bogus because we are missing some evidence? Or heck, even a lot of evidence? Is that an accurate statement of your position?
So can you then provide us with some evidence to prove that the Earth is actually 6,000 years old and was created by a divine being? I’m sure you can present a complete list of facts patching up every hole in that theory, right? Because if there’s any holes in the evidence, well, by your own logic we’ll have to disregard it…
I could go all day making
fun ofup this nonsenseFTFY
@Southern Hoosier
More of the, “It started 21,000 years ago” argument, eh? Find one peer-reviewed paper to support that claim. Hell, find me one climatologist making that claim, because there isn’t one on the entire planet.
You don’t understand the difference between forcings and feedbacks, you don’t understand climate sensitivity and you don’t understand Milankovich Cycles. Yet that won’t stop you from making statements so misguided they can’t even be classified as wrong.
You’re out of your league and it would be nice if you’d put some minimal effort into understanding the basic science.
I liked this bit from Conor Friedersdorf:
Once again, the GOP doesn’t care about policies. They care about identity. Whether this or that tax is enacted is unimportant when you have an opportunity to tell egghead ivory-tower scientists to shove it.
@ Ben Wolf
When did the last ice age reach it’s maximum extent and begin to retreat?
I have been reading a reputable source, as you suggested,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
Also some interesting news stories.
http://www.wnho.net/global_warming.htm
http://www.savage-productions.com/debunking_global_warming.html
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
Incheon (Republic of Korea)
11 August 2009
Remarks to the Global Environment Forum
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/sgspeeches/search_full.asp?statID=557
SH, for some strange reason yesterday afternoon you accused me of “answering nothing.” About 30 minutes later I asked you a few questions. This is how much you have said in response to those questions: “nothing.” Of course they are essentially the same questions I had already asked before, and which you had already been persistently ignoring.
Thanks for this nice example of projection.
NP
Actually, your chronic evasiveness whenever inconvenient facts appear is indeed a problem. Likewise for your false accusations.
And I can’t find the part of your comment where you answer the questions I asked you.
Simple answer, yes
Simple question, are their people getting rich off of green energy and global warming grants.
You said this:
Since you agree that there are “many people in high places getting rich off of [our consumption of fossil fuels],” then why did you claim that “illegals … is a whole different issue?” I realize there are differences, but the problem is that what you claimed as a difference isn’t a difference.
If you mean this kind of rich, no, not even close.
And you’re still ignoring most of what I said here.
Arguing if global warming is man caused or not is about as useful as arguing over how many angels you could fit on the head of a pin. The important discussion regards governmental global warming policies.
At best, governmental global warming policies has been an expensive failure.
At worst, governmental global warming policies have caused immense human suffering.
Nuclear Reactor May Kill 192,000 Annually
Oh, wait a minute. I got that wrong. I meant ethanol reactor, not nuclear reactor.
The person you’re citing would have more credibility if ‘AEI flunkie‘ was not on his resume.
juke said,
1. Who knew Grist magazine is now an AEI flunky, man those guys get around
2. Do you have a substantive response or are you content to repeat the incantation / shibboleth “AEI flunky”.
The incantation / shibboleth approach is helpful to you.
It allows you to ignore the inconvenient truth regarding the human suffering government global warming policy has caused.
It is unhelpful to you because it emphasizes a certain lack of intellectual engagement and tendency towards epistemic closure.
You cited someone who cited someone. I’m talking about the ultimate source of the claim you made. This is isn’t that complicated, so I’m surprised that I need to explain it to you.
It’s enough to know that I shouldn’t waste a lot of time with what he said.
My lack of interest in reading every article ever written by every AEI flunkie is not evidence of “epistemic closure.”
Jukeboxgrad said,
You did not have to read every article just one.
Maybe this example will help you overcome your intellectual fear of looking at information from “unclean” sources.
If you had bothered to read the linked article instead of taking refuge in epistemic closure you would have found a cite for this paper (portion of the abstract below).
Poverty effects of higher food prices : a global perspective
The link is to a world bank study.
I’m not sure if you find world bank data to be clean or unclean but it is there for you to look at.
Courage!
I borrowed this from Hot Air. That way you do not have to switch what you are doing, Just get someome who understands english to read it to you. The article is from Forbes Magazine. Global warming is a hoax. Thats it and thats all.
Global greenhouse gas emissions have risen even faster during the past decade than predicted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other international agencies. According to alarmist groups, this proves global warming is much worse than previously feared. The increase in emissions “should shock even the most jaded negotiators” at international climate talks currently taking place in Bonn, Germany, the UK Guardian reports. But there’s only one problem with this storyline; global temperatures have not increased at all during the past decade.
The evidence is powerful, straightforward, and damning. NASA satellite instruments precisely measuring global temperatures show absolutely no warming during the past the past 10 years. This is the case for the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, including the United States. This is the case for the Arctic, where the signs of human-caused global warming are supposed to be first and most powerfully felt. This is the case forglobal sea surface temperatures, which alarmists claim should be sucking up much of the predicted human-induced warming. This is the case for the planet as a whole.
If atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions are the sole or primary driver of global temperatures, then where is all the global warming? We’re talking 10 years of higher-than-expected increases in greenhouse gases, yet 10 years of absolutely no warming. That’s 10 years of nada, nunca, nein, zero, and zilch.
Juke and someothers who drink donk koolaide (electrified nodoubt) are welcome to live like there is going to be a global warming disaster. I hope you do, that will leave more of everything for the rest of us. Unfortunately that never happens. I just have a little more to write. I have been reading those who do not believe in creation. You have just got to wonder what the odds are that a planet would evolve, over time, which would provide all the necessary materials for an evolved specie to develope, fuel and provide roadways for Boss 302 Mustangs. Coincidence no doubt! Talk about long odds.
There is a documentary called The Great Global Warming Swindle that is an absolute must to watch for anyone that has any questions about the alleged global warming.
It is totally fact based and uses FACTS. Verifiable FACTS to show the THEORIES are wrong.
(The Great Global Warming Swindle) That enclosed in parentheses is a documentary which will be released in July.
July of 2007? Hey, I understand, conservatives live in the past.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ