Attacking Global Warming Science: Where There’s George Will, There’s a Way
Attacking Global Warming Science: Where There’s George Will, There’s a Way
George Will is at it again. His column today is another lackluster effort to cast doubt about global warming science and the imperative to do something about it. Here is the key graph:
[W]hen Gore says the scientific debate is “over,” he must mean merely that there is consensus that we are in a period of warming.
This is not where debate ends but where it begins, given that at any moment in its 4.5 billion years, the planet has been cooling or warming. The serious debate is about two other matters: the contribution of human activity to the current episode of warming and the degree to which this or that remedial measure (e.g., the Kyoto Protocol) would make a difference commensurate with its costs.
Two responses:
1. There is no scientific debate about whether human activity is contributing to global warming. Science Magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003. Not a single one challenged the scientific consensus the earth’s temperature is rising due to human activity. In 2002, the Bush administration’s EPA concluded that global warming the the last 20 years was “due mostly to human activity.”
2. Addressing the problem is not a zero sum game. It’s not the case that all efforts to address global warming will harm the economy. The Apollo Alliance has a plan to address that problem of global warming that would create an estimated 3 million jobs. Bush’s nominee for Secretary of the Treasury, Hank Paulson, said that the failure to ratify Kyoto was a blow to U.S. competitiveness.
Will continues to distort the facts about global warming, but he doesn’t really seem to have his heart in it. He fills up most of his space with snarky speculation about Gore’s political ambitions.
This is what’s left of the current “debate” about global warming — misrepresenting the facts and personal attacks. Hopefully, sometime soon, we can move past this and start addressing the problem.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Will doesn’t think cigarettes cause cancer either.
June 11th, 2006 at 10:19 amif someone argued with Will about the existence of Santa Claus he’d say the evidence isn’t in yet. What a putz.
June 11th, 2006 at 10:23 amSeixon stay off this new thread and stop your attacks on Al Gore! Tell Karl Rove to shove his attempted swift boating of Gore!
June 11th, 2006 at 10:24 amMr Will ought to look at the state of climate modeling compared to the state of economic modeling, and temper his foolish remarks. The climate is far better predicted than the economy. This should be no surprise. The first one is made up of physics and chemistry connections, the second one contains the unpredictable innovations of creative human beings.
June 11th, 2006 at 10:26 amI thought republicans believed the earth was 6000 years old.
June 11th, 2006 at 10:26 amI thought republicans believed the earth was 6000 years old.
Comment by Nat — June 11, 2006 @ 10:26 am
Yep, and that it’s flat. Also that the universe is geocentric. Also thathere are flying and talking dragons, talking donkeys, and maybe unicorns. It’s all in the Bible… That book they thump for its accuracy and ingfallability… even though there are 16 different versions in print (will be 17 when Jerry Falwell finishes his own version :).
June 11th, 2006 at 10:38 amGeorge Will is paid by the word…no matter what little sense they make. He loves the sound of his own fascist voice, and as the lord prime minister of proganda sees no need to make cognitive reason.
June 11th, 2006 at 11:07 amOne day George will have a human facial expression…it will stop Time. Just an observation.
# 6 This thread is about the Kyoto treaty and its effect on our economy,not your knee-jerk interpretation of the Bible.Try reading the header first,and let’s stay on topic.
June 11th, 2006 at 11:11 amJill, I challenge you to a duel.
June 11th, 2006 at 11:17 amJill,
June 11th, 2006 at 11:33 amLighten up. Nat (#5) and unbelievable (#6) were only making fun of certain anti-science beliefs that are common among Repugs today. In that sense, they are still on topic, as the flow of Rethug “thinking” on science is related to the Kyoto Protocol.
This thread is about the Kyoto treaty and its effect on our economy,not your knee-jerk interpretation of the Bible.Try reading the header first,and let’s stay on topic.
Comment by jill — June 11, 2006 @ 11:11 am
Who put you in charge?
My comments were not knee jerk as I have read “the” Bible. And it is very germaine to this topic – because of the whole ‘Intelligent’ Design nonsense that is routinely used to counter real science.
My guess is you just don’t handle criticism well.
By the way, your post contained nothing about the topic at all, and was completely knee-jerk to my post. I suggest you take your own advice first.
June 11th, 2006 at 11:35 amThe serious debate is about two other matters
Partisan Republicans refuse to admit that we’ll need to respond to global warming, whether it’s a natural phenomenon or not. The consequences will be the same and especially affect agriculture, water issues and coastal cities, like New Orleans. All Will is concerned with is whether we can stop the warming. If we can’t stop it , it’s going to cost a lot more than the Kyoto treaty to cover the damages.
June 11th, 2006 at 11:37 am# 9..I would tell you to choose your weapon,but we need keep the focus on the issues,not some pre-sunday school understanding of the Bible.
June 11th, 2006 at 11:38 amHopefully, sometime soon, we can move past this and start addressing the problem.
I’d say that I’m not going to hold my breath… but considering the deteriorating quality of the air we breathe, it might not be such a bad idea :)
June 11th, 2006 at 11:38 amThe well paid corporate shills won’t go away but they are losing credibility.
June 11th, 2006 at 11:54 amThe well paid corporate shills won’t go away but they are losing credibility.
Comment by Jaded Prole — June 11, 2006 @ 11:54 am
It’s hard to argue with the reality that it is getting hotter. Even the sheep are noticing that – especially when they see the increase in their cooling bills…
There are still people who think teh earth is flat. There will probably still be those who counter Global Warming no matter how hot it gets. There seems to be that steady 20% that will believe anything…
June 11th, 2006 at 11:59 am“what is this consensus anyway?”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/just-what-is-this-consensus-anyway/
will is a shill, a shill who will be long gone when the shit hits the fan with the advent of the ecological affects hitting humanity right in the face.
try http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/454.htm
June 11th, 2006 at 12:09 pmI take issue with the wording in the 1st retort: “Not a single one challenged the scientific consensus.” What you mean is that not a single one “contradicted” the scientific consensus. Each scientific paper with integrity offers it’s own challenge in the form of a different model or a unique result. But in this case they all more or less agreed, and didn’t “go against” the consensus–which is amazing, I agree.
June 11th, 2006 at 12:10 pmHere comes Alberto baby …starting off 11 days late !!!!
June 11th, 2006 at 12:11 pmI thought it was the sinners causing Global Warming?
You know George, Dick And Tom.
-=Desertification=-
If anyone else noticed congress has passed a bill for cloud seeding
China has said that it will also start cloud seeding.
If they don’t believe that earth is warming, thru man or nature, then why all this cloud seeding?
Our Government, in all of its wise wisdom, likes to hide truth and issue propaganda, you know the chicken littles would run wild if they knew the sky was falling….
June 11th, 2006 at 12:16 pmJill, Jill, Jill, Jill, Jill,
If the thread turned into a Bible thread, sure, lower the boom. But c’mon! Two comments?! Kindly refrain from giving us Jill’s a bad name!
Although I did like the duel comment. How about 6″ long earthworms at 10 paces?
June 11th, 2006 at 12:17 pmWhat global warming? It was only 45 degrees in Chicago last night! June 10th!!
June 11th, 2006 at 12:23 pmStrange that there is still dount about whether or not man (used collectively, sorry to save key strokes – oh but then I didn’t really) can impact the environment. We have the examples of ozone hole, acid rain and the awful smogs which hang over the great cities (the Turtle blogs this morning from the City of Angels, where you know what I mean, those of you who have descended into LAX on a ’sunny’ day).
The key is not that climate change occurs or even that we are responsible, a refrain that I hear some say ’so what, happens all the time’ and ‘it could be good for us’ every now and again. The problem is that the speed of change is posible unprecendented and neither we nor the natural world is prepared for change at that speed. Forests which could ‘march’ to colders climes over thousands of years, are being asked to move in a century, the animals that depend on the forests die with them. You can think of your own examples. Of course the bad stuff always seems to be able to adapt better than the rest of us: west nile virus, malaria, ebola, bird flu…
June 11th, 2006 at 12:26 pm#22 I hope that was an ironic comment, Mr Patriot?
June 11th, 2006 at 12:28 pmI didn’t read all of the studies, maybe this was mentioned, but Earths magnetic field strength is half what it was 6000 years ago.
If this is so, then more sunlight strikes the earth, and the Earth would of course warm.
Man doesn’t know what will happen exactly when we cross the Galactic Horizon around 2012-2025.
Will It be Earthquakes? Fire in the Sky? Will Earth go dark and Cold? Or Will the Earth get a recharge bringing it’s magnet field back to full strength?
Its 100 degrees here in Texas and we are water rationing in my county. No car washing at home, no standing outside with a hose watering your garden. You can only water your yard once a week. I can drop rocks in the cracks in the soil…
June 11th, 2006 at 12:29 pm# 21 You should thank then for diverting it from a Bible thread.
June 11th, 2006 at 12:29 pmHopefully, sometime soon, we can move past this and start addressing the problem.
Not going to happen until the under 35 voiting age group takes the issue to the voting booth.
The older amongst the Republican affluent, especially the political pundantry, aren’t worried about global warming nor to their minds should they be. In their ideological construct it’s every man for himself and the continued consolidation of wealth trumps all.
They know won’t be around for the real impact of global warming later this century. What effects they might suffer in their remaining years–my winter beachhouse in the keys was damaged by an especially harse hurricane so I had to rebuild by sinking poles 40′ down–are easily offset by the adaptability their affluence affords.
They’d sell us all into climate bondage if they throught it would advance their financial/ideological interests. Until the generation that’s going to suffer most realizes what is being done to them and votes accordinging, we’re all doomed.
June 11th, 2006 at 12:43 pm# 21 You should thank then for diverting it from a Bible thread.
Comment by jill — June 11, 2006 @ 12:29 pm
Three posts and not a single word about Global Warming.
Jill is just here because she feels good when she criticizes other people. Only that feeling is temporary, so she’ll be back often to rejuvenate her momentary feelings of superiority.
As long as people believe that this planet was put here for them and their (ab)use, they will not accept that they are contributing to its destructiont. So it is no wonder that those who are zealously religious reject the notion of ‘god’ letting anything happen to them or ‘their’ planet. I seriously had a guy once tell me that ‘god’ would send a savior genius to fix whatever problems we face when they each become critical enough, so therefore there was no need to intervene and to feel free to pollute at will. Since then, he’s become a priest… At least he won’t be breeding…
June 11th, 2006 at 12:47 pm#24. Yes, no charge for extra sarcasm!
June 11th, 2006 at 12:49 pmwho is paying george will to deny the facts and to risk the future of the planet and his children and their children?
or is he just stupid?
June 11th, 2006 at 12:56 pmI have an idea. Let’s list all the negative consequences that could be caused by reducing greenhouse gases.
…
…
…
Um, someone else start.
June 11th, 2006 at 1:00 pmWhy do conservatives hate planet Earth? Love it or Leave it!
June 11th, 2006 at 1:03 pmUm, someone else start.
Comment by Lily — June 11, 2006 @ 1:00 pm
You got me Lily… I have nothing… Someone else?
June 11th, 2006 at 1:07 pm# 28 You’re personal observations about a priest or a savior genius or lunatic understanding of the Bible,does nothing to further this crucial discussion on global warming.
June 11th, 2006 at 1:08 pmTPJUDD discredits any scientist that disagress with Al Gore by associating them Exxon, but is ignorant of the fact Exxon also funds the IPCC and one of Exxon’s employees, H.S. Kheshgi, is a lead author for the IPCC report, along with other oil industry scientists as co-authors in several chapters.
Your logic is flawed once again.
June 11th, 2006 at 1:09 pmI noticed the loyal base is tracking along with Will on this. For years they claimed global warming didn’t exist. Now, all of a sudden, they too are claiming that it does but the argument is the extent of the damage and the time it will take to destroy the planet.
I’ve got to hand it to these guys. They’ve got that lock step down pat.
June 11th, 2006 at 1:09 pmThey’d sell us all into climate bondage if they throught it would advance their financial/ideological interests.
I wonder if these people ever stop to think how long they can keep printing money, err, I mean IOU’s.
Burning Coal adds to the problem of global warming, but because it creates alot of IOU’s, it’s a Good Thing!!
Same with Industry, Filters and Scrubbers are IOU’s!
And we must make IOU’s not spend the IOU’s!!
But in the end it’s just a pipe dream…
June 11th, 2006 at 1:10 pm# 34 You’re should read Your.
June 11th, 2006 at 1:11 pmTPJUDD also ignores the uncertainties that described in the IPCC report:
LEVEL OF SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING
The influence of external factors on
climate can be broadly compared using the concept of
radiative forcing. Here is the level of scientific understanding for some
of those external factors, but the understanding of most of the external factors
is very low.
Statospsheric ozone – Medium
Sulphate – Low
Black and organic carbon from fossil fuel burning – Very Low
Solar – Very Low
We don’t need to cast doubt. The IPCC report does a fine job of doing that.
June 11th, 2006 at 1:12 pmI’m a geologist and, like the vast majority of my colleagues, I’m very concerned about climate change.
However, as I read this essay in Science magazine that describes research of 928 peer-reviewed papers, it certainly looks to me like it is written by a professor at UCSD who specializes in science history. Thus it is a contribution to Science magazine by an independent researcher, not a study in which “Science Magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers.” I have read many descriptions of this study in the blogosphere, claiming that it is a study done by the National Academy, or by Scinece Magazine. I can’t recall who Gore attributed the study to in his excellent movie. But the fact is that it appears to have been the work of an individual from UCSD. This does not detract from the validity of this study, which has not been disputed to my knowledge. Nor does it detract from the positions taken by major scientific societies such as the National Academy or the American Geophysical Union. But if you are citing the study linked to in this blog, it would be wise to describe its source correctly.
June 11th, 2006 at 1:15 pm#35– Ordinary researchers have to rely on grants awarded in processes that their peers run. A number of scientists get grants based on whether Exxon-Mobil likes what they have to say (regardless of any professionally embarassing mistakes they’ve made in the past):
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3645&method=full
Not exactly a meritocracy.
June 11th, 2006 at 1:15 pmUm, someone else start.
Comment by Lily
We won’t be able to grow bananas in North Dakota.
June 11th, 2006 at 1:16 pm#41, you’re also ignoring the fact that Exxon funds the IPCC and one of their employees is a lead author for the IPCC report.
Very good #41, you’ve provided another example of flawed logic based on ignorance.
June 11th, 2006 at 1:22 pmYou’re personal observations about a priest or a savior genius or lunatic understanding of the Bible,does nothing to further this crucial discussion on global warming.
Comment by jill — June 11, 2006 @ 1:08 pm
Oh, you’re one of ‘them’. Figures. This is post four for you wiithout a single contribution. The hypocrisy must be heavy. I’m sure the small brain balances it out when you walk.
You should read one of those 16 versions of the Bible you’re defending. There really are talking donkeys (okay, it’s an ass). Must’ve inspired Shrek…
“But now the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she asked Balaam, “What have I done to you that you should beat me these three times?” “You have acted so willfully against me,” said Balaam to the ass, “that if I but had a sword at hand, I would kill you here and now.” But the ass said to Balaam, “Am I not your own beast, and have you not always ridden upon me until now? Have I been in the habit of treating you this way before?” “No,” replied Balaam.” (Numbers 22:20-35 NAB)
June 11th, 2006 at 1:27 pmWe won’t be able to grow bananas in North Dakota.
Comment by Zookeeper — June 11, 2006 @ 1:16 pm
Sure you can… in a greenhouse ; ) Nice try though…
June 11th, 2006 at 1:30 pmThen we have Al Gore discrediting himself:
“I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.”
And isn’t that the issue we have with Al Gore? We all agree that human activity contributes to climate change, but here’s Al Gore ignorinig the uncertainties expressed by IPCC scientists and exagerratinig the facts. And TPJUDD enables the lie. Maybe he shoud heed is own advice – stop misrepresenting the facts and top the personal attacks on scientist who disagree with that climate scientist, Al Gore.
June 11th, 2006 at 1:33 pmNice try though…
Comment by unbelievable
I’m a bit off my game today. Last night Santo, or whatever it was calling itself, asked me what me “real” job was, and I told it I was a hooker with a heart of gold — and my monitor went PFFFTT! That’s what I get for being mean. I’m on Zoo Jr’s brand new computer — it’s so nice!
June 11th, 2006 at 1:35 pmGeorge Will is a pompous,big business shill.”Corporatism”(Fascism) is OK with him.He has his,”So f*** eveyone else”.A typical Republican.
June 11th, 2006 at 1:36 pm# 47..We can all hope that new computer will make you a little less dumb.
June 11th, 2006 at 1:42 pmPlease try to stay on the crucial topic of global warming.
I’m a bit off my game today. Last night Santo, or whatever it was calling itself, asked me what me “real†job was, and I told it I was a hooker with a heart of gold — and my monitor went PFFFTT!
Oh, I was just playing. You’re one of the few who can handle it on a regular basis. I think people take me too seriously Zoo. Maybe my humor is too dry… Oh well, helps separate the folks I wanna talk to from those I don’t :).
I saw that… without Santo’s comments included of course… and laughed. I wonder if she(he) believed you… :)
That’s what I get for being mean. I’m on Zoo Jr’s brand new computer — it’s so nice!
Comment by Zookeeper — June 11, 2006 @ 1:35 pm
I thought you didn’t believe in divine retrobution? Besides, the ultimate outcome sounds like you’re on a better machine… so perhaps being a smart-ass actually has its rewards? ; )
June 11th, 2006 at 1:44 pmPlease try to stay on the crucial topic of global warming.
Comment by jill — June 11, 2006 @ 1:42 pm
You go first.
June 11th, 2006 at 1:45 pmOf course the bad stuff always seems to be able to adapt better than the rest of us: west nile virus, malaria, ebola, bird flu…
Comment by TerrytheTurtle — June 11, 2006 @ 12:26 pm
Hmmm… maybe it’s not the ‘bad’ stuff? :) Maybe we’re the bad stuff that the Earth is trying to kill off? It does that when a species has out grown its environment and is wreaking havoc on the rest of the biosphere…
So, you’re back… What was the deal? You’re not someone who gets banned. You’re one of the intelligent liberals – not some violent Bible-thumping (redundent) neocon troll…
June 11th, 2006 at 1:49 pm43– No flawed logic. If you’re arguing that Exxon wants the truth to get out there, why are they funding discredited scientists? It’s for PR only and it’s inexcusable:
See “The Disinformation Campaigns of Big Coal — A Short History”:
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=4380&method=full
And even career PR guys are disgusted by this. “There is a line between PR and propaganda. There is a difference between using your skills to help rescue a battered reputation and using them to twist the truth” :
“http://planetsave.com/ps_mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7304&Itemid=1
June 11th, 2006 at 1:49 pm46. You’ve used that same quote before. And I addressed it the same way. And you had nothing to say about it the first time either.
The interviewer was taken aback by people taking Gore out of context:
And you can judge for yourself: http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/index.html
June 11th, 2006 at 1:56 pmI actually dunno about point #1. I am not an expert in the field, but every (quasi-)sientific paper I’ve read on the subject seems to assume that we are still in the glaciation/inter-glacial regime in which any warming, even toward temperatures that were normal on this planet before the cooling toward the last ice-age, must be due to human intervention (of course, earlier papers used this rubric but somehow concluded that our activities would eventually start a negative feed-back loop and induce another ice-age). If the current era of glaciation/inter-glacial periods is coming to a close and Earth’s climate is getting to what it was about, say, 20 million years ago, it will be much warmer even without human’s around to screw things up, nu?
That being said, the “we need more study” response of the Republicans is entirely disingenuous, considering that (and my brother is in the biz, so I know such this second if not first hand) the Republicans are wont to defund any and all research into atmospheric science, including and especially into Climate change. Also, a bona fide conservative, while wanting in general to wait until “all the evidence is in” (which, of course, in science it never is — and we liberals should be careful not to become the anti-scientific dragons we are fighting by constructing science as more conclusive than it is) — which makes “conservatives” who supported the Iraq war not conservatives, btw (indeed, why was the Iraq threat so dangerous we couldn’t wait until all the evidence was in but the far more serious threat of global warming is not so dangerous?), would have no objection to taking precautions, just in case and out of prudence.
After all, what is to be lost by making sure that whatever climate change may occur it isn’t due to human waste products. And anyway, even if the rise in temps we are seeing is purely “natural”, it doesn’t bode well for us humans as we evolved during periods when the Earth was, in geological historical terms, relatively cool — so it would be prudent to make sure that we do whatever we can not to tip the system toward global warming. It would only be conservative to, well, conserve, don’t you think?
June 11th, 2006 at 1:56 pmJill – Why can’t we talk about Jesus and global warming?
So far you have posted at least a half dozen times and have contributed nothing to the subject… all you can say is get back on subject… stop talking about the Jesus.
Me and Jesus say screw you… don’t be so God damn bossy!
Oh yeah – global warming is bad too.
June 11th, 2006 at 1:57 pmJust to clear things up — I was referring to “response #1″ from the original post when I said “point #1″ … not to comment #1 …
June 11th, 2006 at 1:58 pmsugar magnolia, re: post #46: That’s called erring on the side of caution. For example, when doctors first suspected cigarette smoking causes cancer, they advised quitting even though no direct link could be shown. And they could have been wrong, but was anyone harmed by quitting even if doctors were wrong? That’s exactly the point I was trying to make in my post #31. What if all who believe in global warming turn out to be wrong? Is the world going to be in a worse state because of it? On the other hand, what if you’re wrong and we do nothing?
June 11th, 2006 at 2:07 pmSometimes I wonder if George Will lives here in America in the real world. On the other hand, does he hibernate not knowing what the average American suffers with daily of high gas prices, rising food prices, rising product necessity prices and lower assets left at the end of the month. Just why are Americans using every Credit Card they have for daily living expenses? I am asking Mr. Will that he and the News Media who gives us very little news, but mostly hours and days of one story over and over again, to THINK! It is to survive in an America divided, with War, Radical thinkers having control of the Republican Party, and Democrats afraid to really fight back as dirty as the Republican Base does. Example Ann Coulter the princess of Sarcasm, Big Words that are so elaborate for the common or lower class voter, they just ignore her, and thank heavens they do, as long words that do not impress the Average American, one bit! I am asking every voter and American who does not vote to THINK, about what others are saying no matter what party they belong to, as long as it is logical, common sense, moral and ethically correct for America. We might get non-voters to vote, as they think they have no say in America, well vote this next election and find out what your one vote can accomplish for you and me.
June 11th, 2006 at 2:12 pm# 56..I have not mentioned Jesus one time.I’ve just mentioned other peoples kinder-garten view of the Bible and to try to keep focus on global warming.If someone is that dumb about the Bible,why listen to their views on other topics.This includes you too,smartass.
June 11th, 2006 at 2:14 pm#58 … indeed it used to be that conservatives were the first people to think this way. I know — my great-grandparents were hard-core conservatives (well, now I think they would be Democrats: indeed, they couldn’t stand Reagan and, in the last presidential election before they passed away, they voted for a Democratic presidential candidate for probably the only time in their lives).
It used to be a conservative wanted to, first and formost, conserve things: the social order, the environment, what have you. You even had conservatives, like my great-grandparents, who accepted some degree of government regulation simply on Hobbsian terms (”since business without regulation tends to be nasty and brutish, they need to be regulated — but it’s the fault of a few ‘rotten apples spoiling the barrel’ that business has to be regulated — if they could police themselves better, then they wouldn’t have to worry about gummint policing them — so rather than complaining about gummint, business leaders should police their own” — that was their logic) and certainly thought the one key role for government was preserving the commons/environment. Of course, these were people who would have been 100% behind Goldwater if it weren’t for his support of the Vietnam war which, anti-communists though they were, they thought was a silly sop to the bullet manufacturers.
I may not agree with Hobbes or Burke so much, but whatever happened to the sort of conservatives that my great-grandparents were? I guess Goldwater was the last of these conservatives prominant on the national scene in some ways and the beginning of the tide of a polar opposite sort of conservativism in other ways?
June 11th, 2006 at 2:17 pmSo Jill, since you haven’t yet told us, what are your views on global warming?
June 11th, 2006 at 2:23 pmHere we go again. One gigantic anti-Gore prevarication dropped in the middle of the thread. Gore say’s nothing about “misrepresenting” much less “exagerating” the facts. He was responding to a questioner about his emphasis on the dangers of global warming rather than possible solutions. The suggestion was raised that he spent that more time on the former rather than the latter. Gore agreed that he emphasized “factual representations” of the former and explained his reasoning for doing so. In Sugar Magnolia’s mind this is transformed into misrepresentation and exageration.
I conclude that Sugar either didn’t read the entire exchange and is speaking from ignorance or knows the context of the quote full well and is acting from malice. In the second case, Sugar is in no position to be calling Gore a liar.
June 11th, 2006 at 2:32 pmActual proposals for reducing CO2 emissions: what George Will doesn’t want to talk about.
*Drop all tax breaks for the oil and coal sectors: exploration write-offs, oil depletion allowance, mountaintop removal write-offs, etc. Force the coal and electric utility sector to reinvest their profits in updating all coal-based power plants with the best clean coal technology available; ); Natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel, so the natural gas sector should get the most leeway of the fossil sector.
*Grant large tax incentives to wind and solar electric production (as was done with oil for 60+ years) and quit actively interfering with wind and solar development (i.e. Dept of Defense claims of ‘windmills interefering with radar defenses’).
*Steer federal funding into alternative energy research (for example, every university in the US should have an alternative energy research program of some sort). Have a policy on all government contract negotiations that favors alternative energy-based projects over fossil fuel / nuclear projects.
*Force the tranporation sector to pay fees for their carbon emissions and create tax / regulation (carrot / stick) structures that promote energy efficiency; the various car companies will then have a level playing field to complete on. Energy prices are expected to remain high, after all. Remind the private sector that future prices could be even higher; promote on-site energy generation for large businesses, etc.
I can already hear the oil, coal and energy trading sectors screaming about ‘unfair competetion practices’. Are you kidding? You guys are complaining about such practices, when that’s been the oil-military-govt strategy for ’securing oil’ for about half a century? Be smart – put your truckloads of money into renewables, and quit with the lame PR schemes.
June 11th, 2006 at 2:37 pmRegarding the “should we bring the Bible into this” debate:
(1) we liberals need to be careful about insulting religious belief per se: for some people, that’s all they have (cf. some very interesting posts in the left-blogosphere on this) … and many of us are religious in some way shape or form
(2) OTOH, the rejection of global warming is, as has been pointed out in this thread, part of a larger anti-Scientific, so-called “religious” world view of the modern Republican party (and, we need to be careful not to become dragons in fighting this dragon — we must avoid developing a quasi-religious faith in the evils of human activity in warming the planet but instead remain the ones open to evidence either way — which many Republicans, as is typical, e.g. in the ID debate, claim to be but in reality are not, as evidenced by their funding priorities: indeed, as is the case with ID, wanting to keep open the debate sometimes has the effect of discouraging rather than encouraging a healthy scepticism). This world view — that the earth is young and that the present world is not for long anyway (as per premillenial thought) — discounts any notion of climate change as well as considers futile any reform in human behavior to avert climate change: if the world is ending soon anyway, why incur any costs in improving it? Even as we liberals must be careful not to insult those who only have religion to hold onto and those of us who are liberal religious (although the latter of us tend to take anti-religious insults ment to be humorous in stride and laugh with the insult as is the intent), we must also vigorously work to uproot the anti-scientific effects of fundamentalist religion on our body politic.
(3) Of course, as it indicates we are to be stewards of God’s creation, the Bible makes a compelling case for environmentalism — even if humans are not the sole cause of global warming, that we even might be doing something to aggravate it goes against God’s will that we take care of Her creation. So religion is a double edged sword — religious arguments can either be used to indicate that we ought not to care about the environment as it hasn’t been around for all that long and all will be destroyed soon anyway, or they can be used to bolster environmentalism. One thing we liberals have to do is talk to people in the language they speak: if we place our arguments in religious terms, maybe we can break the Republican framing of their side as the side of morality?
June 11th, 2006 at 2:39 pmSometimes I wonder if George Will lives here in America in the real world.
George lives in the rarified air of DC punditry. He rubs shoulders with the political hoi polloi while earning easy six-figure incomes. Life is good for George and his ilk and they intend to keep it that way. It’s not particularly unusual if you think about it in a historical context.
What is unusual, the the climatic direction we’re heading and it’s likely impact on living conditions. The betting odds favor the wealthy in the coming scenario as mobility, or the means to obtain it, will likely represent survival for your genetic linage as times get tough.
To people like George, the above makes repeal of the estate tax all the more important. Wanting your progeny to survive where others don’t is a reasonable human instinct, which explains why most of the rest of us should be dead set against people like George Will.
June 11th, 2006 at 2:40 pmI have not mentioned Jesus one time.I’ve just mentioned other peoples kinder-garten view of the Bible
More like kindergarden Bible. You have to be about 5 to buy into that nonsense.
and to try to keep focus on global warming.If someone is that dumb about the Bible,why listen to their views on other topics.This includes you too,smartass.
Comment by jill — June 11, 2006 @ 2:14 pm
What’s dumb about reading an idiotic verse from an idiotic book and poiting out the idiocy? What is dumb is believing a book is infallable when it quotes talking donkeys. I even posted the verse for you to see yourself, since clearly, you’ve never read one of the versions of teh Bible…
June 11th, 2006 at 2:42 pmOne thing we liberals have to do is talk to people in the language they speak: if we place our arguments in religious terms, maybe we can break the Republican framing of their side as the side of morality?
Comment by DAS, Ph.D. Pedant — June 11, 2006 @ 2:39 pm
Instead of recommending that we learn to speak gibberish – how about recommending that we not accept as reasonable the comments of anyone who does speak gibberish.
June 11th, 2006 at 2:49 pmhow about recommending that we not accept as reasonable the comments of anyone who does speak gibberish.
Comment by G.W.SuperChrist — June 11, 2006 @ 2:49 pm
They do want the National Language to be English. They shouldn’t be exempt either… :)
June 11th, 2006 at 2:52 pm“Most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrationsâ€
It appears this so-called “consensus†is an exaggeration of the confidence level of IPCC scientists (one of them an Exxon employee who is a lead author for the report).
“Likely†is not an indicator of a high degree of confidence it it?
In the IPCC Report the following words have been used to indicate approximate judgmental estimates of confidence:
virtually certain (greater than 99% chance that a result is true);
June 11th, 2006 at 2:59 pmvery likely (90−99% chance);
likely (66−90% chance);
medium likelihood (33−66% chance);
unlikely (10−33% chance);
very unlikely (1−10% chance);
exceptionally unlikely (less than 1% chance).
“how about recommending that we not accept as reasonable the comments of anyone who does speak gibberish. – G.W.SuperChrist”
They do want the National Language to be English. They shouldn’t be exempt either… :) – Comment by unbelievable
When I was a kid I had a made up country and the name of their language was Gibberish. ;)
Seriously, though, for some of us, only half of this religious-speak (the batty-fundoid half) is gibberish … actually worse, it’s heretical. Some of us do take religiosity seriously (although I must add it probably doesn’t make us better people — or maybe it’s just that those of us who need religiosity as a crutch upon which to hang morality are not the best people to begin with?) …
June 11th, 2006 at 3:01 pmOops … sorry about the bad html. I think y’all can figure out where the italics are s’posed ta end.
June 11th, 2006 at 3:03 pmWhat’s dumb about reading an idiotic verse from an idiotic book and poiting out the idiocy? What is dumb is believing a book is infallable when it quotes talking donkeys.
Comment by unbelievable — June 11, 2006 @ 2:42 pm
I agree 100% unbelievable!
We should no longer accept the arguments of people that believe the Bible is infallible.
If they do not accept the assertion that the earth is flat… even though the Bible says it is… then they should not be allowed to assert the argument that the Bible is infallible… and if they believe as that the earth is flat then they should be laughed out of the room and into a special home.
Instead of catering to these religious nut as DAS, Ph.D. suggests… I suggest we ridicule their fantastical claims and their delusional world views.
We should no longer allow people to pretend that reality is what you think it is.
June 11th, 2006 at 3:04 pmInstead of catering to these religious nut as DAS, Ph.D. suggests… I suggest we ridicule their fantastical claims and their delusional world views.
That is basically how you get a third grader to stop sucking his thumb… :)
People want to use the Bible to allow all kinds of horrific behavior on their behalf. “Oh, God will take care of me.” Well, so long as you’re taken care of… never mind the billions or other living beings on this planet.
I detest organized religion. It’s one of the few things I absolutely hate. I’ve been reading up on architectural history, because I plan to teach it in my classes this year. Of course it over laps with cultural history. I gotta tell you – the birth of that 3 branched Judeo-Christo-Islamic tree of monotheism was perhaps the biggest blight on mankind. I wish it had been aborted… Humanity might actually be humane instead of egocentric, lazy, and ignorant.
We should no longer allow people to pretend that reality is what you think it is.
Comment by G.W.SuperChrist — June 11, 2006 @ 3:04 pm
I agree. I get attacked a lot in here by people who don’t like it when I dispell their smoke and mirrored reality – on both the left and the right. But, you know what, I agree – if there’s a reason for opening your mouth, it is to dispell the lies and not add to them.
June 11th, 2006 at 3:18 pmRegarding comment #73: I am not saying we should cater to the religious nuts (indeed, this would drive away not only those of us on the left, it would keep moderates away from the liberal coalition as well as it would be seen for the pandering it is … and no-one likes a panderer unless the panderer is said by the “liberal media” to be a “straight talker” in which case people will say “wow — if even media liberals like this Republican, he must be good”). What I am saying is that it we should make sure that the majority of this country who do have some form of religious orientation realize that the religious nuts do not have a monopoly on religious thinking but we need to include the voices of those of us who are religious and (hopefully) not nuts so that people realize that the right has no monopoly on values/morals.
June 11th, 2006 at 3:22 pmLeave poor Jill alone. Notice when she was challenged to actually say something about global warming she disappeared.
June 11th, 2006 at 3:32 pmI would like to respond to the remarks of sugar magnolia, on posts 35, 39, 43, 46, and 70, whose choice of nom de plume is a travesty against Jerry and the boys, who would consider the remarks from that person as disingenuous at best, at worst, dishonest propaganda essentially because it is cherry-picking a few facts and attempting to weave from such linters whole broadcloths of misrepresentations.
The ICPP report alluded to can be found at this site, use the pulldown menu to link up the particular chapters.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
more data is explained at realclimate.org in the index section.
June 11th, 2006 at 3:38 pmif there’s a reason for opening your mouth, it is to dispell the lies and not add to them.
Comment by unbelievable — June 11, 2006 @ 3:18 pm
Spot on there unbelievable!
June 11th, 2006 at 3:46 pmStop making fun of Jesus. Global warming is bad.
June 11th, 2006 at 3:51 pmAnd if the present administration is so concerned about the uncertainty of climate science, why are they scuttling “a number of satellites designed to give scientists critical information on the earth’s changing climate”?
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/06/09/nasa_shelves_climate_satellites/
June 11th, 2006 at 3:56 pm#70: It appears this so-called “consensus†is an exaggeration of the confidence level of IPCC scientists.
You are confusing terms. Consensus is a measure of broad agreement within the community, whereas confidence is a measure of perceived probability. If 100% of climate scientists were to have the same confidence level regarding the role of greenhouse gases in global warming, that would be a perfect consensus regardless of what that confidence level is. Briefly, 100% agreement on a 66% confidence level is not the same thing as 66% agreement on a 100% confidence level. Even more briefly, the word “likely” does not undermine the word “consensus”.
As to the whether “likely” represents a high degree of confidence, 66-90% seems reasonably high to me, depending on the seriousness of the downside. Would you play Russian roulette with 4 bullets in 6 chambers? How about with 9 bullets in 10 chambers?
June 11th, 2006 at 4:02 pm# 62&76..I believe that global warming is real,and that man is over contributing to the problem,especially the U.S..
June 11th, 2006 at 4:04 pmThat’s why I didn’t want this thread to be hi-jacked by useless talk of flying donkeys and nonsense like that.If some people don’t like a certain literature then KEEP IT TO YOURSELF.
It has no place on a thread about G.Wa.,and its effect on our economy.
And DAS thank you for your informed opinion;it sure beats the malarky that imposters as knowledge around here.
I DID NOT POST # 79
June 11th, 2006 at 4:07 pmThe other question is consensus about what? Even the National Review agrees that:
But “Sugar Magnolia” does not want you to know that because her interest is in sowing confusion, not clearing things up.
June 11th, 2006 at 4:10 pmPlease try to stay on the crucial topic of global warming.
Comment by jill
The hall monitor has no pass.
June 11th, 2006 at 4:29 pmIt appears this so-called “consensus†is an exaggeration of the confidence level of IPCC scientists (one of them an Exxon employee who is a lead author for the report).
“Likely†is not an indicator of a high degree of confidence it it?
It is if you’re a scientist whose stock and trade is probability rather than absolute certainty.
Considering that Sugar Magnolia has neither withdrawn nor explained his/her early misrepresentation/fabrication regarding the quote from Al Gore, there’s no reason to take anything originating from this source seriously.
June 11th, 2006 at 4:34 pmI thought you didn’t believe in divine retrobution?
Comment by unbelievable
It’s my philosophy of “What goes around, comes around.” I almost told Santo I was a streetwalker for Jesus — who knows what would have happened then! I can’t wait for the TP crowd to get back, these threads are FUBAR.
June 11th, 2006 at 4:36 pm?The real story of Al Gore and Global Warming.
June 11th, 2006 at 4:43 pmIt’s my philosophy of “What goes around, comes around.†I almost told Santo I was a streetwalker for Jesus — who knows what would have happened then!
Yeah, but there’s a distinction between what you say and what you do… dontcha think? I don’t think Santo understands enough English for that to have been mean. Even if he did, I still didn’t think it was mean.
I can’t wait for the TP crowd to get back, these threads are FUBAR.
Comment by Zookeeper — June 11, 2006 @ 4:36 pm
You know it gets crazier on Sundays… Was like a job I had in college one summer at a grocery store. On the second and third Wednesday of teh month they would bring the fokls from the local mental health facility in for a field trip. I quickly learned to not make eye contact, say anything including “have a nice day” or make any sudden movements. It’s kinda like that in here today… :)
June 11th, 2006 at 4:56 pmI believe that global warming is real,and that man is over contributing to the problem,especially the U.S..
That’s why I didn’t want this thread to be hi-jacked by useless talk of flying donkeys and nonsense like that.If some people don’t like a certain literature then KEEP IT TO YOURSELF.
It has no place on a thread about G.Wa.,and its effect on our economy.
Comment by jill — June 11, 2006 @ 4:04 pm
Jill I have an MS in Biology… I am very aware of the devastating effects of global warming… so are most other people here!
Sharing a couple more facts about how global warming is bad will do nothing to convince those people that do not believe in global warming that it is real.
I believe that figuring out what it is that precludes these people from accepting science and what we can do to change their minds is as a constructive endeavor as any… it is relative!
Why do some people accept the soft science of economists and not the more rigid work of climatologists?
Does religion have anything to do with it?
These questions matter… so stop being a buzz-kill!
June 11th, 2006 at 4:57 pmI don’t think Santo understands enough English for that to have been mean. Even if he did, I still didn’t think it was mean.
Comment by unbelievable
It’s basically enough that I knew I was being mean. Actually, Santo replied almost immediately, and she thought it was so funny. Jr’s computer is so cool, it’s got a wireless keyboard and mouse, and a huge monitor (I’m being nice!). I’m sitting on his bed across the room and pounding away. It’s good to be farsighted! Lordy, this place is a mess…
June 11th, 2006 at 5:04 pmThese questions matter… so stop being a buzz-kill!
Comment by G.W.SuperChrist — June 11, 2006 @ 4:57 pm
Uh… Amen! :)
June 11th, 2006 at 5:14 pmLordy, this place is a mess…
Comment by Zookeeper — June 11, 2006 @ 5:04 pm
You’re too funny…
Well, if Santo thought it was funny, then it’s not mean :) Just like tehtime you said that Zookeeper was your given name… everyone knew it was a joke… around here. let’s say most everyone :)
June 11th, 2006 at 5:16 pmI am sure will thinks that if you put rope in a barrel of water and close it up for six days you’ll get flatworms.
June 11th, 2006 at 5:33 pmJust like tehtime you said that Zookeeper was your given name… everyone knew it was a joke… around here. let’s say most everyone :)
Comment by unbelievable
Ah, good times…
I am sure will thinks that if you put rope in a barrel of water and close it up for six days you’ll get flatworms.
Comment by blogenfreude
You don’t! Goddammit! Maybe it will turn into beer…
June 11th, 2006 at 5:46 pmI would like to thank all of the dipshits who now agree with me, and disagree with TPJUDD, that there is disagreement about cliimate change and a lack of understanding about the radiative forces behind climate change. There is not 100% agreement about global warming, even among IPCC contributing scientists.
And it’s false to suggest that anyone who is funded by Exxon, directly or indirectly, is automatically discredited. And for TPJUDD that logic doesn’t apply to the IPCC report even though Exxon contributes to the IPCC and one of it’s employees is a lead author for the IPCC Report.
As for Al Gore, he has a history of distorting the facts, using the media to suppress disagreeing opinions, and has even admitted to “over-representing the facts” no matter you buttholes spin it.
I have learned never to trust lawyers when they talk about science. They don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. TPJUDD, you don’t crap about Killamanjero. You sound ridiculous. But who knows, I might work for Exxon, right?
June 11th, 2006 at 5:47 pmI note that, in reference to the Science magazine “study”, no mention is made of the fact that a correction had to be issued when the person who wrote the article was exposed as having misrepresented the terms under which her search was performed. Also, no mention is made of another researcher who used the very same terms to do his own search, and found vestly different results in the process. I’ve already documented this regarding a previous posting on this site.
http://nothingcouldbefiner.blogspot.com/2006/06/think-progress-offers-shoddy-research.html
When will Think Progress stop touting this “study” as fact, when it takes only a few minutes research on the web to utterly refute it?
Later,
June 11th, 2006 at 5:47 pmZoo,
I think the chasm between reality based people and those in denial is growing so wide that people are now shouting across it…
Some folks brains are like their appendix. They just don’t like anyone one else pointing it out. Watch:
Global Warming is a fact.
June 11th, 2006 at 6:00 pmWatch:
Global Warming is a fact.
Comment by unbelievable
Oh hell no! I’m not sticking around for that. I’d rather watch a barrel of flatworms turn into beer!
June 11th, 2006 at 6:04 pmGlobal warming is a fact. Gues what? No one disagrees with that. But do you only blame cars and US oil companies? Do you completely understand all radiative forces? Because the IPCC scientists don’t.
June 11th, 2006 at 6:04 pmI would like to thank all of the dipshits who now agree with me.
Sugar, such foul language for a lady! We “agree with you” about what?
There is not 100% agreement about global warming, even among IPCC contributing scientists.
We have asked you to be specific about what’s in dispute and what’s not. As I said, even National Review agreed that
So you want 100% agreement about everything before we take action on anything? Does that sound wise to you, especially when there’s already so much agreement? I mean, seriously, take a look at the study saying that “most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Or the Bush-commisioned report that begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising.”
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3713&method=full
There is a consensus that there is human-induced warming. IPCC reports point out the dangers. It seems to me we would deserve being removed from the gene pool if we waited for certainty on exactly what is going to happen to us in minute detail before we took action.
That would be obvious with a 6th grade education, no? I mean come on.
Give the Luntz-style argumentation a rest!
But who knows, I might work for Exxon, right?
Following this subject as I have for the past decade or so, nothing surprises me anymore.
June 11th, 2006 at 6:07 pmI think Markos Moulitsas on MTP today stating that 68% in his straw poll would support Gore for president says just about everything on why Gore is pushing this at the time. He’s trying to see if there’s any market for the Goremeister to make a come-back, and boy is there ever! Just make a movie about one of the Left’s biggest issues and you are immediately a savior. Never mind the fact that you distort the truth and fear-monger – the Left will cover your tracks for you and ride your coattails all the way to the bank.
As far as Cicero’s information regarding Judd’s often cited “study”, I’d be interested in seeing a response from Judd about that one. Of course, I know we won’t get one because Judd doesn’t care. He will keep citing the same discredited information day in and day out until a big blogger calls him out.
June 11th, 2006 at 6:10 pmHe will keep citing the same discredited information day in and day out until a big blogger calls him out.
I would have to see the links to the “discredited information.” And if you want talk discredited information, how about all the fiercely circulating conservative urban myth’s out there, like the one about the Gore quote? There’s a ton of zombie information out there that just keeps wandering around and won’t die.
And the troll comments on global warming on this site are anemic at best. Judd’s posts have not been “discredited” in the least. Just the opposite.
June 11th, 2006 at 6:18 pm# 90..Now you’re starting to sound like you have some sense.Hatred of literature,be it Shakespeare,Quran or Bible,do nothing to forward the debate.Neither does pride in our spawns graduation from high-school:HIGH-SCHOOL.
June 11th, 2006 at 6:19 pmSome people need to go elsewhere to socialize.
I would have to see the links to the “discredited information.â€
Comment by JJ
Good luck on that one, JJ! Seixon doesn’t provide no steenking links. He just talks out of his Ex Pat ass.
June 11th, 2006 at 6:21 pm#101
So you want 100% agreement about everything before we take action on anything?
You can’t claim there is no disagreement among climate scientists now.
“most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrationsâ€
“Likely” is not 100% confidence. So there is disagreement among climate scientists, not just the ones funded by Exxon.
We work in the energy industry. The fact is clean alternative sources of energy have been researched by the energy industry for decades. Government tax breaks and incentives were drastically decreased in the late 80’s and throughout the 90’s when there was an oil glut and increased imports gave us reason to forget about transitioning to alternative fuels, but that didn’t stop the research. Only slowed it. You libs only have yourselves to blame for ignoring the problem in the 90’s.
And give up the heatsonline link. It’s pathetic propaganda.
June 11th, 2006 at 6:28 pmAw come on Zoo, just stir the pot a little… it doesn’t take much. Even when I phrased it like it was a baited hook…. :)
June 11th, 2006 at 6:31 pmI think (and I know I’m nobody to speculate in such things, BUT…) that the effort to clean the planet will be such a boon to the global economy and especially to those countries that take the first action. True, that the country (and, in turn, those countries) that contributes most to dirtying the planet has to step up to the plate for much of this economic boom to take place. Think about it – Thousands of businesses would be created and competition would be incredible! It would be much, much larger than the tech boom of the 90’s!
Just thinkin’
June 11th, 2006 at 6:33 pmGlobal warming is real. Carbon dioxide emissions most certainly contribute to the problem. There is, however, another problem that will dwarf global warming in terms of social upheaval in the near future and that is the burning of oil itself. Oil is a finite resource that will be depleted in the next few decades at the current rate of combustion. Of course, the rate of combustion is actually going to get much higher as countries like China and India begin to burn their fair share of oil. The agricultural, pharmaceutical, and manufacturing sectors, as well as many others, are all based on carbon based chemicals derived from oil. No more oil, no more petrochemicals. The wanton combustion of oil must not just be stopped because of global warming but to preserve a resource which can never be replaced.
June 11th, 2006 at 6:34 pmYou can’t claim there is no disagreement among climate scientists now.
But disagreement about what? Some things are still in debate, some things aren’t. The basic science is not in dispute.
The bottom line, as I’ve been commenting throughout this thread, is that there is risk. And we need to be honest about that, not try to spin it.
And give up the heatsonline link. It’s pathetic propaganda.
If you have a problem with something Ross Gelbspan says, then spell it out. It’s simply a page of scientific studies in the top scientific journals.
June 11th, 2006 at 6:38 pmin reply to the disinfromation spread by post 96:
Oh dear, whack-a-mole season again?
sugar magnolia woud have one believe that the sentence “…. there is disagreement about cliimate change and a lack of understanding about the radiative forces behind climate change” implies that the disagreement is whether it is occurring, that if it is occurring it is questionable whether or not it is anthropogenic, and that a lack of complete understanding of solar or gamma radiation means that the recent tempertarue rise over the last several decades is a related to sun spot activity and not greenhouses gases. Oddly we haven’t seen sun spot activity recently like we did since 1960, yet the temperature is rising now.
each of these is fallacious and misdiredting the debate.
as to consensus in the ICPP report:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/005.htm
and as quoted
The issue of sunspots as mentioned by the much reported and rightfully maligned Belunias and Soon has been debunked repeatedly.
The IPCC and other professionals maintain “that natural factors such as volcanoes or solar variations are not sufficient to produce the observed 20th century forcing.”(warming).
As well, suggesting that one should be innoculated from accusations of bias because of where they clear their paycheck, Mark Twain would offer the following:
“You tell me whar a man gits his corn pone, en I’ll tell you what his ‘pinions is.”
June 11th, 2006 at 6:44 pmI was going to suggest that the trolls take their medication and calm down but they apparently already have. The problem is their medication of choice seems to be crystal meth.
June 11th, 2006 at 6:48 pmRoss Gelbspan:
“The hurricane that struck Louisiana yesterday was nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service. Its real name is global warming.”
Horse sh*t. Even you know that.
June 11th, 2006 at 6:49 pmAlternative fuel sources, why not put solar panels on your roof, wind power, why not? Hello?? this shit is cheaper, but I guess it’s communist like linux, so that means it’s evil.;)
June 11th, 2006 at 6:51 pmJJ,
I would have to see the links to the “discredited information.â€
I think Cicero already gave it up. Try reading.
And if you want talk discredited information, how about all the fiercely circulating conservative urban myth’s out there, like the one about the Gore quote?
Eh, what? Which quote? The one about the internet? I’m not sure what quote is “fiercely circulating” at the moment, I have apparently missed it after browsing around the entire blogosphere today…
And the troll comments on global warming on this site are anemic at best. Judd’s posts have not been “discredited†in the least. Just the opposite.
Yawn. Keep propping up your paper tiger.
If you have a problem with something Ross Gelbspan says, then spell it out. It’s simply a page of scientific studies in the top scientific journals.
Well, if you’d like to find me support in his TIME magazine article for his title that said communities were drowning… I’d be very grateful. There was nothing in his article to support that, and many other things he scared people into believing. Ross Gelbspan is, shall we say, not the most objective person when it comes to this issue.
But disagreement about what? Some things are still in debate, some things aren’t. The basic science is not in dispute.
Disagreement about how much human activity is having an effect on global climate, aduh. Yes the “basic science” that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that the abundance of said gas is higher than it was 100 years ago is very much agreed upon by everyone. However you, Think Progress, Gore, and others like to bait and switch that with agreement on anthropogenic global warming, which there is simply no “consensus” about at all.
Norway’s largest commercial TV network couldn’t even get a single climatologist to appear on a panel about extreme weather to support this “consensus”. Why’s that? I’d love to know.
Zookeeper,
Good luck on that one, JJ! Seixon doesn’t provide no steenking links. He just talks out of his Ex Pat ass.
Actually, I do, you just never read them. I tell people here to read the links, and they just give the old “well, I don’t like you, so I don wanna” excuse. Let me know what you want a link to, I’ll happily oblige. We both know you don’t care and don’t want anything.
June 11th, 2006 at 6:52 pmPeitro is so full of it. My wife pointed me to Fredrick Forsyth’s column in the International Express this weekend concerning his thoughts on Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code (He thinks its crap) but it concerns all those in Pietro’s, and many Conservative’s, relm who pick and choose what to believe on whether they like it or not regardless of the mountains of provable factual evidence that stares right back at them in the face.
June 11th, 2006 at 6:57 pm
#118
lack of complete understanding of solar or gamma radiation
I did not isolate gamma radiation and I did not imply that climate change was not happening. There are numerous radiative forces that are not understood by scientist, one of the reasons IPCC scientists do not have even have 50% confidence in some of their conclusions.
June 11th, 2006 at 7:04 pmwhatsinaname’s post is full of IPCC’s level of confidence qualifiers that indicate low confidence from their scientists.
“we can talk about the da vinci code again in perhaps 2 weeks!!! now i am out of here!!! you people are disgusting!!!! shame on you!!! and don’t forget there is a law!!! and you violeted it!!!! don’t forget?….your ass is mine!!!!!!!!! i don’t care who you are or what you do as a front job!!!! i will make you pay for it!!!! don’t believe me? just wait and see!!!…and for the lance amstron t shirt !!! you can shove it up your ass!!!”
You’re retarded..
June 11th, 2006 at 7:09 pmActually, I do, you just never read them. I tell people here to read the links, and they just give the old “well, I don’t like you, so I don wanna†excuse. Let me know what you want a link to, I’ll happily oblige. We both know you don’t care and don’t want anything.
Comment by Seixon — June 11, 2006 @ 6:52 pm
Okay… I won’t read your blog, but I will read links when I ask for them. So, if you post the ones on the solar warming, I will read them.
I maintain that you have none that are real science. Prove me wrong.
June 11th, 2006 at 7:16 pmWow, I just went for a walk, and when I got back, the thread went bezerk with weird stuff. Interesting. And right before I left, “Sugar Magnolia” made the following comment: We work in the energy industry. Hmm. What could account for this weirdness?
However you, Think Progress, Gore, and others like to bait and switch that with agreement on anthropogenic global warming, which there is simply no “consensus†about at all.
Please read Judd’s post. He links to an article that cites the consensus of 928 articles published since 1993 that agree that “most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrationsâ€
And again, the NAS report that Bush commissioned to study the problem said that
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3713&method=full
I keep on pasting this stuff into this blog. It’s not refuted or addressed. But then you saying dogmatically, that human-generated climate change is not the consensus.
Interesting. That’s all I can say.
George Orwell would have a field day with this stuff.
June 11th, 2006 at 7:55 pmfrom post #118
Are any of those “less than 50% confident” in their conclusions from scientists related to whether global warming is occuring, if it is anthropogenic in nature, and that the causes need to be addressed by society as a whole?
I doubt it. and I said before you are taking linters of facts and weaving a broadcloth of deceit here.
Actually, if you are going to use the most trenchant talking points from the skeptics of global warming, at least express them correctly and keep up with them. You have done neither here. There has been ample appeal by the likes of Vincent Gray and Baluinas and Soon to use the lack of complete understanding of the affect of sun spots and gamma radiation to wave away the affect of greenhouse gases on the change in earthly climate over the past several decades.
If you want to bring up Lindzen’s point about tropospheric moisture too, go right ahead. I’ll even link the facts of the pseudo-debate for you if you wish.
As to the “level of confidence qualifiers” from scientists.
Are you one, or not? Because if you are, you are poorly trained to think deeply and should be ashamed of yourself and if you are not, your ignorance is showing in your misunderstanding of “science.”
Many people want certainties to persuade them, and those science does not to have to offer; science is a human project, not the word of God. But when it comes to the physical world, the uncertainties of scientific consensus have proven consistently more accurate than any source perceived as certain.
And this is a central problem of persuading people to act on scientific evidence. Science can never quite say “we know for sure”. But if, for instance, one is calculating the path of a cannonball, physics is what one to relies on if one wants to know when to duck. And perhaps some new & unexpected thing will happen and the cannonball will miss. But one does not stake one’s life on that, althought in your case I would encourage it.
Ater all I have read from you here, I see a Darwin Award in your future.
June 11th, 2006 at 8:00 pmWhy this concerted troll attack? (One of these fools has been posting under three different names.) The global warming thing must have really touched a wingnut nerve.
June 11th, 2006 at 8:30 pm#120 J.J.
Any response to the fact that the author of the Science magazine “study” had to fess up that she misrepresented the search terms she used to pick the abstracts she wanted to look at? Any response to the fact that another researcher used the same terms that the “study” author actually used and came to vastly different conclusions?
In fact, I’d also love a response from Judd on this one, as well.
See comment #87 for the link.
Later,
June 11th, 2006 at 8:36 pmJeez, George Will looks so smart.
But he sounds so dumb.
June 11th, 2006 at 8:38 pmWhoops, sorry, that should be comment #97.
Later,
June 11th, 2006 at 8:42 pmWill continues to distort the facts about global warming, but he doesn’t really seem to have his heart in it. He fills up most of his space with snarky speculation about Gore’s political ambitions.
This is what’s left of the current “debate†about global warming — misrepresenting the facts and personal attacks. Hopefully, sometime soon, we can move past this and start addressing the problem.
You got that right…as far as the snarky remarks go, SF Gate has two conservative women who write their little opinion pieces here and there. I just read this one Al Gore’s convenient fiction by Debra J. Saunders, and here she does the same damn thing. Instead of addressing the devastating effect that global warming is without a freakin’ doubt happening right this very minute, she goes on about his character…unbelievable. The garbage they spue, and the people who believe it….
June 11th, 2006 at 8:49 pmfrankly, I am offended to no end to the endless rhetoric coming from the deniers of global warming and scientific truths. Instead of listening to:
Signers of the scientists’ statement on scientific integrity include 49 Nobel laureates, 63 National Medal of Science recipients, and 175 members of the National Academies.
and instead of CIE headed by a crew of hacks:
UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists) is an independent nonprofit alliance of more than 100,000 concerned citizens and scientists. We augment rigorous scientific analysis with innovative thinking and committed citizen advocacy to build a cleaner, healthier environment and a safer world.
June 11th, 2006 at 9:08 pmto Cicero, post 123.
Your link at post 97 (not 87) states the following: “On 15 December 2004, she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay. According to Oreskes, her study was not based on the keywords “climate change,” but on “global climate.”
It was referencing a follow-up analysis of the essayist’s review.
The subsequent analysis of the pertinent literature made no remark on the veracity or legitimacy of the papers it counted.
As a practicing scientist I know that the scientific community isn’t some kind of secret cabal. It is an open process: if there are holes in a theory, you can make a name for yourself by showing it. Consensus-busting papers stand more chance of being published (assuming equal technical merit) than those supporting it: purely because of the requirement for novelty which journals impose.
Any new theory on global warming should be able to show how the new theory is at variance with the currently accepted theories. If the new theory makes claims different from those made by currently accepted theories then it should cite experiments that have been done that decide between the new and old theories, or it must propose experiments that could be done to decide between the two.
If an international scientific community as large as climate researchers were to reverse course on something that has been agreed upon like few other scientific issues in history, it would be an startling event. If anything, the research is building more evidence than ever that warming is accelerating, and bound to have an impact on human societies down the road. It you still think the data is false, and that the ever-clarifying warming signal is somehow being invented by an international conspiracy of anti-capitalist do-gooders to funnel money to scientific labs, I await the results of your investigation.
Now lets talk about the bought-and-paid-for Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas
http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/deja-vu/
Soon and Baliunas paper linked …. so your side can actually read it since it is referred to in a thrice derived form around here by skeptics.
http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/pdf/soon+baliunas.cr.2003.pdf
and as the good, objective liberal I am, the other side. A link to the the critique of the Soon and Baliunas paper
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0319.html
Again:
Any “new” theory on global warming has to account for:
1. The planet is getting hotter.
(Lindzen has no legitimate explanation considering his view that it is not by increased CO2.)
2. CO 2 is a major greenhouse gas, and without the greenhouse effect the earth would be freezing.
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/artwork/globalwarming/globaltempchange.gif
(How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?)
http://realclimate.org/index.php?p=87
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2486/24861403.jpg
3. Sunspots are not causing global warming: Take a look at the 1960 values. The sunspot graph predicts 1960s to be the hottest on record (using the arguments of the skeptics of global warming), when the reality is that we haven’t had that cold a year since 1985
And this theory (sunspots and gamma radiation caused earth warming) was attributed for a significant number of the articles sited as “contray to consensus of anthropogenic cause for global warming” just go to the that author’s resubmitted letter to Science and his stated references.
this is the point, the review of the review did not determine the veracity of the papers it counted. it merely counted.
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Sun/maunder.gif
Several independent indices on solar activity – which are direct modern measurement rather than estimations – indicate that there has been no trend in the level of solar activity since the 1950s.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/solar-variability-statistics-vs-physics-2nd-round/#more-277
It is undeniably true that if George Bush came out and supported the facts on global warming you and those of your ilk would vociferously defend the same things you deny now. Your faux stab at intellectual integrity here by demanding rigorous analysis is laughable because you just don’t believe that you can be convinced otherwise of your position. Your remarks are not meant as debate topics, but obfustication.
June 11th, 2006 at 9:35 pm#52: What you’re referring to is, I believe, called the Gaia theory. Interesting stuff.
June 11th, 2006 at 9:54 pm“You tell me whar a man gits his corn pone, en I’ll tell you what his ‘pinions is.â€
Your remarks are not meant as debate topics, but obfustication.
Amen and amen.
June 11th, 2006 at 9:58 pmI heard a very interesting seminar by a colleague from UC Irvine. It may be that we don’t have to reduce carbon emmissions to stop global warming. Its possible to artificially increase the earth’s average reflectivity (the amount of sunlight that is reflected) by adding dust to the upper atmosphere. This has happened naturally during volcanic eruptions, and during big eruptions noticeable drops in global temperature levers were recorded. An increase in refelctivity of only a couple of percent would do the trick — people on the ground would barely notice the difference.
June 11th, 2006 at 10:17 pmearlier someone said:
“Hopefully, sometime soon, we can move past this and start addressing the problem.”
THANK YOU.
so, move past it. start addressing the problem. change the debate. i never get into the global warming debate, because i’ve got a simple answer: it doesn’t matter because it’s a national security problem, and that should be of concern to everybody.
right wingers have a really hard time arguing against our national security interests. i know i’ve said this here before, but i really wish people would listen. if someone wants to have the ‘global warming debate’, turn it into a national security debate:
1) America’s dependence on foreign oil is its number one national security problem. It vastly skews our foreign and economic policies. It’s brought us the “War on Terror”, and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It ultimately caused 9/11 (yea, I can see you choke on your coffee with that one, but ask yourself, would 9/11 have happened if we hadn’t spent the last 50 years meddling in middle eastern affairs to secure oil reserves for the oil industry?).
2) There is absolutely nothing wrong with the desire to have cleaner air and water.
3) As studies have shown, because energy is a valuable commodity, a renewable energy sector can and will supplant the losses of the oil industry. New jobs will be created for scientists, researchers, engineers, administrators, analysts, accountants, assembly line workers, maintenance workers, and many more professions. New skills and trades will arise.
4) More self-sufficient communities and families can only be good for America. Imagine turning from “can America be energy independent?” to “can your community be energy independent?” or even “can your family be energy independent?”.
5) We are in the mess we are today because of oil. The oil industry exercises a grotesque amount of influence on our political process, domestic and foreign policies, economy, elections, and hell, just our day-to-day lives. It’s time for that to stop, and Americans can decide to make it stop, if they have the will.
6) Doing nothing about global warming is absolutely in the interests of the oil industry. Arguing against global warming also quite clearly serves their purposes. Any industry with that much power and that much at stake can certainly afford a few million dollars to find a few “experts” to muddy the scientific waters. And if you’d like to contend that the oil companies wouldn’t stoop so low, you’re either completely naive or you’re on their payroll.
in a moment, further considerations…please oh right-wingers and global warming deniers, refute away!
June 11th, 2006 at 10:25 pm# 131 You are right. The albedo (reflectivity) of the earth reflects almost 30% (average. Ice- 84%, thick green canopy-14%) of incoming solar radiation. Krakatoa´s volcanic eruption made the biosphere colder due to what you said. The problem is that, imagine we have to cloud the skies with highly reflective particles. What particles? How are they going to affect orgnisms when they precipitate if they do? How are going to put them there? See. We have to stop throwing particles in the atmosphere that Earth has already chosed to be underground. Who knows best, we -a few thousands of years of existence- or the Earth -4 and a half billions of years? Already the albedo is changing beacuse the big polar glaciers are melting. They are the reason of Earth´s high albedo and we are lowering it.
June 11th, 2006 at 10:36 pmIts possible to artificially increase the earth’s average reflectivity (the amount of sunlight that is reflected) by adding dust to the upper atmosphere.
It’s possible in theory. But you never know about unintended consequences. And unintended consequences are what got us into this problem in the first place.
As they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Fix the problem at its source (though the energy companies won’t be happy about that).
June 11th, 2006 at 10:38 pm122 purvis ames. I think you have been mis-spelling your name.
June 11th, 2006 at 10:39 pmShouldn’t it be ‘pervert anus’?
#115 – We both know you don’t care and don’t want anything.
Comment by Seixon
I beg to differ, Seixon, if I request a link, I watch for it as long as I am on this site, and if it is provided I read it. To date I have never seen you provide me a link. Don’t pretend to know anything about what I want or care about.
June 11th, 2006 at 10:40 pmWill is living is a freakin dreamworld like the rest of the conservatives. Wake up you dopes.
June 11th, 2006 at 10:41 pmRe: #128
“The subsequent analysis of the pertinent literature made no remark on the veracity or legitimacy of the papers it counted.”
The abstracts that Peiser reviewed were drawn from the exact same database that Oreskes used to create her “study”. And the phrase was “global climate change”, not “global climate”.
Peiser came up with wildly different results than what Oreskes claimes. Three to one AGAINST the notion of anthropogenic climate change. Using the same abstracts that Oreskes used. One or the other is lying, or has misinterpreted the abstracts. Why is there no willingness on the side of the left to ask these questions?
Later,
June 11th, 2006 at 10:51 pm#138 IT DOES NOT MATTER whether rethorical arguments are used to argue against and in favor of global warming. Global warming is a fact, and we are contributing to that, whether he/she/we/it did a good or a bad review of scientific papers. That is not the discussion. It is like we just sit here and use legalloid and economical terms to address hunger in Africa. People are dying of hunger, no matter if some say they are or are not.
June 11th, 2006 at 11:01 pmGelbspan, on the other hand, has done a wonderful job of cataloging the fossil fuel industry’s disinformation campaigns ; ), and their support for their handful of greenhouse “skeptics”. He didn’t win a Pulitzer for nothing.
And he runs a site with some very useful information, which is why I link to it.
June 11th, 2006 at 11:06 pmWell then everyone agrees that global warming is occuring. But what the skeptics are saying (and I agree with them) is that we are not certain that human activity (ie the greenhouse gases that we humans produce) are a major or even a significant factor in the warming of the earth’s climate that has been seen in the past 150 years. The world is a far too complex system (air currents, ocean currents, cloud formations etc) to expect that one sole variable will cause all the changes seen so far. Being positively correlated does not mean causality. There is no computer model that can accurately (without any errors) simulate the effect of all the variables because we do not know how all the variable interact with each other. Maybe the recent global warming is in a natural cycle and we humans are not the reason why it is happening. The global warming debate has become more of a political debate than a scientific debate which is too bad. I still remember when I was in University and the scientist of that time said that an ice age was coming. Time will tell.
June 12th, 2006 at 12:30 am#52, I’m not a liberal, I’m a crypto-trot. But as Turtles go, that makes me a moderate
June 12th, 2006 at 1:08 am# 142 the skeptics (and you) are just plain wrong.
there is abundant evidence that man-made CO2 has risen over the last century and a half, and that it is driving the climate change far beyond what would be expected from natural sources.
if you don’t believe in global warming due to greenhouse gases, especially CO2, just remember that were it not for greenhouse warming the earth would be 33C colder than today, and that the % of CO2 in he atmosphere has risen a third since the 1850s.
there there is little reported evidence natural conditions are causing the forcing, (warming). flucuations in solar radiation cannot account foe the rise in temperatures over the last several decades and the volcanic eruptions such as pinatubo actually cooled the earth.
the links below show it, and if you want to learn how wrong you are, try reviewing realclimate.org and spend an hour reading up on it.
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2486/24861401.jpg
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2486/24861403.jpg
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gat2005-600×283.gif
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/440.htm
each day the modeling predictions are borne out with greater accuracy. and your remark that things are to complicated to understand should be graciously referred to as “un-smart.”
and the reason your professor told you the earth would be cooling circa 1975 was because they were discounting the warming affect from the buildup of CO2. the chart above bears it out.
June 12th, 2006 at 1:21 am#139
Now hang on a second. Think Progress has been using this “study” as part of their standard response whenever someone raises any questions about the veracity of the concept of human-caused global warming. Now, I point out a differing opinion and you say it doesn’t matter? It most absolutely does matter.
I am not supposed to even question the assertion that the overall scientific consensus supports this concept? The links in my post go to someone who took the same abstracts and came to a vastly different conclusion: that there is no scientific consensus, and that instead of being unanimously FOR the concept, instead they run 3 to 1 AGAINST!
Now, either the one researcher is wrong, or the other one is. Please, refute it if you are able to, I’ll go to the links you post and check them out. But don’t just dismiss the argument out of hand just because you don’t like it.
Later,
June 12th, 2006 at 1:28 amTPJUDD sources the EPA to support his claim that the debate is over and we should now solve the problem…by taking down the evil US oil companies. But the EPA is not completely convinced of the potential effects of human activity. There are so many uncertainties that are still being debated. Al Gore’s exaggerations and TP’s attacks on oil companies is clouding the debate. Sorry TPJUDD, even your source doesn’t agree that the debate is over.
What the EPA says:
Some of the largest uncertainties are associated with events that pose the greatest risk to human societies. IPCC cautions, “Complex systems, such as the climate system, can respond in non-linear ways and produce surprises.” There is the possibility that a warmer world could lead to more frequent and intense storms, including hurricanes. Preliminary evidence suggests that, once hurricanes do form, they will be stronger if the oceans are warmer due to global warming. However, the jury is still out whether or not hurricanes and other storms will become more frequent. (Not according to Al Gore’s “over-representation” of the facts).
Living with Uncertainty
Like many pioneer fields of research, the current state of global warming science can’t always provide definitive answers to our questions. There is certainty that human activities are rapidly adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and that these gases tend to warm our planet. This is the basis for concern about global warming.
The fundamental scientific uncertainties are these: How much more warming will occur? How fast will this warming occur? And what are the potential adverse and beneficial effects? These uncertainties will be with us for some time, perhaps decades.
Global warming poses real risks. The exact nature of these risks remains uncertain. Ultimately, this is why we have to use our best judgement – guided by the current state of science – to determine what the most appropriate response to global warming should be.
June 12th, 2006 at 1:55 am#139 “Why is there no willingness on the side of the left to ask these questions?”
Probably the same reason the Left doesn’t weigh intelligent design abstracts on an equal basis with the abstracts accompanying the various evolution papers published in reputable, peer reviewed science journals.
Since we’re questioning intellectual curiosity, or the lack thereof, why does the right cling to the unsupported belief based arguments against evolution while it advances economic Darwinism as a political practice?
June 12th, 2006 at 2:03 amto # 145
Both are wrong. Is that Solomonic enough for you?
I never signed on to what was said by judd in his reply to george will.
I am an independent thinker and do not have a jerky knee vis-a-vis the issues. and frankly I usually savage the Left for being stupid, but there is just so much more of it coming from the Right on this thread.
You can read every post of mine and I never said a word about the Science review until you posted the web site referring to Pieser’s own analysis of the literature that contradicted the Science review, and as soon as I read it I could see the flaws in each analysis.
However, you dismissed my questions to you about the manner in which Pieser separated the papers that “explicitly” supported versus “implicitly” supported global warming consensus. I believe he was more in error by commission of selective subjectivity than the woman was by stupid omission.
in other words that stupid bitch was a rah-rah cheerleader for her side. while peiser was a slick, devious intellectual crook who split hairs and made his analysis look valid where it wasn’t. His was a more careful deceit while hers was goofily in the wide open. and the only way anyone would know that was to read Pieser’s actual letters and know the papers and authors and subjects Pieser referenced.
so again, even as Pieser admits, those papers that supported the consensus, EITHER explicitely OR implicitely were 335, and those papers that opposed it were numbered at 34.
that is not the 1/3 ratio you have trumpeted now several times. it is just plain wrong to say so knowing what I pointed out to you that was written in the link you provided. and I am assuming that you are an honest man here today.
But, I know better than to count citations like that. It does not prove any validity of what the consensus actually is or if it is correct. It is akin in the scientific field to forcing every piece of data to fit a straight line by taking the Log versus Log value of the data and plotting a chart of it. Both are equally specious.
my very first post was this:
“what is this consensus anyway?â€
http://www.realclimate.org/ index.php/ archives/ 2004/ 12/ just-what-is-this-consensus-anyway/
explaining what a scientific consensus meant and its implications. and I followed it up later with an explaination on why the demand from the Right on quantifying adverbial qualfiers used in science discussions was not the way science was done or even useful with:
“Many people want certainties to persuade them, and those science does not to have to offer; science is a human project, not the word of God. But when it comes to the physical world, the uncertainties of scientific consensus have proven consistently more accurate than any source perceived as certain.”
and I read your link; that Pieser wrote more than one letter to Science, that his work was desseminated widely over the net, and also that I knew the referneces he cited had been refuted and rebutted, how much more informed should I have to be in this discussion with you?
June 12th, 2006 at 2:40 amThere is little evidence for a connection between solar activity (as inferred from trends in galactic cosmic rays) and recent global warming. Since the paper by Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991), there has been an enhanced controversy about the role of solar activity for earth’s climate. Svensmark (1998) later proposed that changes in the inter-planetary magnetic fields (IMF)
Yeh, some idiot here keeps talking about IMF, EMF, Scalar Waves, Zero Point Energy, and stupid stuff like EMP weapons, HPMV as well. Sheebus. The Unbalanced Cross, The guy never shuts up about Thales and magnets, Tesla and Cold negative energy, selfpumping ying yang mirrors, and the number three….always with the number three, and and Synthesis thing,, Sheebus.
Now the Scientists are agreeing with loony tune monkey boy and his magnetic dyslexic convoluted painful poetry?
Aye Yaye Yaye…..
June 12th, 2006 at 3:05 amto 146
where you state that:
“Completely?” What in the world does that mean? We can not completely be certain of anything in the field of science.
I asked you to list what those alleged “debatable” uncertainties were; if they were involved with whether or not global warming was occurring, whether it was anthropogenic and what were the ways to deal with it were it so.
What uncertainties are you talking about where uncertainy would caution one to reject action based upon what we know today and can do to slow down global warming?
We are so uncertain about what? and that uncertainty prevents us from taking what actions?
June 12th, 2006 at 3:07 am#143 You are pretty much correct about everything you say. You sound like you want to be convinced whether the real scientists or the scientists working for an oil/burner manufacturer/automobile/machine company hold the truth or not, which is, of course, a wise thing to do. I didnt say I disliked your opinion, just that I think that the discussion should not be pointed that way because it has the risk of becoming a rethorical or legal matter. Rethorical because you may agree or not with one point of view if you like or dislike its speech or the way it is presented. Legal because I think that global warming will be sent to the Grand Jury to find whether it is happening or not, which seems really crazy but remember that the Holocaust was sent to jurisdiction!!! I humbly suggest you to read as much as you want from this issue, but not just US sources. In my opinion, european sources tend to be much more balanced for that matter. What do I know? Really not much, I am an mechanical engineer and I am very much in favor of RES (renewable energy sources) and I am not making any profit out of that.
One more thing. This is not about left or right, dems or repubs and good or evil. This is not a political issue no matter what. The discussion in other parts of the world have nothing to do with Dems and Repubs!!! Dont be so self-centered, almost every other country is addressing the problem or climate change in their own terms, whether you believe in Gore´s movie or not.
June 12th, 2006 at 3:16 amI have tried to publish the only solution to global warming (i.e. remove the CO2 from the environment after it has been emitted). Yet, no paper will publish it, because they want to push caps.
Caps are mitigation-they might slow global warming down, but they aren’t a solution. The earth will soon emit far more greenhouse gases than humans (although human emissions triggered the runaway global warming).
Basically, mankind will continue burning fossile fuels until the earth become uninhabitable. We are already committed to catastrophic global warming (the last time the CO2 level was this high, the ocean was much more than ten meters higher). Do you think all those coal fired plants and oil burning cars are just going to be scrapped while they still have life in them?
Rather than slowing down, or stopping our emissions, mankind is set to double the emissions in the next 50 years. Wake up-the only solution to global warming is to remove the CO2 from the environment after it is emitted. Nature already does this, but we must increase the rate using genetic engineering.
Soon permafrost (which contains something like 400 billions tons of methane, which is 20X more powerful than CO2), and the seabed (which contains something like 10,000 billion tons of methane), will start releasing the carbon they’ve been accumulating for the past hundreds of centuries. This has happened before-the most recent was the PETM, when there were palm trees at the North Pole, 55 million years ago.
June 12th, 2006 at 3:43 amWe are so uncertain about what? and that uncertainty prevents us from taking what actions?
This is deliberately unanswered. There’s a reason for this. It’s the same strategy that the tobacco companies used in avoiding responsibility for their activities:
You don’t have to prove anything. Just keep up the illusion of maximum debate and maximum doubt. It’s about confusing the public.
It’s worth reiterating that in comment 107, at least one of the trolls on this thread admits: “We work in the energy industry.” But it doesn’t matter. Their arguments were pretty anemic anyway.
June 12th, 2006 at 8:23 amanartica used to be a tropical forest
June 12th, 2006 at 8:36 amin 1975 newsweek predicted we about to enter another ice age. good thing we didin’t all start doing back flips over that one
June 12th, 2006 at 8:37 amAnother beautiful day in Minnesota. Everyone feels better on days with cool dry northeast flow from the arctic. The arctic had crododiles 55 million years ago, at the time of the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are currently 30 times the rate of greenhouse has emissions which led to the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum. How many beautiful days will folks experience 50 years from now in Minnesota. Probably none. I think we’re being selfish. Have a nice day!
June 12th, 2006 at 9:38 amSeixon – Your links? Funny how you always disappear when we ask for them…
June 12th, 2006 at 9:47 amin 1975 newsweek predicted we about to enter another ice age. good thing we didin’t all start doing back flips over that one
Comment by amy — June 12, 2006 @ 8:37 am
Well we are, that’s what Global Warming indicates is about to come next. You see, before the Ice Ages are periods of Warming. They generally, throughout the course of the last 600,000 years atleast, last about 1,000 years. So in 1975, the next Ice Age was over due. It’s a logical conclusion to make. Much like saying at the end of summer that the weather is about to turn cooler. Well, sometimes, you first get a heat wave. Doesn’t make the original premise incorrect at all.
There actually was a little Ice Age from mid-1500’s to mid-1800’s… prior to excessive human polution.
June 12th, 2006 at 9:57 am#154 Lucky for us scientists don’t use Newsweek as a source. George Will stubbornly ignores that in 1975 Newsweek misrepresented the peer reviewed scientific process. If he did proper research (Nature magazine, etc) instead of reading Newsfluff, he’d have a better understanding of what’s going on.
And if he thinks there’s not enough consensus on the effects of pollution on our climate, then he should immediately stop prognosticating politics and economics, and demand no action in those areas also.
June 12th, 2006 at 11:07 amanartica used to be a tropical forest
And the southern United States used to be uninhabitable. Are you pushing for a return to those days, or would you rather help us try and prevent it? 100 years is not so long. Think about Americans of 1900. How would you feel about them today if they caused Texas to be 140 degrees in the summer because they didn’t want to admit the liberals might be right about this?
June 12th, 2006 at 11:13 amI enjoy how many scream about the evil oil industry and car industry while these 2 industries are doing more research into fuel efficeincy and alternative fuels then any other private industry is.
June 12th, 2006 at 11:30 amIt is in their benefit afterall as they both realize that oil isn’t finite and their customers will dry up as oil gets more expensive. They are merely insulting their future and ensuring they will always be in control of the energy. You really think they care if the “future” energy is Oil or Hydrogene? Answer: They don’t care as long as they control it.
I enjoy how many scream about the evil oil industry and car industry
Well they certainly have pumped out the misinformation. (See my links above.)
It’s interesting that across the pond, “heads of some of Britain’s biggest companies are meeting Tony Blair today to demand tougher targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1791534,00.html
Certainly different from here, no?
June 12th, 2006 at 11:51 amunbelievable,
Okay… I won’t read your blog, but I will read links when I ask for them. So, if you post the ones on the solar warming, I will read them.
I maintain that you have none that are real science. Prove me wrong.
I already gave a link in this very thread! Sheesh. I link to my blog because, guess what, I write about stuff there. Guess what, I link to stuff there. Your excuse for not going to my blog to read my research and sources is nothing but that, an excuse.
Seixon – Your links? Funny how you always disappear when we ask for them…
Link for what? I’ve already given a link to a paper on the Sun and cosmic flux. Yes, I disappeared – some of us have to sleep to stay living and breathing. Keep in mind I’m in a different time zone than you are.
Zookeeper,
I beg to differ, Seixon, if I request a link, I watch for it as long as I am on this site, and if it is provided I read it. To date I have never seen you provide me a link. Don’t pretend to know anything about what I want or care about.
Just ask and I will give it. Oh, and you have to ask specifically, not just “show me some links!!!!” and not specify wtf you are talking about, which you and others seem to do quite often. I’ve already given some links in this thread (or was it in the other one…) and they seem to have been ignored. Cicero has been largely ignored on his links as well.
June 12th, 2006 at 12:21 pmCicero was addressed in comment 129. Machiavelli was addressed in 154.
June 12th, 2006 at 12:36 pmSo you want 100% agreement about everything before we take action on anything? – JJ
I wonder how many people who so blithely say “we should do nothing about global warming until all the evidence is in” also supported the invasion of Iraq because they just might have nuclear weapons? That sounds like a rather inconsistent position to me.
Of course, you might think the opposite position is inconsistent as well — but only if you don’t take into account the costs of action vs. inaction: and you don’t have to be a Bayesian or utilitarian to realize the importance of taking such costs into account. In spite of Bush & CO rhetoric to the contrary, the costs of inaction in Iraq were relatively low whereas the costs of invading and occupying a country (which I would argue would typically be inversely correlated — the harder the people of a country would fight an invasion, the more cohesive they are and hence the easier it will be to manage an occupation … and conversely) are high. OTOH, the costs of not doing anything about global warming are actually quite high whereas the costs of doing something are lower than you may think.
Under most models of decision making with uncertain information, then, a reasonable person would be more keen to do something about global warming than invade Iraq, nu?
So if you support doing nothing about global warming but supported the war in Iraq, I must ask why? Is it because you only think of yourself and if you are not one of the troops, you figure the war in Iraq doesn’t cost you (thanks to GW Bush making sure we don’t pay for Iraq — only our kids do? or were you so mean-spirited as to support the idea that Iraqis would pay for us invading, er sorry “liberating” them?)?
June 12th, 2006 at 2:55 pmHere’s a question that I have been wondering about. How did the oil in the ANWR providence in Alaska form? Oil formed from the prehistoric plants that grew in warm climates so Alaska 65-150 million years ago had a tropical climate. The bottomline is that the climate on Earth changes continually and there is nothing you can do or I can do to stop it.
June 12th, 2006 at 4:12 pmComment by Seixon — June 12, 2006 @ 12:21 pm
It took you that long to come up with that lame b.s.? You have to leave to go to sleep conveniently when people have asked you for information at four in the afternoon over there? And you wonder why we don’t believe anything you say…
I won’t go to your blog because you’re always pushing it and I am not interested in reading more of your tripe than I already do.
So, as always, you have nothing. Just what we’ve come to expect from you Seixon. You conservatives are shameless in your deception…
June 12th, 2006 at 4:19 pmRegarding the issue of Alaska and Antarctica having tropical climates at one time:
There are two factors — not only was the temp. of the Earth indeed warmer than the present at various points in the Earth’s life (which does indeed suggest that it is possible that global warming is not 100% a man-made phenomenon), but also the continents tend to move around: Alaska and, especially Antarctica, were not always near the poles.
Indeed the two phenomena are related: part of the reason why the Earth was warmer at some points in the past and colder at others relates to the distribution of the continents accross the surface of the Earth.
The bottom line is of course the Earth’s climate changes continually in ways there is nothing we can do to stop, but it also perhaps changes due to how much fossil fuels we burn (which would tend to return the climate to that in which that carbon was fixed in the first place) and other things we can help: given the costs of climate change (we humans didn’t evolve to live in a world where Alaska is a freakin’ tropical forest), perhaps it makes sense to do what we can about our role in climate change!
June 12th, 2006 at 4:27 pm167: How did the oil in the ANWR providence in Alaska form?
Providence is in Rhode Island.
And yes climate changes, but usually not over a few decades. Things are given a chance to adapt. For instance, the soil in the Midwest is optimal for growing crops. If rainfall patterns change over a matter of a few decades, it may no longer be optimal.
If the Atlantic coastline changed over millions of years, we would be hunky dory. But if Greenland and Antarctic ice melt over a few decades– you can tell where I’m going with this.
…The bottomline is that the climate on Earth changes continually and there is nothing you can do or I can do to stop it.
No, there’s nothing we can “do to stop it” if we continue to change the CO2 levels to the highest they’ve been in several million years. But if we humans don’t change the CO2 levels– again, you can tell where I’m going with this.
June 12th, 2006 at 4:28 pmThe positions of continents 50 million years ago were similar to where they are now.
http://www.scotese.com/newpage9.htm
June 12th, 2006 at 5:06 pm#165 and yet another ill-informed comment from Randy. Let me repeat what I said in #23 for you Randy:
Now wouldn’t you agree that (1) if we are the cause of the rapid climate change which is by scientific concensus now occuring we are going to responsible for a massive extinction of diversity of life on this plant and what we now think of as civilization will probably plunge into a dark age (the dark ages have already started in parts of the US mid-west and much of the South by all accounts) (2) if we are the cause and its in our power to stop it, wouldn’t you think we would be wise to do something to halt it?
Anyway Randy, best of luck for the dark ages, you seem to be at least thinking with the kind of rigor and depth to stand you in good stead when the witch-burning starts.
June 12th, 2006 at 5:54 pm#169: indeed this is true. And indeed it was warmer 50 million years ago than it is now.
But 50 million years ago was Antartica a tropical forest? Was Alaska?
Could be — I don’t think so, though. Certainly most oil deposits long pre-date 50 million years ago.
June 12th, 2006 at 7:05 pmDAS,
I wonder how many people who so blithely say “we should do nothing about global warming until all the evidence is in†also supported the invasion of Iraq because they just might have nuclear weapons?
Hmm. I’m sorry. I don’t recall anyone saying Iraq had nuclear weapons. Oh, and uh, Iraq had WMDs earlier, and the UN inspections were ongoing because everyone thought they still had some. In other words, for your comparison to work, we’d have to have experienced knowing for a fact that CO2 emissions caused global warming earlier, and then be scared it was going to happen again. That dog won’t hunt now will it.
So if you support doing nothing about global warming but supported the war in Iraq, I must ask why?
Because I can read a temperature graph and can see quite well that it is no warmer in most of the world than it was in 1930, and that CO2 emissions and the temperature do not correlate all that well, especially between 1930 and 1970. Even if CO2 was the thing making everything abnormally (well in some few places anyways) warmer, there’s not much we could do to stop it anyways. Other than invading China, India, and the entire third world and force them to stop what they’re doing. I doubt you’d support that, and neither would I. So what are you left with, the Kyoto Protocol? Nobody serious about global warming thinks that the Kyoto would solve anything, even if we take it as a given that all the IPCC’s predictions are accurate.
Oh, and eh, we can do BOTH. The main problem with CO2 emissions is that they are usually combined with other pollution. Pollution is bad. Also, CO2 emissions come from the use of mainly fossil fuels. Now, we should lean away from fossil fuels, not because of global warming, but because we need to become indepedent of other nations when it comes to our energy needs – especially independent of places like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.
unbelievable,
It took you that long to come up with that lame b.s.? You have to leave to go to sleep conveniently when people have asked you for information at four in the afternoon over there? And you wonder why we don’t believe anything you say…
Eh, what? “Linkgate” erupted at about 6.30pm EDT, which is 12.30am my time. Then you asked me for links at around 4pm my time, when I was busy like most people are during the afternoon. Not only that, but you never specified what exactly you wanted to see a link for. I might as well just blurt out “SHOW ME A LINK!” and then complain because you don’t give me one because you have no idea WTF to give me a link for. How lame.
I won’t go to your blog because you’re always pushing it and I am not interested in reading more of your tripe than I already do.
OK, but you complain that I don’t provide links, yet I do because they are on my blog. Your unwillingness to read my blog to actually see what you claim you want to see shows you’re just being disingenuous and trying to paint me as dishonest or unreliable.
So, as always, you have nothing. Just what we’ve come to expect from you Seixon. You conservatives are shameless in your deception…
Have nothing for what? You STILL haven’t asked me for anything specifically. I have no idea what you want to see. This is the game you and others always play, like Zookeeper. You keep asking for links, but never specify WHAT you want to see links for. It’s like playing the “Who” gag. “Who’s here. Who? Yes, Who. No, Who’s here? Who is. Tell me who is here! Who is!”
Here’s the link I posted in the other thread: http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/2004ja010964.pdf
I have no idea if that’s what you wanted, but I’ll just take a wild stab in the dark.
Oh, and when are you going to stop deluding yourself into believing I’m a conservative? Liberals are every bit as deceptive as conservatives, the fact that you believe otherwise shows your true partisan flavor.
There’s more studies being done on the Sun out there, if you only cared to research it instead of gobbling up garbage from Think Progress.
June 12th, 2006 at 7:54 pm#172, dishonesty is also about not talking about all the facts or deliberately ignoring others. Sure the 1930s to 1970s trend is flat but it seems more due to a short-term cyclical cooling trend.
“Hansen’s group looked into the causes of the fluctuations, and they got a rather good match for the temperature record using volcanic eruptions plus solar variations. Greenhouse warming by CO2 had not been a major factor (at least, not yet). More sophisticated analyses in the 1990s would eventually confirm these findings. From the 1940s to the early 1960s, the Northern Hemisphere had indeed cooled while temperatures had held roughly steady in the south. This was largely because of normal variations in natural forces, although industrial aerosol pollution had helped. Then the warming had resumed in both hemispheres. “
Maybe you could get some publicity for yourself reviewing Michael Crichton’s next book?
But then again, there is this in your statement, so, if I were you I would be very careful what I said about anything I was not competent to comment on…
“Hmm. I’m sorry. I don’t recall anyone saying Iraq had nuclear weapons.” Reagan didn’t ‘recall’ either, but that ‘dog does not hunt either’ – Seixon. Post #172
Over to you Dick Cheney:
“And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons” – Dick Cheney, March 16 2003
How about you Chimpy or did Condi make you say this;
“”The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” – George W. Bush, SOTU, 2003
So Seixon, your Reaganesque parsing may get you off in a court of law, but if I were you, I would say the smoke rising from your underwear gives you away….
Thanks for playing ’spot the whopper’, better luck next time.
June 12th, 2006 at 8:42 pmwhat a fruitless argument.
you can all keep playing seixon and randy’s game. as long as you do, they’re winning. the point of their game is to keep everyone arguing back and forth and consequently doing nothing.
just a reminder that it isn’t very progressive to sit around arguing with halfwits. especially when their goal is to bog down the debate and prevent anything from actually happening.
you do always have the option of getting up from your computers and actually doing something about it — you know, besides arguing with some right-wing hacks that you’re never going to convince anyway.
seriously, people, this is classic right-wing tactic here: you want to win the debate, but all they need is a draw — the net result is the same as a win for them: nothing is done
turn the debate to national security. the same changes that need to occur to prevent global warming need to occur for reasons of national security.
can anybody respond to these quotes:
bush, in his 2006 SOTU speech — “we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world”
Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy [http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org] — “We are funding terrorism with our petrodollars. The bulk of the funding for terrorism is money that flows from state sponsors of terrorism and from there to terrorist organizations. In other words we’re paying them to kill us…As one who approaches this from a pure national security perspective I really believe we have no choice but to seize the opportunity to move the country as rapidly as possible off the vulnerability associated with this current reliance on foreign oil.”
June 12th, 2006 at 9:12 pm[...] The sad thing about the movie though is that Gore and the filmmakers are, for the most part, preaching to the choir. Like Michael Moore and his films (Note: the comparison between AIT and Moore’s films is unfair, I’m just trying to give an analogy), Gore and AIT have been labeled “liberal propaganda” by conservatives. So while people who generally already believe in the dangers of global warming, or are fans of Gore, will see this movie (and they are in droves), I wonder how many people who really need to see it (i.e. global warming sceptics) will actually make the trip to the theater. What really confuses me is why Republicans have latched on to this idea that global warming is a “liberal” cause. What about global warming is against the conservative ideology? I can, perhaps, understand the conservative reluctance to rely on government to solve the problem but what about those who refuse to even recognize there is a problem with warming? Take George Will (or better yet, take Think Progress’ response to Will) for instance. In a column discussing Gore’s chances of running in 2008 Will aligns himself fairly clearly with those who say there is still scientific debate about global warming. As Gore says in the movie, thats just not true. The debate is over; the problem is there remain those who wish to muddy the waters. At least Will appears to have seen the movie. President Bush, one of those still waiting for the debate to end, has said he has no intention of seeing AIT. Why? Is it because he doesn’t want to be reminded that Gore beat him in the popular vote? Or is it because of his legendary lack of curiosity? Last summer I told two people who are quite knowledgeable about politics that I thought Gore would run in 2008 for President. Their response? They laughed in my face basically. Now Gore is still saying that he has no intention of running again and clearly Senator Clinton looks like the run away favorite but Gore position himself as a Hillary-alternative. I actually think there is a good Hillary-alternative who is already running (for all intents and purposes) but think of the advantages Gore has. First and most importantly, he has almost a blank slate on the Iraq War (which in all likelihood will still be a big issue in 2008). He wasn’t in the Senate to vote for the war resolution and so has no vote to explain (unlike Hillary). Second, Gore can currently do little wrong in the eyes of the base of the Democratic Party (establishment Democrats and the media are still bizzarely anti-Gore). This is important because primary voters, in this case Democratic primary voters, are more liberal then general election voters. With Hillary’s pandering to the middle/right (video games? Seriously Senator Clinton?) frustrating many Democrats, Gore has a real chance of coming at Hillary from the left. Thirdly, Gore’s already been through the gauntlet before, and, even better, he won the popular vote. Yes his campaign wasn’t that great and he made a lot of mistakes but even with all that he still got more votes then Bush in 2000. So will the man run in 2008? I’m not sure but I’d bet money that he will. There is already a “Draft Gore” movement afoot and it will only get stronger as 2007 and 2008 approaches. I doubt Gore, even if he is truly reluctant to run, will be able to resist the temptation of finally winning the Presidency. [...]
June 12th, 2006 at 9:46 pm#174, Randy is a halfwit that’s true, Seixon is not – he is dishonest. Allowing lies to go unchallenged anywhere is what allowed these fascists to do what they have done. So you would rather not meet this head on and call a liar a liar, or would you let the right-wing noise machine have it’s say unchallenged? Every person who sees a liar called out for what he is, be it Druge, O’Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, Bush, Cheney, Blair, Howard, becomes convinced of the right’s mendacity. Don’t leave the field to these bastards, ever.
“turn the debate to national security. the same changes that need to occur to prevent global warming need to occur for reasons of national security” Agreed, but only Wolfowitz-style, that is the one reason ‘to agree on’ that will work.
3-1 v Japan, fine result BTW. I saw Viduka and the keeper play recently, I rate OZ to be one of the surprises of 2006.
June 12th, 2006 at 10:15 pmok, so you’re arguing with a halfwit and an obfuscator.
all i’m saying is you want to win the debate, they want to prolong and confuse the debate so nothing’s actually done. that’s their tactic, and if you go along, you play into their hands. and i agree, don’t leave the field — in fact, do what they do… take them on their field, which is supposedly national security.
just a simple query: how do you expect to win the global warming debate in a country where, according to gallup, 46% believe “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so”?
i agree, as principled people you shouldn’t concede ground to liars. but you do realize that as long as this debate is occurring, they’re on the offensive, and you’re on the defensive. it’s easy to lie about global warming, though. just get an oil company to pay a “scientist” enough money (dr. balling, anyone?) and the waters of truth are officilly muddied.
it’s much harder to deny threats to national security — i mean, for obvious example, they manufactured an entire war on imaginary fears of wmd we now know did not exist.
our dependence on oil is directly responsible for the war on terror, 9/11, the energy crisis, and will likely lead to an economic disaster worse than anything predicted by right-wing pundits as a result of actions against global warming. it’s this simple: end the oil dependence, end the war on terror. no more foreign policy adventures.
btw, yes, good result by oz in the world cup, thanks. i’m an american (dual citizen actually), though, and frankly have very little interest in soccer. neighbors kept me up last night screaming…3 pm match in germany ends after midnight here (and all the oz scoring was near the end of the match). i did see the england – paraguay match, however. most of my friends here are from the uk…
June 12th, 2006 at 11:03 pm#177 not really arguing, Randy’s not much of an argument. Seixon on the other hand needed dispatching for his bullshit. If someone sees he discussion and goes away thinking that those people are full of it, that’s one more small win. They all add up.
I don’t expect to win the global warming debate frankly, although I am interested in the science professionally and personally and think that it provides an imperative to change our way of life before it is too late. The decadence will go on in the bar of Titanic until the water swirls around the humand race’s feet, i’m afraid. Its too easy for people to take an ostrich approach of: its not real, can’t do anything, Jesus will save me, the economy will crash, the Chinese will cheat, blah blah. Fear will work, so sure unleash the national security dog – trouble is Chimpy and his Organ Grinders sold this adventure as was on the cheap, the soldiers go to Iraq and the rest get to sacrifice by heading to Disneyland on a refinanced mortgage. I don’t think the US citizen is capable of the kind of sacrifice that energy dependence on all sources of oil and climate change brought on by fossil fuel overuse will require. And that’s the problem. There are ideas to change the debate – Apollo Alliance for example, but it will take another ‘Jesus H Christ’ event combined with getting the f***ing oil men out of government to move anything.
But if as you say, the broader issue of energy and national security, with a practical, realpolitik of a JH Kunstler or Greg Palast, that is an argument worth having. Same as the Iraq War is useless to argue on ‘moral’ grounds – realpolitik leads you to administration incompetence and mendacity and proposes an alternative which involves getting western nations off of the destabilizing addiction to any kind of fossil fuel.
June 12th, 2006 at 11:43 pmterry, you wrote:
“If someone sees the discussion and goes away thinking that those people are full of it, that’s one more small win.”
i have two problems with that point-
1) on this forum, you’re mostly preaching to the choir, so you’re not likely to change that many minds here.
2) when someone with an alternate viewpoint comes here and disputes you, you have to go on the defensive. clearly it has been illustrated multiple times that the right wing will inject whatever untruths into the discussion they can. so merely having the discussion is giving them an opportunity to put you on the defensive and creates an even greater possibility that an outsider will see the discussion and come away with the impression that there isn’t a consensus on global warming.
the longer this debate rages on, the more ground you lose, because your standards for winning the debate are, well, winning. they know they don’t have to win; all they have to do is what they’ve been doing here and elsewhere in the media: give the impression that there’s still a debate.
it’s clear that the strongest detractors of the veracity of global warming are the fossil fuel industries. unfortunately, popular opinion in america has dictated that economic issues trump environmental issues. you can provide as much scientific evidence as you want, but some people are still going to need more proof (you know — their house melting or something like that). regardless, the oil and coal industries can just pay their own “scientists” to refute the evidence, and then they can trot out the old ‘economic disaster’ boogeyman. net result: no public consensus.
but you know what? security is always going to trump the economy, environment, health care, gay marriage, immigration, education and even, apparently, basic civil rights. it’s inarguable that oil dependence is a national security problem. even seixon agrees, as he says in #172: “Now, we should lean away from fossil fuels, not because of global warming, but because we need to become indepedent of other nations when it comes to our energy needs – especially independent of places like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela”
so there’s your angle! there’s the common ground that leads to a consensus of yes, we should do something… but instead, in #173, you went right back to arguing ‘my science is right and yours is wrong’. and the debate rages on. and nothing gets done.
just remember, winning the debate doesn’t mean winning the issue. john kerry proved that in 2004.
June 13th, 2006 at 2:11 amTerryTheTurtle,
Wow. OK, so that period between 1940 and 1970 that doesn’t fit into the anthropogenic global warming theory… yeah, that was just due to natural fluctuation and stuff. Move right along, don’t think about it!Never mind that CO2 was dramatically going up during this time, which in light of the theory that is being peddled, would mean that the temperature should have gone up. It’s akin to a conspiracy theory, where every fact that doesn’t fit the theory is undermined and discarded through jibberjabber. In fact, back then, they were talking about the imminence of “global cooling”. This is immortalized by the Newsweek article in 1975 predicting the temperature to fall the next few decades and that it was up to policymakers to do something about it. Sounds familiar, no?
Over to you Dick Cheney:
“And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons†– Dick Cheney, March 16 2003
March 16, 3 days before the war, and Cheney corrected himself for saying this as he meant their nuclear weapons program, not nuclear weapons. Oh, but Cheney isn’t allowed to slip up, one sentence is enough, everything else he said on the matter is suddenly meaningless. It doesn’t matter whether he said “nuclear weapons program” several dozen times before this, nope, all memory is erased when he goofs and leaves out “program”, which he then corrects for the record right away afterwards.
You see, that’s the only example I knew you would bring up, because that’s the only time the Bush administration actually said anything reminiscient of Iraq having nuclear arms. Everyone who doesn’t go looking for dishonest ways to fool people know perfectly well that they never alleged that Iraq had nuclear weapons. That would have been completely ludicrous for them to have done.
How about you Chimpy or did Condi make you say this;
“â€The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.†– George W. Bush, SOTU, 2003
Wow, the British government DID say that, and so did the NIE, and so did the French to the State Department in November 2002. Who’s the one being dishonest? The one making random accusations and omitting facts, or the one presenting facts?
So Seixon, your Reaganesque parsing may get you off in a court of law, but if I were you, I would say the smoke rising from your underwear gives you away….
Thanks for playing ’spot the whopper’, better luck next time.
Reaganesque parsing? Look, it’s a matter of fact that the Bush administration did not allege that Iraq had nuclear weapons. Alleging that Iraq had sought uranium within the last few years, how does that amount to Iraq actually having a nuclear weapon? It doesn’t!
That’s the whopper here that you are trying to peddle. It is similar to the whopper that the Bush administration claimed that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. I’m sure you’ll provide the most cliche and debunked ways of claiming that as well. I will get some popcorn and sit back to watch you crash and burn on it.
#174, Randy is a halfwit that’s true, Seixon is not – he is dishonest. Allowing lies to go unchallenged anywhere is what allowed these fascists to do what they have done. So you would rather not meet this head on and call a liar a liar, or would you let the right-wing noise machine have it’s say unchallenged?
Well, thank you for the backhanded compliment… LOL. I’m dishonest? Riiight. I just put up a dozen links to what I was talking about, and nobody has responded to any of them yet. Figures.
Progressaurus,
when someone with an alternate viewpoint comes here and disputes you, you have to go on the defensive. clearly it has been illustrated multiple times that the right wing will inject whatever untruths into the discussion they can. so merely having the discussion is giving them an opportunity to put you on the defensive and creates an even greater possibility that an outsider will see the discussion and come away with the impression that there isn’t a consensus on global warming.
Well then, I guess the only alternative is to shut out everyone with a different opinion. Then you can cling onto your “consensus” canard all you want. However, I’d like to present evidence that this is 100% BS and that the only reason you’re so fearful of this canard being exposed is because it’s a pure lie.
Here’s a scientist interviewed about Al Gore’s movie, a scientist sympathetic to Gore:
Golly, Gore presenting something as “consensus” even though it’s not. Who would have thought? Then you have Dr. Gray in Colorado and Lindzen at MIT. Those are just a couple scientists not in on the “consensus”. Dr. Gray, a renowned climate and hurricane scientist of 50 years, has not been asked by the IPCC for input. Gosh, I wonder why. Then we have that crazy scientist in Denmark, scientists in Russia… well, you see where this is going.
Appealing to consensus is what those who don’t have a strong argument that survives on its own do.
June 13th, 2006 at 5:05 ampreaching to the choir. Like Michael Moore and his films
Not exactly — I know many people who saw F9/11 ’cause of the buzz it got but who didn’t know enough about, e.g., the Iraq war to have an opinion other than the official, “mainstream” (TM) opinion that “we had to go to war ’cause of 9/11 and stuff” and who came away with quite a different opinion about the war.
I am amazed at how Michael Moore has been turned into a straw man considering how right he has been about so many things. What’s wrong with him? He’s slovenly and from the wrong social class? He’s “angry”? I don’t get the “Michael Moore” is the left’s Coulter mindset at all. Could someone please tell me how Michael Moore is the worst thing since pickled sausage?
June 13th, 2006 at 4:14 pmRe: 172.
No the situation was generally equivalent. Not everybody was convinced Iraq still had WMDs. Some people thought the threat existed. Some people dismissed it. The POTUS was making it sound like Iraq would slip Al Qaeda a 1 Gigaton bomb any day but when his words were parsed carefully they turned out to make Clinton’s “it depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is” look like plain-speech.
The fact of the matter was the decision made was a decision in which people were generally uncertain as to whether Iraq did or did not have WMDs and there were costs associated with action or inaction. As much as we liberals may think that CO2 emissions are an issue and “conservatives” poo-poo this notion, my friend from my undergrad days, Dean of Physical Sciences and later Chancellor Ralph Cicerone, is right … not all the evidence is in — it can never be all in, that’s the way science works — it doesn’t give final answers only provisional ones (and twisting science to give final answers, e.g. about religion as the ID types are wont to do will only contaminate religious belief with what will eventually and inevitably be shown to be false) … so in the case of CO2 emmissions, the evidence will never “all be in” (and conservatives who claim we need more evidence are disingenuous unless they are helping or advocating for people in Ralph Cicerone’s line of work to get more money ;) ) so again, as in the case of Saddam Hussein and his possibly existent WMDs, we need to act on the basis of partial data.
Pick your favorite normative decision making method — justify a decision to act or not to act based on the costs/benefits of action vs. inaction: that’s a reasonable position, eh? To say that in one case “we had to act ’cause we all knew Saddam Hussein had WMDs” or more bizzarrely to say “who claimed he had them? oh, but we had to act anyway” whereas to say “let’s have more evidence” in this case is really quite an incoherent position unless you can make a better case that the evidence for Saddam Hussein’s magical WMDs was stronger than it really was and/or you make appropriate claims as to the costs/benefits of inaction vs. action in both cases. What was the expected cost of inaction in the case of Iraq — well, that Saddam Hussein might have WMDs at some point. What has been the cost of action? Quite high, I would say — and many of us predicted that cost from the get-go, so you cannot say “no-one could have forseen the costs of action”.
OTOH, what is the cost of action vs. inaction on global warming? Given the cost of global warming, even if the probability that CO2 emmissions are causing it is less than 100% (sorry for the Bayesian terminology — I am not Bayesian, but the terminology does have a certain intuitive appeal even if the theory turns out to be highly non-descriptive, and it would be shocking to me if it were discriptive), the expected cost of the status quo is still pretty high — if only for reasons unconnected with global warming per se (reducing dependence on oil). So why the resistance to action … including by people who wet their collective pants and helped to send our boys and girls to war? Is it somehow “noble” to take an “unpopular” and hence per force principled stand (any unpopular stand must be principled, eh?) and embrace the “lost cause” of the confeder… er, that global warming is not 100% known to be 100% caused by CO2 emmisions (because we all know global warming ’sceptics’ are all merely insistent that we have all the evidence in before we do anything — and they are just trying to defend science from hucksters who try to ‘politicize’ it and use scientific evidence to jump to unscientific conclusions, right?)? OK … that was an unfair snark and slap — but who says life is fair? ;)
June 13th, 2006 at 4:36 pmSorry — my last post also referenced #174. Also, that latter post makes my point: the reason we went to war was because of the threat that Saddam Hussein could pose in the future? Well, then the reason some say we need to reduce CO2 emissions is because they might cause catastrophic global warming.
The kind of decision to be made — whether to act or not act based on something for which evidence is not entirely conclusive and for which action and inaction both has costs — is the same. So given the cost structure of each decision by any fair accounting of costs (of course most people underestimated the costs of action in Iraq and of inaction on global climate change while over-estimating the opposite costs), how could one support the Iraq war and oppose action on global warming? I think my question still stands, don’t y’all?
June 13th, 2006 at 4:42 pmOoops perhaps I shouldn’t post now — I met post #180 as the reference.
June 13th, 2006 at 4:43 pmseixon,
i’m not going to get caught up in a worthless debate with a hopeless ideologue. you’ve entirely missed my point: i don’t care if there’s a consensus on global warming. as i noted before, you and i essentially agree that america’s dependence on fossil fuels is a national security problem and therefore must be eliminated. that’s all the consensus i seek.
as i’ve said repeatedly, i think the “debate” on global warming is a complete waste of time. you guys can play “my science is better than your science” all day long — personally i think it’s all alot of hot air. pardon the pun.
the point i was making in the paragraph you excerpted was not about global warming at all. it was about the tactics of the debate and how a particular tactic of the right is to attack an apparent strength of the left — the desired result of which is not to win but merely to make people question that strength. the truth is that al gore does have a strong position on global warming that is supported by a clear majority of scientists in the relevant fields. but, of course, all you (or the oil companies) have to do is provide one scientist that disputes that and you’ve achieved your goal — obfuscating the issue and making your target have to defend a supposed strength.
incidentally, you bring up dr. gray…although i have no opinion on his scientific veracity, i do have to say i don’t trust scientists that go out on a political limb as he has, calling opponents of his beliefs guilty of “mild-mccarthyism”. but that’ll get your name in the papers, won’t it?
June 13th, 2006 at 10:55 pmAl Gore’s presentation ony scratches the surface. It does not encourage the sense of panic which we should be feeling. It is very hard for people, when they look around and see the complexity of our civilization – the interlocking of technologies and techniques. how could all of this end? Surely it would be gradual. NOT! It may already be to late to stave off the rather quick death of billions (yes B) of people from excessive heat or starvation.
Rather than lay out a lengthy scenario of our options I can only suggest in the strongest terms that you get and read this book – IMMEDIATELY – and judge for yourself.
Lovelock, James: The Revenge of Gaia – Why the earth is fighting back – and how we can still save humanity. London: Allen Lane (Penguin)2006
ISBN 0-713-99914-4
Not available until August 2006 here in the USA (unless it is suppressed) but you can get it at Amazon -UK now. You will see some of the same graphics as in Al’s movie. But this book goes much futher with its offer of real answers, and an analysis of which of our options will work or not.
June 14th, 2006 at 4:59 pm[...] It would be nice to hear a global warming freak (see Al Gore & An Inconvenient Truth) admit the same. How are they going to explain these dips in water level otherwise? [...]
June 15th, 2006 at 9:26 am*** You guys sound like a bunch of chicken littlies telling the farmer the sky is falling…
Nature class 101, you should have been taught this in the first grade, but I will educate you non the less; You breathe out CO2… Trees breathe it in and produce oxygen… The circle of life, nature always provides a balance… Car combustion, be it Corn alcohol or oil based gasoline, both produce CO2… Switching to GREEN fuel will not stop this, actually it is 10 percent less efficient so it would POLLUTE(as you do every time you take a breath) more… So I say all you tree hugging nature nazis hold your breath… Sorry couldn’t resist… It would however lessen our dependants on foreign oil so I am for it…
The earths temp has always been changing and will always do so… i.e…. Past oceans are now deserts. Lets suppose you are sitting on your coach and your house began getting to warm. Would you sit there and swear that there was to much CO2 warming the house? No, you would get up and walk to the thermostat and turn down the heat! Why would you do that? Because it is your furnace heating your home… Guess what, we get our heat from the sun, the solar cycles match our past hot and cool stages… Hmmmm… Sounds logical to me… Hotter sun = Warmer Earth…
That makes as much sense as a “scientist†telling half the truth or declaring worst case scenarios to recieve his grants… Many are just trying to collect thier paycheck and look for “science†to justify thier existence while ignoring conflicting facts to thier belief system…
That being said you may have a valid point about CO2 holding in the heat. The solution then would be to plant more trees, or let nature take its course and let the plants catch up with our CO2 output… Unless all that shade led to global cooling…
PS; CO2(Carbon Dioxide, the global warming gas) is also used for carbonation in soda so fear the poison, and please consider holding your breath…
June 22nd, 2006 at 11:45 amRecently some have said the earth is the hottest it has been for the last 200-1,000 years.
June 26th, 2006 at 3:22 pmWell, that means that 200-1,000 years ago, the earth was hotter than it is now.
The earth is constantly cooling and warming.
Back in the 1960’s, scienists were warning us of the impending ice-age.
The hysterical make no mention of solar variations in their theses.
Bush is wronge and he doesnt know what he is talking about!He Is the PROBLEM OF THE NATION!
October 15th, 2006 at 10:15 pm
nasa satellite images
Sounds like an idea of the month!
March 15th, 2008 at 10:01 pm