Global Warming Skeptics Engage In Denial And Spin Over New Academy Report; Gore Responds
Global Warming Skeptics Engage In Denial And Spin Over New Academy Report; Gore Responds
The National Academy of Sciences released an important report yesterday detailing the fact that the Earth’s temperatures in the last few decades have been the warmest in recorded history, raising concern about the impact of global warming. Warming skeptics have responded with their typical denial and spin.
Electricity Daily (sub. req’d), which covers news from the perspective of the electricity industry, reported:
The NAS report casts serious doubts on the conventional scientific wisdom of man-made climate warming, particularly as described by political advocates such as former Vice President Al Gore. … Those who argue that solar activity drives global climate, not CO2, will take heart.
In fact, the report specifically states that “human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming.” Moreover, as ThinkProgress noted, the report factored in the natural variations in temperature — volcanic activity, solar radiation, etc. — and concluded that these can’t explain the warming trend.
Another well-known skeptic, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), zeroed in on a study conducted by climatologist Michael Mann that is reviewed in the NAS report. Through his famous “hockey stick†graph, Mann argued that recent years have been the hottest on record in the last millennium. Inhofe responded:
Today’s NAS report reaffirms what I have been saying all along, that Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ is broken.
In fact, the NAS report “largely vindicates†Mann’s central thesis, stating it is “plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th Century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.”
As House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) said, “There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change…or any doubts about whether any paper on the temperature records was legitimate scientific work.” But science has never stood in the way of global warming skeptics. The NAS report is no exception.
On a conference call that Al Gore held with bloggers this afternoon, I asked him for a response to the claims made by Electricity Daily and Sen. Inhofe. He said that global warming skeptics “will seize on anything to say up is down and black is white.†Gore explained that science, by nature, thrives on uncertainty and tries to eliminate it; politics, on the other hand, is vulnerable to being paralyzed by uncertainty. When science and politics converge, Gore argued, the chance for “cowardice is high.â€
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Wow. I am so depressed that you guys are bringing the “global warming” issue back into play. Just because Gore wants to use a topic to jump-start a presidential bid does not mean that the issue is real. Things go in cycles…the earth, political fortune, etc. Right now we Holy Republicans are on a 1000 year upswing.
June 23rd, 2006 at 6:03 pmThe fourth reich eh RWN?
June 23rd, 2006 at 6:07 pmWell, while the NAS eport clearly bolsters the case for human-activity driven global warming, we shouldn’t oversell the report’s conclusions. Sen. Inhofe is essentially correct when he says the new study casts serious doubt on much of the prior research and conclusions on the topic:
“The panel said that a statistical method used in the 1999 study was not the best and that some uncertainties in the work “have been underestimated,” and it particularly challenged the authors’ conclusion that the decade of the 1990’s was probably the warmest in a millennium.” NYTIMES.com
June 23rd, 2006 at 6:08 pmDenial and spin?
The study found “very little confidence” in Mann et al’s conclusions regarding this past decade being the warmest in a millenium. They said that they had “less confidence” in any of the data before 1600. In summary, they said it was “plausible” that the past decade has been warmer than any time within the last millenium. Plausible. Yes, it is also plausible that this past decade was NOT warmer than any time within the last millenium. That’s how far you get with that.
Not only that, but you have the media out there blatantly lying about the report, claiming that it is warmer now than in the last 2,000 years. The study says no such thing, and in fact says that this is only “plausible” from the data they have available. The only thing they have high confidence in is that it is warmer now than in the past 400 years. That’s all they are confident about.
Yet here we have the usual suspects pretending that the study “vindicated” Mann et al. What a bunch of crock. Did any of you actually READ the damn study? I doubt it. You’re all a bunch of suckers.
I love this part:
Gore explained that science, by nature, thrives on uncertainty and tries to eliminate it
Science thrives on uncertainty? Ah, so since the NAS study found Mann et al’s claims to be very uncertain, only giving it a “plausible” rating, then that is a good thing? WTF? Yes, science tries to eliminate uncertainty, but that’s exactly what DIDNT happen with the Mann and other temperature reconstructions.
Basically everything from before 1600 and especially 900 was seen as unreliable.
Yet the media blared yesterday “Earth warmest in 2,000 years”. The study never says any such thing, but there it is. Suckers.
June 23rd, 2006 at 6:14 pmI guess when you live in a faith based world rather than a reality based world down looks like up if you “believe” hard enough. The science is in and Global Warming is real. No matter how many times you click your heels and “believe” it isn’t, you still can’t go back to Kansas…unless you are home schooled and really from Kansas.
June 23rd, 2006 at 6:18 pm#5, I said the NAS report valides Mann’s thesis. The NAS study does admit there may be structural flaws with his particular study, particularly the methods used. Thermometers only go back approximately 150 years, so Mann used tree rings, corals, ocean and lake sediments, cave deposits, ice cores, bore holes, and glaciers to infer the climate of the distant past. The study debates these tactics, but overall, NAS casts very litte doubt on the finding that recent years have been the warmest in recorded history.
June 23rd, 2006 at 6:20 pmIf someone wanted to ‘jump-start’ a presidential bid, global warming would be one of the worst issues to use.
I don’t get it, why do global warming skeptics choose to trust scientists when their immediate life depends on it (by trusting their fate to medical doctors) but not when it affects their lifestyle? If your doctor tells you that you have clogged arteries and are at an increased risk of heart attack would you shrug your shoulders and say “well, scientists have been wrong before - I’ll just keep eating those Big Macs every day”? Only if you were a complete idiot.
Yet when it comes to global warming, skeptics go far out of their way to ‘disprove’ the theory. Skeptics don’t care about facts, or physics or the consequences we face in the future. They’ve made up their mind to not believe it. You can’t persuade these kind of people. You can’t appeal to reason because they have none. If someone has made up their mind before they look objectively at the situation then discussion is impossible.
Its like the people who believe the Earth is only 10,000 years old and that dinosaurs used to live at the same time as people. If you begin to dig into the fossil records you can see that this idea is deeply flawed (if dinosaurs were killed in the Biblical flood, why aren’t there ANY fossils of people or horses or cattle alongside the dinosaurs? And why are fossils of different animals so well seperated into layers that progress over time?). But try to explain that to someone who has already brain-washed themselves into thinking it. You might as well pound your head against a brick wall.
June 23rd, 2006 at 6:20 pmFaiz,
No shit the past decade has been the warmest in recorded history. We only started recording 150 years ago. We’ve known that since 1998 bro, so why are you acting as if this review of studies just now is confirming this? Even given that, the recorded history is not completely reliable because our coverage of the globe has changed tremendously in those 150 years.
The report does not “validate” Mann’s thesis. Do I have to actually quote from the report?? OK, fine:
In other words, the original conclusion by Mann et al. are given “even less confidence” than “plausible”.
Is that what passes as “validation” around here? Less than plausible? What a joke.
June 23rd, 2006 at 6:28 pmSo, the report says that the present warming is unprecedented since……last time. That’s like saying that if it stops raining tonight, the Red Sox will have their best game in….. 48 hours…
Forgive me for being a skeptic but it’s hard not to be when I see the intellectual dishonesty. When the GW proponents refer to the MWP, they refer to it as if it were some recent invention of the right - - - it was the universally accepted climate history before climate became a political issue. And the events that occurred during that period that have since been explained as a function of warmer climate (a) were not local to Greenland but were spread around the globe, and (b) have never been challenged or explained as having resulted from some other cause. Whenever I read sentences that seem to say one thing but are actually cleverly, coyly worded so that while the seem to say that, they’re accurate only if interpreted to mean something far less significant, I get skeptical. “Warming unprecedented in 1000 years….” not the warmth, the warmING. But then, the last ramp-up ended in about 1000 AD…. and not the most severe shift (the descent into the LIA from the MWP was more rapid than the present warming), the most severe WARMing……. during a period in which it’s the ONLY warming….
Sorry folks, the report actually backtracks from the “hockey stick” - - and it doesn’t address the fact that if you take the proxy data used to plot the shaft and extend it out, it doesn’t support the shaft, which is based on measured temperatures….
Bottom line, the hockey stick is the climatalogical equivalent of Piltdown Man.
Unless Eric the Red and thousands of his contemporaries were part of the vast right wing conspiracy, all you can say is that the present warming is unprecedented since the last warming.
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/293.pdf#search=‘proxy%20data%20supports%20medieval%20warm%20period’
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=715
June 23rd, 2006 at 6:46 pmI want to commend you for your prompt and excellent coverage of global warming issues. It is astonishing to me that the skeptics would do this when the report just undercuts them.
June 23rd, 2006 at 6:53 pmSeixon, the report never said Mann’s point was “implausible,” did it? That gives you an idea of the orientation of the study. It was answering a specific question — generally, from people like you who think Mann is full of crap. The study is saying no he’s not
June 23rd, 2006 at 6:57 pmWhen science and politics converge, Gore argued, the chance for “cowardice is high.â€
Great words.
June 23rd, 2006 at 6:59 pmHow can Mann’s study be both “plausible” and “broken?” Find out tonight on a completely retooled PBS.
June 23rd, 2006 at 7:03 pmExactly Kermit. It ain’t “broken” Inhofe. Sorry dude
June 23rd, 2006 at 7:06 pmYet the media blared yesterday “Earth warmest in 2,000 yearsâ€. The study never says any such thing, but there it is. Suckers.
Kinda like those armageddonists preachers blaring earth will end in 2000! screeching about how the earth is only 6,000 years old?
Seems to me you are the sucker seixon.
The Media Blared!!
Are you trying to write headlines or propaganda either way the media doesn’t speak for me, so get off that dumb ass left right lame dint you got going already, you sound like a damn pundit.
A really lame pundit.
June 23rd, 2006 at 7:07 pmYou could post the solution to the universe and life itself and people would still say it wasn’t or was and argue the proof.
As I understand it a consensus was reached;
“a general agreement among the members of a given group or community” That would be the Scientific community.
O’BRIEN: There is a whole school of thought, as you well know, that says that pundits – I mean you see it with the politicians - you know, go play your lawyer bullcrap, and stop.
You see folks, Faux Pundits, fail the whole school of thought…
June 23rd, 2006 at 7:16 pmHey look seixon I just changed O’Briens words and made a FACT!!
LMAO. Pundits, O’ Brien proved, should just shut up and go, the school of thought says, you know, shut up, you aren’t in the scientific community, so shut up.
Aint Faux News Great?
June 23rd, 2006 at 7:19 pmGeorge Bush caused the dinosaurs to become extinct! George Bush does not care about dinosaurs!!
June 23rd, 2006 at 7:21 pmYa know global warming may or may not be true and may be true in varying degrees of severity. Only time will tell. I hope it is not true and the human race and more importantly the all the beauties of the natural world will not be imperiled and will thrive .
But of one thing I am sure . history will recall algore as a very sore loser only slightly behind the man they used to call john kerry.
If Bruce Springsteen should shut up so should Coulter when she talks about religion? Isn’t that what O’brien wants?
Only lying lawyers can speak political punditry But Karl rove isn’t a Lawyer, nor is Vannity, or George. Hmm. Mr Obrien can you clarify this school of thought please.
———————————————————
I have a degree in computer science, and the wise ones know where computers have their limits.
Computers are about as valuable as a microwave oven today.
Wise ones know where these limits are.
Yes I know about root kits, trojans, tcp udp, and things, what does this have to do with the troll pundit act?
June 23rd, 2006 at 7:32 pmYa know I wonder if Seixon is like a Rove or Coulter duplicate, It lies with so much ease, not even a speck of remorse.
Why? I’m an atheist. LOL.
Comment by Seixon — June 23, 2006 @ 7:19 pm
Just wait till your freeper evangelical pals read that.
June 23rd, 2006 at 7:39 pmHey, it’s CLASSIC GOP spin. Look at the sky, say it isn’t blue. Say it isn’t blue over and over and over again, despite the fact that the material you’re quoting says it IS BLUE. Stupid people who won’t take the time to educate themselves will believe you.
These people are despicable. They don’t care if they lie, cheat, steal, slander, or murder. Just as long as they get what they want.
Screw them all.
June 23rd, 2006 at 7:47 pmGoddard Earth Sciences (GES) Data and Information Services Center was the original group that found the concentration of CO2 going up and connected it with accellerated warming information. The science community has come to the same conclusions regardless of model. The corporate funded stuff is pure garbage and the models are either outright moronic and have been reverse engineered to give them the findings that they came up with first, then working backwards to create their “models”.
The new world order has corporations running it and the military (just as it does now in the US through K street). If that is what people want, go for it. I’m glad I don’t have any kids.
June 23rd, 2006 at 7:55 pmAnd lest we forget.
Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming
NEW YORK TIMES
ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: June 8, 2005
A White House official who once led the oil industry’s fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.
In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, the official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved. In many cases, the changes appeared in the final reports.
June 23rd, 2006 at 8:02 pmHey Strapion.
In case you didn’t notice, the GOVERMENT came out yesterday and said, err…yea, ALL THE SCIENTISTS in the world are RIGHT. Global warmings real, and we’re causing it.
So get over it already lamebrain.
Quit spouting off so much and reduce the pollution.
June 23rd, 2006 at 8:30 pmThe poles & Greenland are melting. Climatologists from 178 nations believe it is caused by co2 emissions and met to find a way to restrict these emissions. A few whores funded by the oil and auto industries will attempt to muddle the facts ala ID arguments. Does it really matter whether it is 400, 1000 or 2000 years? The longer they can keep an argument going the less time we will have to do something about it. Good forbid the polluters have to spend a penny cleaning up their act.
June 23rd, 2006 at 8:33 pmWorfeus,
In case you didn’t notice, the GOVERMENT came out yesterday and said, err…yea, ALL THE SCIENTISTS in the world are RIGHT. Global warmings real, and we’re causing it.
Ah, so what the government says is suddenly gold? LOL. Yes, global warming is real, whatever that is supposed to mean, but the human role in it is still not determined conclusively. THAT is what the scientists say, but people like Al Gore and Think Progress lie and turn caveats into assertions and facts.
June 23rd, 2006 at 8:34 pmHey Strapion,
I have to admit you said some really good things in your 8:31 post.
There was a lot of truth there to be sure.
June 23rd, 2006 at 8:37 pmAw Sam, you killed it.
June 23rd, 2006 at 9:10 pmActually Sam just copied and pasted a bunch of crap for me to scroll past. If you or Sam would like to post some links to some credible sources, I will take a look other wise, you are wearing out my scroll wheel.
June 23rd, 2006 at 9:27 pmRight there with you, Spudge!
I AM a F*cking ex-scientist.
You all know I worked in genetics, but the same principles apply.
I live on Cape Cod.
June 23rd, 2006 at 9:39 pmI WILL sell my home soon.
It will be under water if we don’t act soon.
Sam,
Facinating reading!
June 23rd, 2006 at 9:43 pmwow, took one look at the endless crap that went on and on and on, I wonder if they realize how really stupid they look? I’m on my way out, because I have a life!
June 23rd, 2006 at 9:44 pmStrapon if you had half a brain you’d be dangerous.
But keep on posting your 20 page spam bullshit.
We’ve got it covered.
June 23rd, 2006 at 9:49 pmwow, took one look at the endless crap that went on and on and on, I wonder if they realize how really stupid they look? I’m on my way out, because I have a life!
Comment by madashell
Hey,… you have one of those?
I used to have one…………………
then I moved to Cape Freaking Cod…….
Have fun tonight, madashell!!!!!
June 23rd, 2006 at 9:52 pmI wonder how many of the rightwingers who are slamming the GW report and how man is impacting it are from NETVOCATE? You know who they are don’t ya? They are one of several outfits who are hired to swarm blogs and slam anything that they don’t like.
Of course GW is possibly part of the normal cycles of Earth, but man is bringing it along REALLLY fast. You have to wonder what all these morons from the right will be telling their grandchildren when things are getting bad why they fought against doing a single thing about GW?
“Well granddaughter, you have to realize that money is more important than anything on Earth and although things are bad now, it was really good back then and we had lots and lots of money. So I know you will understand while we are kneeling at the Altar Of The Almighty Buck, why we didn’t do anything. Money uber alles!”
Even the Pentagon has released a report, (immediately pulled) stating how things are going to be in the next 25 years and they are going to be bad. Especially water shortages and food shortages.
June 23rd, 2006 at 9:53 pmBoring sam i am. Save this now long long thread and knit your poodle a pink sweater
June 23rd, 2006 at 9:54 pmSam you’re a moron, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Schlesinger scroll down to the bottom, he works for an oil company, hmm not a surpise to m to see someone in the oil industry dispute global warming.
June 23rd, 2006 at 10:01 pmwhy so is then China seeding the clouds Seixon?
June 23rd, 2006 at 10:23 pmDrought-stricken central Henan province has been using a method called cloud seeding, in which chemicals are shot at clouds, the China Daily reported. …
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3893671.stm
so if they are altering the weather over there is this taken into account?
June 23rd, 2006 at 10:26 pm‘Sam’ talks about China, yet neglects these operations above.
if china is drought stricken and they seed the clouds because of drought, then how so does man, not political party or religion, take this into account?
Is China stealing water by cloud seeding? Huh?
June 23rd, 2006 at 10:28 pmIs america cloud seeding Seixon?
June 23rd, 2006 at 10:30 pmWould you know if they were?
cause of pause:
One Zhoukou official accused Pingdingshan of intercepting clouds that would probably have drifted to other places.
June 23rd, 2006 at 10:36 pm“They (Pingdingshan) were still launching rockets to make rain when they already had rain falling,” he is reported as saying.
=============
Rockets no less. ‘Terrorist’ economic rockets.
Everyone is welcome to post links to whatever information (or misinformation) about global warming. Do not however, post entire articles. Not only is this likely in violation of copyright restrictions it disrupts conversation on the threat. Comments that post entire articles will be deleted.
June 23rd, 2006 at 10:36 pmOld Dr Gray, Seixon cannot input correct data into the computer if the variables are not known. ‘Crap in crap out’ as you PC gurus say.
Should we really waste time on seixon?
June 23rd, 2006 at 10:38 pmSeixon, could you answer my question to you in the previous GW post? Thanks
June 23rd, 2006 at 10:42 pmhttp://thinkprogress.org/ 2006/ 06/ 22/ global-warming-hurricanes/ #comments
#53
glad to see you at your post, Judd.
Thank you.
For everything.
June 23rd, 2006 at 10:49 pmThat’s exactly why I laugh every time someone claims Gore has a political motive.
June 23rd, 2006 at 10:49 pmI don’t understand why the right wing is so adamant about denying that global warming is happening (shhh……actually, I do and it’s spelled M-O-N-E-Y). The scientific proof appears to be complete and indisputable. I’d swear that it’s like they’re putting all their energies into arguing that the earth is flat. The only thing that their denials accomplish is to make them look like Neanderthal era morons. Their stupidity is hilarious!
June 23rd, 2006 at 10:53 pmSeixon and Sam, many, many inane posts,
June 23rd, 2006 at 11:01 pmI have Bachelors in Chemistry and Math, a Masters in Comp Sci and a PhD in Physics. While each of these degrees are over 40 years old, they are still relevant as I did not retire to a cave after earning them. While I do not have any degrees in Meteorology or Earth Science, my studies are sufficient to validate the consensus of the scientific community. When did you guys last do microcode or machine language? I did the latter yesterday in order to speed up my network access
my studies are sufficient to validate the consensus of the scientific community. When did you guys last do microcode or machine language? I did the latter yesterday in order to speed up my network access
June 23rd, 2006 at 11:06 pm===================
your studies are always welcome, to me anyway, yet I saw no mention of the effects of previous cloud seeding, did I perchance miss it?
I do not mean in your studies walt, but others.
June 23rd, 2006 at 11:08 pm][ RIGHT ][
June 23rd, 2006 at 11:23 pmYou saved yourself from crucifixion with post 95. by the bye, dry ice does work. The verdict is out on silver nitrate - it seems to work at 55% humidity and above, but that does not do much in arid areas.
If you can’t understand that trapped Co2 emissions build up under the atmosphere, and thus make the atmosphere thicker, thus heating up the planet, like putting another blanket on, then you’re just too dirt stupid to survive anyway.
Maybe global warming will be a good thing, if it cleanses the earth of terminally stupid people like you.
June 24th, 2006 at 12:09 amBTW.
That was to you Sexlessone.
June 24th, 2006 at 12:15 amLet us use common sense here. The atmosphere is as thin, such as, the skin covering an orange. Ok, we all used recipes to bake something or another. Don’t follow ingredient ratios properly and you might end up with something unedible. Well, we humans are changing the ratio of ingredients in our air. No doubt about that people, pouring carbon at a increasing rate. With a few exceptions, the overwhelming majority of experts say we are making the atmosphere “unedible”. A few say it MIGHT “taste” about the same or even make it better. What is the intelligent response?
June 24th, 2006 at 12:29 amDenial and spin is the only thing Republicans are capable of. Real problems require thought and the ability to put the public good first.
June 24th, 2006 at 12:41 amDenial and spin is the only thing Republicans are capable of. Real problems require thought and the ability to put the public good first.
June 24th, 2006 at 12:41 amAnd it wears out our scroll wheels. : )
June 24th, 2006 at 3:30 amLily, I responded to you in the other thread. Enjoy.
June 24th, 2006 at 7:51 amQuite a thread. I see the all the usual tactics coming from the right.
Scientists are a species of academics. They are paid to look for every tiny uncertainty they can find, even if it’s academic from a public policy point of view.
Unfortunately the right takes advantage of this clinical language and takes advantage of the public’s lack of context to twist what a study actually says.
First of all, the hockey stick debate is largely a red herring:
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/ 2006/ 03/ hockey-stick-is-broken.html
So the only thing that hinges on the hockey stick is the “skeptics’” pride. Not much else.
And the NAS report essentially said “Move on. There’s nothing to see here” as far as Mann’s study goes. And it affirmed the consensus view, not the skeptics’.
Roger Pielke:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/ prometheus/ archives/ climate_change/ 000859quick_reaction_to_th.html
And Realclimate had some disagreements with the reports’ press release (this speaks to some of Seixon’s concerns):
http://www.realclimate.org/ index.php/ archives/ 2006/ 06/ national-academies-synthesis-report/
June 24th, 2006 at 9:32 amHey, so what if the ice caps melt and the sea level rises wiping out the current coastal regions. With less land available, property values on the high ground are sure to go up!
Besides, the oil company execs have amassed enough wealth to assure their bloodline will survive. And that’s what really matters, that the great-great-great grandchildren of those who caused the crises survive, right?
June 24th, 2006 at 9:58 amBesides, the oil company execs have amassed enough wealth to assure their bloodline will survive. And that’s what really matters, that the great-great-great grandchildren of those who caused the crises survive, right?
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — June 24, 2006 @ 9:58 am
Because life has existed in the ocean for longer than it has on land, they have evolved the most toxic forms of life on Earth. It’s a result of a lot of competition for natural resources. So, those with the most internal poison survive being eaten, and therefore pass tehir genes along to the next gereation who has a greater chance of survival thanks to that venom.
In a sense, it is no different that what is happening with an over-population fo human beings. The compeition for natural resources has some developing tehr own internal toxins - greed, anger, hate, avarice and contempt. The only problem with the excessive and toxic venom of the Right is that at the rate that they are using it, there will be no future to leave their offspring.
June 24th, 2006 at 10:08 amWhat you global warming whackos don’t take into account is the potential downside of global warming mitigation. Suppose Gore and the others are wrong. We will have reduced pollution and cut into Exxon’s profits by a few percent for nothing. That’s why I’m so emotional about this.
June 24th, 2006 at 11:27 amGlobal warming is real, the government has now documented that. The right neeeds to deal with that, instead of slinging insults.
http://www.sunstaateactivist.org/blog
June 24th, 2006 at 11:29 amThe Miami terror plot: A real threat? Or a right-wing concoction?
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/blog
You either missed the point entirely, or are being intentionally evasive again. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I reworded my question to you.
June 24th, 2006 at 12:16 pmPeople reading these comments should understand that in all likelihood posters like Seixon are not simply volunteer foot soldiers in the reality wars, but are professional propagandists working on behalf of the fossil fuels industry.
June 24th, 2006 at 12:35 pmRealScientist -
You know, that could explain why an admitted college student with no parental assitance has time to go to school, write a blog, hang out in a dozen other blogs and get drunk every night… clearly he isn’t working a regular job to pay for his life of leisure.
(P.S. Seixon, I won’t read your crybaby response either. I already know how it goes “Wah, Stop picking on me! Wah!!! Leave me alone you (insert untruthful insult)! WAH!!! WAHHHHHHHHHH!!!”)
June 24th, 2006 at 1:03 pm#
What you global warming whackos don’t take into account is the potential downside of global warming mitigation. Suppose Gore and the others are wrong. We will have reduced pollution and cut into Exxon’s profits by a few percent for nothing. That’s why I’m so emotional about this.
Comment by Malachi Constant — June 24, 2006 @ 11:27 am
You’re so on the money here I don’t know whether to laugh or to cry.
June 24th, 2006 at 1:13 pmHow about this; forget global warming. We should continue to burn fossil fuels if only to keep the flow of American dollars streaming into unfriendly Arab hands. And, we should dismiss the notion of protecting the planet (the one that ISN’T warming because of us) so we can keep on digging for coal and dstroying entire mountains, polluting the air and waterways of our once beautiful country.
Further, we (non-billionairs) should continue to listen to and follow the suggestions of the mega-rich who show us such appreciation for allowing them to trade uncountable of hours of virtual slave labor perfomed by decent people so that they can earn millions a year and buy stuff they don’t need.
Wait, how about this; dismiss entirely the notion of global warming for the Gore-promoting fraud that it is so that we can neglect to build an alternative energy economy and restore some of the jobs the chubby white men we so adore have exported (apparently $5.15 an hour doesn’t cut the mustard when you’re subjecting others to poverty for your own unfulfillable desires).
If you think not acting against the condtitions that indicate global warming (whether you have the guts to “believe” the science or not) is good for America, you are, plainly, an idiot.
Now go back to church and talk to your ghost of choice.
June 24th, 2006 at 1:24 pmYou right wingers are in denial about Global Warming simply because you look at it as a “tree-hugger” issue and you guys are much to macho to admit that maybe there might be something to all this. You asswipes are on a 1000 year trip to extinction and dragging the rest of us along with you.
June 24th, 2006 at 1:25 pmJJ,
If the hockey stick was such a red herring, why are Think Progress, the media, and Al Gore out in force trying to spin the conclusions of this report to mean that the hockey stick is still a champion? Come on. The 2001 IPCC wouldn’t have been as persuasive hadn’t it been for the hockey stick, and we all know it. Now that graph has been shown to be less than the definitive proof it was used as, and those who used it are now moving the goal posts by claiming the debate over it was a red herring.
If it was a red herring, why was so much energy wasted by people like you trying to defend it?
Briseadh na Faire,
Hey, so what if the ice caps melt and the sea level rises wiping out the current coastal regions. With less land available, property values on the high ground are sure to go up!
What if an asteroid the size of Texas tumbled right on top of you? Come on, no serious honest scientist believes the scenarios that Gore used in his scare-mongering film.
unbelievable,
I think the desperation of the Right is becoming more and more palapable. They have nothing, so they just twist or re-arrange information to try to make it look like they do. And when we call them out on it, they smply resport to ad hominem attacks and a barrage of untruthful smears.
You mean like calling the German intelligence agency “obscure and extremist” and a renowned hurricane scientist a “hack propagandist” or alleging that certain commenters are “extremists” or that they are a felon on the run, or that they sold 80% of their blog’s fictional stock to their parents?
Is that the kind of ad hominem and smears you are talking about? LOL. You guys are a comedy act.
You know, that could explain why an admitted college student with no parental assitance has time to go to school, write a blog, hang out in a dozen other blogs and get drunk every night… clearly he isn’t working a regular job to pay for his life of leisure.
(P.S. Seixon, I won’t read your crybaby response either. I already know how it goes “Wah, Stop picking on me! Wah!!! Leave me alone you (insert untruthful insult)! WAH!!! WAHHHHHHHHHH!!!â€)
Ahem. I think I rest my case? A word comes to mind, starts with hypo, ends in something that rhymes with ‘lit’. I’m no longer a college student, school has been out for 2 weeks here in Norway, I barely write a post a day on my blog, and I only get drunk on weekends.
Stop. Lying. You only look like a complete moron. Now if you’ll excuse me, it’s the weekend, which means it’s time to get my drink on.
LCLiberal,
The Miami terror plot: A real threat? Or a right-wing concoction?
What’s that? Look! George Bush is flying above you in a black helicopter! Run! Seriously, you guys are a comedy act, every last one of you. You wouldn’t know a real threat to you even if they sat right on your face. You fear Bush and global warming, while the terrorists are slithering right up your leg. What a joke.
RealScientist,
People reading these comments should understand that in all likelihood posters like Seixon are not simply volunteer foot soldiers in the reality wars, but are professional propagandists working on behalf of the fossil fuels industry.
So… That’s about the 143rd liberal commenter who can’t deal with the truth and instead alleges conspiracy and paid agents. Are you people really that far up your own asses that when you see someone saying you can’t understand or agree with, you have to see them as paid agents by the “Dark Empire”? Again - you guys are a comedy act. Little wonder why I come here, it’s funny as hell.
Lily,
I will check on in.
June 24th, 2006 at 2:09 pmNow that graph has been shown to be less than the definitive proof it was used as, and those who used it are now moving the goal posts by claiming the debate over it was a red herring.-Seixon
What do you mean by “definitive proof”. All the work constitutes is more evidence of global warming. I think you would be hard-pressed to find one self-respecting scientist who suggests the hockey stick is definitive proof of anything, in and of itself.
Even Mann’s own 1999 work focused on the uncertainties in the data associated with the MWP. All this NAS report has done is to qualify those uncertainties a little more, and ask that more studies be done. Otherwise, they’ve largely supported the consensus that global warming is a real thing and the CO2 forcing is a significant factor.
What if an asteroid the size of Texas tumbled right on top of you? Come on, no serious honest scientist believes the scenarios that Gore used in his scare-mongering film.-Seixon
Simply not true. The folks over at realclimate concluded that Gore mostly got it right in his movie. Those are serious honest scientists over there.
June 24th, 2006 at 2:18 pm#117. What if an asteroid the size of Texas tumbled right on top of you? Come on, no serious honest scientist believes the scenarios that Gore used in his scare-mongering film.-Seixon
I’m trying to understand this statement. Are you saying that Texas-sized asteroids hitting the Earth are fantastic scenarios that “serious honest scientists” disbelieve?
June 24th, 2006 at 2:34 pmWhat you global warming whackos don’t take into account is the potential downside of global warming mitigation. Suppose Gore and the others are wrong. We will have reduced pollution and cut into Exxon’s profits by a few percent for nothing.-Malachi Constant
I didn’t realize there were actually people concerned about Exxon’s profits. I’m guessing this is a joke or was meant to be sarcastic.
Along the same lines though, I just refuse to accept that reduced CO2 pollution automatically translates to a negative impact on the US economy. People have been spewing this kind of nonsense for so long on other issues it’s ridiculous. I think people said the same thing about the Clean Air Act - that it would kill the economy. So much for that.
June 24th, 2006 at 2:40 pmI notice that when Seixon posts something on GW on his own blog, he rarely receives more than a handful of comments. Just an observation.
June 24th, 2006 at 3:01 pmSeixon has a blog?
June 24th, 2006 at 3:06 pmEd- “blog” might not be the right word. What I meant was the site you find when you click on his signature.
June 24th, 2006 at 3:12 pmIt’s unbelievable that republicans side with their pundits and politicians on all matters of science. They are incapable of critical thought or reason. The corporations and their political plants in the republican party are driven by greed, not reason. They are “scheming and maneuvering” to keep you ignorant and their profits high. Their motivation is clear.
pol·i·ti·cian Pronunciation Key (pl-tshn)
n.
1.
June 24th, 2006 at 3:15 pm1. One who is actively involved in politics, especially party politics.
2. One who holds or seeks a political office.
2. One who seeks personal or partisan gain, often by scheming and maneuvering: “Mothers may still want their favorite sons to grow up to be President, but… they do not want them to become politicians in the process†(John F. Kennedy).
3. One who is skilled or experienced in the science or administration of government.
Surely there never was such fragile china-ware as that of which the millers of Coketown were made. Handle them never so lightly, and they fell to pieces with such ease that you might suspect them of having been flawed before. They were ruined, when they were required to send labouring children to school; they were ruined, when inspectors were appointed to look into their works; they were ruined, when such inspectors considered it doubtful whether they were quite justified in chopping people up with their machinery; they were utterly undone, when it was hinted that perhaps they need not always make quite so much smoke.
Hard Times, Charles Dickens
The skeptics are not arguing in good faith.
These people are full of shit, and they have been full of shit since the dawn of time. Dickens knew it and we know it, simply ignore everything they say, anything else merely encourages them.
June 24th, 2006 at 3:18 pmThe skeptics are cynical corporate hacks. The times call for a Matriotic uprising.
June 24th, 2006 at 3:34 pmMother Nature started a small camp fire to warm the planet, which had gotten a little chilly. While she was cautiously maintaining an event warmth, along came the humans. Seeing the petite little blaze, the humans started cutting down trees, tossing them on top of the small fire while declaring “That ain’t no fire… You wanna see a fire? We’ll show you a fire!” More and more fuel was chopped and thrown into the fire until a raging bonfire was created. Half the forests were empty from the effort and the humans grunted with delight of their accomplishment. The small little fire was now a raging inferno that is about to set the entire neighborhood ablaze.
As the firetrucks pull up to the spreading wildfire, the humans begin pointing their fingers at Mother Nature and crying “She started it! She started it!”
I think I’m gonna turn that into a children’s book - for adult Conservatives…
June 24th, 2006 at 3:45 pmQuote from Seixon:
“Come on, no serious honest scientist believes the scenarios that Gore used in his scare-mongering film.”
I often read reader comments posted in response to global warming articles, at places like WaPo, Salon, and Slate. It is obvious to me that professional propagandists working on behalf of the fossil fuels industry are very active at these news sites. Sometimes a lone individual, armed with the same selective quotes and citations also publicly used by the industry, will argue against all comers, posting many comments over a period of hours or even days. The tactics are familiar: trot out the factual misrepresentations about the science, often spiked with their own pseudo-scientific commentary; smear scientists as being a bunch of corrupt liberals, beholden to their own misbegotten ideology and willing to say anything to get grant money; then talk about how “good” scientists “know” that the theory is a total crock. Notice how Seixon uses exactly this same rhetorical progression, again and again.
So, Seixon, name for us ANY “serious honest scientist” with legitimate credentials who disputes the general conclusions of global warming theory. Before you feel compelled to lie again (and again, and again), please note that Lindzen and Christy have capitulated in this regard, and that Bill Gray (who, by the way, is a meteoroligist, not a climatolist) has become a ranting, pathetic old coot, and by his own admission understands nothing about computer modeling, though he parodoxically dismisses it out of hand.
Yeah, go ahead and bring up Patrick Michaels, punk.
June 24th, 2006 at 3:51 pmThe question I keep asking the global warming deniers is, “What’s in it for you?” What are these people actually getting out of this and what do they want us to believe they’re getting out of this?
June 24th, 2006 at 4:09 pm” . . . smear scientists as being a bunch of corrupt liberals, beholden to their own misbegotten ideology and willing to say anything to get grant money . . .”
I’ve always found that argument amusing. It’s obvious that corporations have far more money to lose than scientist have to gain from global warming. Which side has the most financial motivation? Scientist live on meager incomes compared to CEO’s and corporate shills like Limbaugh and O’reilly, that’s true even with grant money. The whole agrument is ridiculous. And if scientist do vote on the left more, it could very well be because the right has attacked and maligned science for political gain since the Nixon administration. The democrats create legislation based on science and reason, not ideology.
June 24th, 2006 at 4:22 pm#132-viva science
In fact, what scientists mostly care about is discovering something new, and backing it their discoveries with sound arguments. They certainly do care about grant money, because it enables them to continue their research programs. However, they won’t receive grants for “saying anything” because the grant proposals are peer reviewed.
I doubt the left-lean has anything to do with what Republicans have done historically. The Dems aren’t innocent on this front either - I believe the Clinton admin tried to get Hansen to overstate his GW concerns - he refused. GW deniers conveniently forget this - the guy’s as credible and respected as they get.
No, I suspect the left-lean has much more to do with the fact that many scientists have spent a great deal of time working with people outside the US. Many of them are as well simply not from the US originally. Since the world “center” is quite a bit to the left of ours, well, you get the idea. I suspect that the left-lean may not extend to fiscal policy as well - most of my colleagues are fiscally conservative, socially liberal, if that makes any sense.
June 24th, 2006 at 4:55 pmNo, I suspect the left-lean has much more to do with the fact that many scientists have spent a great deal of time working with people outside the US.
No doubt, but it’s also because a liberal agenda, sound social and enviromental policies, diplomacy instead of war, attacking the causes of issues not the symptoms, is a rational and intelligent approach. Most especially, in the context of an interdependent planetary society.
The “right” agenda does in fact make great sense if two primates are facing off, and it’s a zero sum battle to the death. Thats why it’s so insidious, it actually makes genetic sense.
June 24th, 2006 at 5:05 pmTry that again - link didn’t show up. Summay of NAS report can be found at
June 24th, 2006 at 5:13 pmThe global warming deniers are the same people who are buying ocean front properties in West Virginia and Tibet. It’s a long term invesment for their heirs which will be free of estate tax once that is repealed.
June 24th, 2006 at 5:17 pmThere is actually one good thing about global warming that most all people have overlooked, and that is, that I will sure enjoy watching ALL the Republicant’s Roast along with the rest of us, their cry’s will be music to my ears.
June 24th, 2006 at 5:23 pmThe global warming deniers are the same people who are buying ocean front properties in West Virginia and Tibet. It’s a long term invesment for their heirs which will be free of estate tax once that is repealed.
Don’t you mean …. almost ocean front property? Actual ocean front property is likely to become ocean property.
June 24th, 2006 at 5:23 pmWHile you clowns are arguing the world is dying.
June 24th, 2006 at 6:02 pmGlobal warming is real. Can’t we all agree on that? Not the lunatics on the right. This is documented. Accept that. Or would you rather not do that, and instead have me and all other Floridians killed because GW is causing monster hurricanes every year.
http://www.sunstateactivist.org
June 24th, 2006 at 6:03 pmThe terror plot lie: Only on SSA: Blog
http://www.sunstateactivist.org
As Felix Unger once said, “You may slink away.â€
See? Hopeless. He doesn’t even know how demented he sounds.
June 24th, 2006 at 6:04 pmExley … was I talking to you? No. I don’t engage with the like of you, it’s pointless. Besides the thread speaks for itself, notwithstanding your hamfisted effort to reposition yourself.
June 24th, 2006 at 6:26 pmBrian, Brian, Brian…I would suggest you not embarass yourself any further. What I DO suggest is that your read my posting at #4 and then try to explain how I have “repositioned” myself….Here ya go:
“Well, while the NAS eport clearly bolsters the case for human-activity driven global warming, we shouldn’t oversell the report’s conclusions. Sen. Inhofe is essentially correct when he says the new study casts serious doubt on much of the prior research and conclusions on the topic:
“The panel said that a statistical method used in the 1999 study was not the best and that some uncertainties in the work “have been underestimated,†and it particularly challenged the authors’ conclusion that the decade of the 1990’s was probably the warmest in a millennium.†NYTIMES.com
Comment by Exley — June 23, 2006 @ 6:08 pm
We’ll wait for your explanation…Go on.
June 24th, 2006 at 6:30 pmBlack is white. Truth is falsity. War is peace. That’s the way i work.
June 24th, 2006 at 6:40 pmWhat we have to face is that vested economic interests, with very specific agendas, dominate Washington and are responsible for massive distortions in our public policy. They short-circuit the democratic process, undermining representative government and ceaselessly work to divert economic and political power away from the general public, and towards themselves. “Electricity Daily” represents just one arm of the powerful energy industry which will continue to ruthlessly protect every penny of their profits, by polluting the public dialogue and rolling out misleading propaganda like that article. The key word is “profit” and these business lobbies will do everything in their power, no matter how disingenuous, to keep the truth from Americans and maintain their control over the political process. This is a war of information against profit, and profit has been winning in Washington — up to now. By disseminating Al Gore’s message, we can stop these fools in their tracks and maybe even save our planet for our grandchildren.
June 24th, 2006 at 7:02 pmbeat a cow with a stick.
June 24th, 2006 at 7:10 pmthe WTC was blown up by the NWOsthe mf wtc
When confronted with the facts, he ran away like a child to hide.
blahh blahh blahh …
June 24th, 2006 at 7:10 pmOh, and Brian:
#163: blahh blahh blahh …
Comment by Brian Coughlan — June 24, 2006 @ 7:10 pm
Sadly, that is the most intelligent thing you have written all day.
June 24th, 2006 at 7:24 pmHeh! And the lies just keep on coming!
“you posted that his study was refuted.”
Actually, no where did I say his study was refuted….I said the NAS Study had cast some serious doubt on some of his conclusions….And as we can all see from The New York Times and the BBC, I am correct. Some of his conclusions were challenged.
BBC:
“And the report’s panel also said it was unable to confirm the original conclusion of Professor Mann’s work that the 1990s were the hottest decade and that 1998 was the hottest year - because of the difficulties in estimating the past climate over such short timescales.â€
NEW YORK TIMES:
“The panel said that a statistical method used in the 1999 study was not the best and that some uncertainties in the work “have been underestimated,†and it particularly challenged the authors’ conclusion that the decade of the 1990’s was probably the warmest in a millennium.â€
Game, set, and match.
Better luck next time, junior.
June 24th, 2006 at 7:37 pmAnd so in the final analysis a report that vindicates Manns position is used as “evidence” to undermine it. You have to love the relentless irrationality of it. This is what passes for “discourse” in the US these days?
God help you people, the rest of us are ROTFL.
June 24th, 2006 at 7:52 pm“And the report’s panel also said it was unable to confirm the original conclusion of Professor Mann’s work that the 1990s were the hottest decade and that 1998 was the hottest year - because of the difficulties in estimating the past climate over such short timescales.†http://news.bbc.co.uk/ 2/ hi/ science/ nature/ 5109188.stm
“The panel said that a statistical method used in the 1999 study was not the best and that some uncertainties in the work “have been underestimated,†and it particularly challenged the authors’ conclusion that the decade of the 1990’s was probably the warmest in a millennium.†NYTIMES.com
June 24th, 2006 at 8:16 pmLet me repeat, and strengthen myself :
And so in the final analysis a report that explicitly vindicates Manns position is used as “evidence†to undermine it. You have to love the relentless irrationality of it. This is what passes for “discourse†in the US these days?
God help you people, the rest of us are ROTFL.
June 24th, 2006 at 8:32 pmIf the NAS is wrong and global warming doesn’t pan out, then we all win and it’s like, ‘Whew! I’m glad those eggheads got that one wrong.’ But if they’re right, or even half right, then there’s going to be literally hell to pay. Personally, I like this planet and I think we’re all extremely lucky to be here. Science has helped us get this far; our standard of living would be downright medieval without the likes Newton, Curie, Einstein, Fleming, etc. I’m not one for going back. If the fate of man rests on whether I believe a paid off politician or pundit vs a learned and concerned scientist, I’m down with the scientist.
June 24th, 2006 at 8:45 pmGore could be right, however no scientific evidence presented so far can say within a significant degree of certainity (p
June 24th, 2006 at 8:45 pmSeixon @ 28:
Some of? What other agencies? You mean Pentagon’s propoganda office of Special Plans?
Convicted thief/embezzler Chalabi, Ledeen…
Insane… you’re delusional and insane.
June 24th, 2006 at 9:16 pmjdm — Shhhhhhh…we know that but his doctors haven’t told him yet. They told him he’s on “vacation” in Norway. Shhhhh….
June 24th, 2006 at 10:15 pmOn Sept. 12, 2001, our nation was willing to do anything for the greater good, indeed, people had a NEED to give of themselves. That was the moment to start enforcing a rational energy policy–couch it in terms of less oil revenue to the Jihadists, if necessary. If Gore had been bestowed the Presidency he had rightfully won, we would now be well on our way to effectively dealing with global warming. Bush’s refusal to do so may well go down in history (if there is anyone to record it) as the greatest failure of leadership ever seen in a democracy.
June 24th, 2006 at 10:29 pmOn Sept. 12, 2001, our nation was willing to do anything for the greater good, indeed, people had a NEED to give of themselves. That was the moment to start enforcing a rational energy policy–couch it in terms of less oil revenue to the Jihadists, if necessary. If Gore had been bestowed the Presidency he had rightfully won, we would now be well on our way to effectively dealing with global warming. Bush’s refusal to do so may well go down in history (if there is anyone to record it) as the greatest failure of leadership ever seen in a democracy.
June 24th, 2006 at 10:29 pmI read through the whole report and as a working scientist it is very clear that the use of the word “plausible” means that the overall conclusion of Mann’s work has not been rejected by the Academy. The beauty of the report is that it does talk about the uncertainties but even so there is nothing in the report to undermine the “hockey stick”. The data on the last 400 years are quite reliable and more to the point, agree with one another. That’s the power of all this; multiple different temperature proxies are all pointing at the same conclusion. Even the less reliable proxy data going back to 1000 AD generally agrees with each other and more to the point, shows up known periods of climatic history such as the mediaeval warming and the Little Ice Age. Their disagreement with Mann is over definitive statements like 1998 was the warmest year as the sensitivity of all the proxies cannot capture individual years in all cases. Tree rings and coral growth can capture individual years however. It is very clear that something unusual is happening to the climate system. In my view, the case for human caused warming has been strengthened by this impartial reanalysis of the proxy data.
June 24th, 2006 at 11:33 pmTheir disagreement with Mann is over definitive statements like 1998 was the warmest year as the sensitivity of all the proxies cannot capture individual years in all cases.
I see your on the sane side of the argument:-) The report actually overstates this case somewhat, in Manns original comments, he noted that the 1990’s scenario was likely. He consistently, and correctly hedged his bets here. It is incorrect of the media to portray his comments on that specific issue as “definitive”. So even this very mild slap on the wrist is a little unjust.
What is maddening, is how good faith disagreement and discourse is dragged out of context, in everything form global warming to evolution, and held up as “evidence” that the science is “wrong”. It is despicable political hackery and it is destroying American Science. I’m coming to the gradual and reluctant conclusion, that may well be for the best in the long term:-(
June 25th, 2006 at 3:32 amYou know, this whole global warming debate reminds me of when some researchers dared to suggest smoking was bad for your health. The tobacco industry pumped out study after study which said smokeing was harmless.
Now, we have some people saying burning fossil fuels is harmful to the environment. And the oil industry is putting out studys saying just the opposite.
Eventually the tobacco industry’s studies proved false.
The question is, 100 years from now, are our offspring going to be saying, “They could have done something, but they didn’t.”
Oh, and thanks for the heads up on the asteroid, Seixon. Killer asteroids seem to hit every 200 million years or so. That’s one complete trip around the milky way. As I recall, we’re about due for one, and we have done precious little to prepare.
Oh, wait. I forgot about FEMA.
June 25th, 2006 at 3:43 am[…] Gore: Global Warming Skeptics “Will Seize On Anything To Say Up Is Down And Black Is White  […]
June 25th, 2006 at 9:02 amDeniers act like they place a whole lot of trust in the report, but they fail to note quotes from it such as this one:
On the basis of satellite-based monitoring, which began in the late 1970s, it is clear that the rapid global warming of the last few decades is not attributable to an increase in the Sun’s emission.
Note how deniers have stopped saying that the sun is what’s causing global warming
what a resounding defeat to skeptics.
:-)
June 25th, 2006 at 9:56 amI’m coming to the gradual and reluctant conclusion, that may well be for the best in the long term:-(
Comment by Brian Coughlan — June 25, 2006 @ 3:32 am
Last summer I read a wonderful book by a cultural anthropologist called ‘Natural Atheism’. In one part of the book he basically pointed out that the religious right feels threatened by the scientific community because it relies on facts and logic (which, we know is clearly the polar opposite of how they live their lives on blind faith and emotion).
The religious right has cultivated their own branch of junk science in an attempt to compete with real science, which, as time goes by, is showing the holes and contradictions in their beliefs.
For instance, the first two chapters of genesis descibe the ‘creation’ of the universe in terms that are now scientifically known to be incorrect. You can’t have plants coming before sunlight. There is no ‘night light’ that exists without either the stars or the reflection of light of the sun off the moon. Predatory canivores such as tigers were supposedly created prior to killing. And it goes on… all in contradiction to the creation stories and more. So, in order to maintain their belief system, they must discredit Science.
I actually had a former surpervisor, and architect with 20 years of experience, tell me after I explained that we all see the relatively same shades of color because science had been able to dissect several human eyes to see that the cells that receive the visible wavelengths of light are basically created equal, that “Science has never proven anything.” Exact quote. He could not handle that science was right on anything, because it invalidated the basis of his belief - that the Bible is 100% true and accurate.
So, they just dismiss all of science to assuage their fear that their religion is the fabrication… And I think you’re right - we are stuck with it.
June 25th, 2006 at 10:07 amRalph J. Cicerone, Ph.D., President of the National Academy of Sciences, noted in his 2005 testimony before Congress, “Nearly all climate scientists today believe that much of Earth’s current warming has been caused by increases in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mostly from the burning of fossil fuels.” The “plausible” standard as referenced in the most recent report should be good enough for us to take some reasonable measures, given the possible moral and physical consequences if we choose to ignore this. Sure, we’re not responsible for ALL the CO2 in the atmosphere, and we can’t yet say reliably beyond the previous 400 years what the natural fluctuations might have been, but why not reduce whatever negative effects we CAN control while we have the chance?
June 25th, 2006 at 1:00 pmMore at .
My link got zapped in the previous posting:
June 25th, 2006 at 1:04 pmhttp://potomaccurrent.blogspot.com/
Happy reading!
I love it when uninformed folks start spewing forth faux news sound bits and claim them to be truth because someone with an official sounding title claimed them to be real. The reason I love it is because those people will very soon have to face the facts and die right along with the rest of us because nothing is being done about the climate change. Folks this thing is real and it will end our civilization as we know it but it won’t end the world because as RNW so politely pointed out that things do go in cycles and the next cycle may not include humans among the life on the planet. That kind blows huge holes in the whole god in our image thing doesn’t it?
June 25th, 2006 at 3:21 pmSo if I’m clearly understanding what’s been said throughout these posts, earth’s climate is warming remarkably, especially as verifiable within the last 400 years.
If human society and its industries and activities contributing to increased CO2 and methane emissions is not controlled, the resulting warming is expected to increase.
The negative impacts from increasing pollution and global warming to human and widlife habitat is not sustainable by these species.
If existing industries and human activities are not altered, current “traditional” profiteers may suffer a decline in their profits.
If these industries alter their production methods, products, and priorities, their profits may increase or decrease according to their value in the marketplace and to humans.
There is a need for additional employment opportunities and non-polluting products. I’d say let’s quit arguing about the temperature 1000+ years ago, and start addressing our shared reality of a rapidly warming planet and the impacts we can expect from these current changes.
June 25th, 2006 at 4:02 pmI’d say let’s quit arguing about the temperature 1000+ years ago, and start addressing our shared reality of a rapidly warming planet and the impacts we can expect from these current changes.
June 25th, 2006 at 4:31 pmBecause the neocons don’t want to, they think it will cost them money. Just ask Norway Bob aka sexion.
RealScientist,
I often read reader comments posted in response to global warming articles, at places like WaPo, Salon, and Slate. It is obvious to me that professional propagandists working on behalf of the fossil fuels industry are very active at these news sites. Sometimes a lone individual, armed with the same selective quotes and citations also publicly used by the industry, will argue against all comers, posting many comments over a period of hours or even days. The tactics are familiar: trot out the factual misrepresentations about the science, often spiked with their own pseudo-scientific commentary; smear scientists as being a bunch of corrupt liberals, beholden to their own misbegotten ideology and willing to say anything to get grant money; then talk about how “good†scientists “know†that the theory is a total crock. Notice how Seixon uses exactly this same rhetorical progression, again and again.
Say what? Where have I smeared any scientists? Where have I used factual misrepresentations? Where have I armed myself with selective quotes that the oil industry has used? Where have I talked about selling science for grant money?
This is just a big fat lie, sir or mam.
There are no scientists who would tell you that Gore’s presentation of the sea level rising 20 feet was in any way accurate. Go ahead and find one if you want to, but there’s no real scientist who would because it is 100% fear-mongering propaganda. Not even the UN IPCC has that as one of their worst scenarios.
So, Seixon, name for us ANY “serious honest scientist†with legitimate credentials who disputes the general conclusions of global warming theory.
I was talking specifically about the sea levels rising 20 feet, but now you have moved the goal posts. What is the “general conclusion of global warming theory”?
Before you feel compelled to lie again (and again, and again), please note that Lindzen and Christy have capitulated in this regard, and that Bill Gray (who, by the way, is a meteoroligist, not a climatolist) has become a ranting, pathetic old coot, and by his own admission understands nothing about computer modeling, though he parodoxically dismisses it out of hand.
I have already shown that Lindzen has not capitulated, that was a lie someone else tried to pass off here earlier. I have no idea who Christy is. Dr. Gray is a meteorologist, but so are many of the ones who publish these studies linking global warming to hurricanes. He’s a professor at the Department of Atmospheric Science.
Here’s what Lindzen wrote recently:
First, let’s start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man’s responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred.
He’s also commented that we haven’t demonstrated that the recent warming has actually been due to CO2, although increasing CO2 would contribute to warming. The thing that we don’t know is how much CO2 contributes to warming, and how much it would take to actually have any effect.
I have already agreed that CO2 emissions will have so