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€
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
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 some effect, but the exact effect it will have is not certain, nor is it certain that the recent warming has been due to CO2 emissions. The warming has not been “global” in the true sense of the word, either.
I think your personal attack on the man mirrors those of others commenters here that would rather play the “old crazy man” card rather than debate the facts. Do you have a cite for Dr. Gray admitting that he understands nothing about computer modeling? I’d love to see it.
Yeah, go ahead and bring up Patrick Michaels, punk.
I have no idea who that is, so I assure you I won’t… haha.
June 25th, 2006 at 5:35 pmThere are a few pseudo-scientists that take money from the energy sector to cast doubt on global warming. That whole game was accurately disclosed in Trust Us We’re Experts: How industry manipulates science and gambles with your future, by Rampton and Stauber. It’s a good read and is basic to the discussion of corporate meddling in science. Chris Mooney’s recent book, “The Republican War on Science” paints a pretty damning picture. It’s also worth reading.
Reputable scientists understand that global warming is real and it’s already too late to do anything about it. Possibly we could slow it down by pumping a lot of moisture into the atmosphere and make more clouds which will reflect sunlight, but that’s a longshot. The big deal will happen when thermo-haline circulation in the North Atlantic stops and temperatures skyrocket in just a few years (it’s happened before so it’s no pipe dream). It’s not a big deal because humans are a transient species and no doubt will disappear or evolve into something else. All of you arguing passionately will have worms crawling through you….”a hair in the dirt, so to speak”….and it won’t matter a bit. Those of you truly interested in abrupt climate change will want to read Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises, by the Division of Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council, and published by the National Academy Press in 2002. It’s a great overview on abrupt climate change as well its economic and ecological impacts. You can learn all about proxy records and how they work to show past climates. For a good description of how climate has affected humans in the past 15,000 years, I’d suggest Brian Fagan’s, The Long Summer.
Now…on another matter: I challenge those of you who support conservative ideals to show me one country that functions well with conservative ideals: no Social Security, no welfare, no maternity leave, no unions, no minimum wage, no Occupational Safety and Health Administration, no environmental protection, no science, and pre-emptive attacks on other nations. Show me your functioning model? Come on, conservatives, put your money where your mouth is…speak up please…I’ll be waiting…
your pal,
June 25th, 2006 at 5:38 pm–the doc–
Joe Friday,
Because the neocons don’t want to, they think it will cost them money. Just ask Norway Bob aka sexion.
I am all for cutting pollution anywhere and everywhere. However, CO2 is not a pollutant. Pollution is a real problem which harms the environment. However, most informed people know that the pollution around the US has been getting better and better all the time, thus the environmentalists can’t claim things are getting worse in this way. Pollution is getting worse and worse in other parts of the world, such as China and India – yet the environmentalists don’t seem to mind that too much.
The Kyoto agreement would have done absolutely nothing to actually address the real problem that was presented by the IPCC, but would merely burden most countries other than India, China, and other developing countries. By mere coincidence, the lead author of the IPCC report is from India.
The Kyoto had nothing to do with real pollution, but with CO2 emissions. I’d say the focus should be on deforestation, real pollution in the air and the water, and also focus on conserving energy through any means possible.
I’m all for hybrid cars, hydrogen cars, and alternative sources of energy. The United States needs to become independent of others for their energy needs, specifically oil (like from hot spots such as Venezuela and the Middle East).
But Al Gore scaring the shit out of people to accomplish this is the wrong way to go about it.
June 25th, 2006 at 5:43 pmseixon, I believe stated “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.” This is nonsense. Every reputable climate scientist knows that sea level will rise at least 20 feet. In fact, the book I quoted earlier, Abrupt Climate Changes, looks into the costs of sea level rise with both perfect and myopic foresight. If North Atlantic thermohaline circulation shuts down sea level rise on the order of 5-10 meters or more is expected. Remember that these are not nice gradual changes, but abrupt changes when climate is forced over a threshold, much like Bill O’Reilly goes ballistic after a certain amout of reality.
your pal
June 25th, 2006 at 5:53 pm– the doc –
seixon…CO2 and pollutants have the opposite effects so one tends to mitigate the other. If you look it up you’ll find great study done right after 9/11 that looked at temperature changes because jets weren’t flying and creating contrails! Temperatures rose because the skies were clearer! I’ve often been hiking in the Grand Canyon and seen so many jets on their way to LA and LV that their contrails create a cloudy day!! My point seixon, is that you simply seem to mlouth some right-wing, crypto-fascist, dog-shit rather than truly trying to understand the problem. However, don’t worry or feel bad, becasuse there are millions of uneducated people just like you…and they too, watch and believe FOX!
On your other crazy topic…calling Venezuela a hotspot? Why exactly is it a hotspot? Chavez isn’t anti-American at all, merely anti-Bush. He is a many times elected and while he talks a bit crazy, I’ve never had any problems in Venezuela and I spent all of 2004 there and regularly visit. Venezuelans like Americans generally, but don’t like the Washington Consensus, and on that I can hardly disagree with them. When were you last there, Seixon? Do you even realize that Citgo gasoline is directly owned by the Venezuelan national petroleum company? Come Seixon, anti-up….or is this just more of your neo-nazi bullshit?
your pal
June 25th, 2006 at 6:27 pm–the doc–
the doc,
This is nonsense. Every reputable climate scientist knows that sea level will rise at least 20 feet. In fact, the book I quoted earlier, Abrupt Climate Changes, looks into the costs of sea level rise with both perfect and myopic foresight. If North Atlantic thermohaline circulation shuts down sea level rise on the order of 5-10 meters or more is expected. Remember that these are not nice gradual changes, but abrupt changes when climate is forced over a threshold, much like Bill O’Reilly goes ballistic after a certain amout of reality.
Will rise at least 20 feet? Not even the IPCC says anything close to that. Here’s the IPCC assessment from 2001:
Last I checked, 0.88m is not the same thing as 20 feet. The national science academies of 11 nations signed a joint statement in 2005 that reaffirmed the IPCC projections on sea level change, 0.1 to 0.9 meters:
So the IPCC and the national science academies of 11 nations stands on my side. Who stands on yours? Al Gore?
June 25th, 2006 at 6:28 pmseixon, those estimates are for gradual change…as I stated earlier, if thermohaline circulation shuts down the change will be abrupt. Temperatures could easily rise 10° with just a few years. That is the big concern among scientists. I really suggest you do a bit of reading.
June 25th, 2006 at 6:33 pm-the doc-
the doc,
My point seixon, is that you simply seem to mlouth some right-wing, crypto-fascist, dog-shit rather than truly trying to understand the problem.
Ah, so now the IPCC and the national science academies of 11 nations are “right-wing crypto-fascist dog shit”. Interesting.
If you look it up you’ll find great study done right after 9/11 that looked at temperature changes because jets weren’t flying and creating contrails! Temperatures rose because the skies were clearer!
Have a link? Sounds a bit moronic to me. How they could prove that this was due to jets not flying and not just normal weather is beyond me. But please, provide the link and I’ll read it.
On your other crazy topic…calling Venezuela a hotspot? Why exactly is it a hotspot? Chavez isn’t anti-American at all, merely anti-Bush. He is a many times elected and while he talks a bit crazy, I’ve never had any problems in Venezuela and I spent all of 2004 there and regularly visit.
So Chavez teaming up with Iran, North Korea, and other enemies of the USA does not concern you one bit? That Chavez continues to spout off with unproven conspiracy theories about the US trying to assassinate him? That he apparently wants to pass a law so that he can continue to stay in power? That he rigged the electoral boards and the courts in his favor after the 1999 election, an election that did not have international oversight?
Whether you have had a problem visiting there has no relevance. American tourists can go to Cuba and many other such nations without any problems. Venezuela and Cuba thrive off tourism, so there’s little wonder why they would make sure tourists had a nice time while being there. That has no relevance to the government’s policies.
Venezuelans like Americans generally, but don’t like the Washington Consensus, and on that I can hardly disagree with them. When were you last there, Seixon? Do you even realize that Citgo gasoline is directly owned by the Venezuelan national petroleum company? Come Seixon, anti-up….or is this just more of your neo-nazi bullshit?
I think everyone in Congress should be thrown out of office, but that doesn’t mean I hate the US. Of course Venezuelans, like most people in the world, like Americans in general. Yes, I know that Citgo is owned by Venezuela. So what? Chavez needs the USA to buy his oil because he needs the cash. He has threatened to start selling it to his new best friend China though.
Venezuela is a “hotspot” simply because Chavez is more concerned with staying in power than anything else, and will alienate, smear, and fear-monger about anyone, like Bush, if it helps him do so. His continuous lies about the American military trying to assassinate him is precisely the same type of thing that Hitler kept doing in regards to the Jews. It is fear-mongering in appealing to the nationalism of his people to keep himself in power.
It’s funny you should call me a neo-Nazi. I’ve argued about Iraq with someone who was actually a neo-Nazi, calling for the “relearning” of black people to stop their hip-hop culture. Guess which side of the argument he was on. Later.
June 25th, 2006 at 6:47 pmthe doc,
seixon, those estimates are for gradual change…as I stated earlier, if thermohaline circulation shuts down the change will be abrupt. Temperatures could easily rise 10° with just a few years. That is the big concern among scientists. I really suggest you do a bit of reading.
-the doc-
Obviously the IPCC and the national science academies are not concerned with this thermohaline circulation shutdown. If it was “the big concern” among them, you’d think they would address it. I guess I could read fear-mongering environmental propaganda, but I’d rather listen to the actual scientists on the issue. Thanks.
June 25th, 2006 at 6:49 pmthe doc,
I’ve done some reading now. Wikipedia says:
Ooops. I wonder why the IPCC and the national science academies didn’t mention it. Wait, no I don’t. Later.
June 25th, 2006 at 6:54 pmand how do you know that I’m not one of them? Try looking here:
http://www.physorg.com/news2353.html
http://faculty.washington.edu/wcalvin/teaching/Broecker99.html
The National Academy of Sciences is concerned and published an entire book on it…didn’t you read what I wrote? It’s called Abrupt Climate Changes
Anyway, the IPCC “projections using climate models do not exhibit a complete shut-down of the thermohaline circulation by 2100. Beyond 2100, the thermohaline circulation could completely, and possibly irreversibly, shut-down in either hemisphere if the change in radiative forcing is large enough and applied long enough.”
You can also read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation
Remember that these are models and it could shut down much earlier. It is a serious concern, my friend.
-the doc-
June 25th, 2006 at 7:06 pmseixon, you never did address my post about your comments on Venezuela…why not?
June 25th, 2006 at 7:09 pmyes, Seixon is really an idiot with his right wing rubbish. Her makes all kinds of nonsensical arguments but refuses to answer others when they query him. For example he’s never answered my post asking him to show me his model for a conservative country (read post 196). Still waiting Seixon…
He’s an American ex-pat who left because he hated the place…need I say more? He writes this big fancy web site full of conservative BS and lives in socio-democratict-Norway!! What a hypocrite!!
-the doc-
June 25th, 2006 at 7:14 pmthe doc,
I did address your Venezuela spiel, can you read?
I’ve already shown you that the National Science Academy and the IPCC are not concerned with this thing one bit, and that the only research on it is unpublished. Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises does not say that this will happen, I can’t even find in the text of it where it talks about a shutdown of the process.
The scientists are not concerned about this, and no amount of BSing will convince anyone otherwise, except for dupes like you.
June 25th, 2006 at 7:21 pmseixon…the entire book Abrupt Climate Changes is exactly about what the title says!! I really suggest that you buy it and read it.
-the doc-
June 25th, 2006 at 7:34 pmRepublicans want global warming to advance as far as possible to benefit the energy industry – imagine the air conditioning bills 10 to 20 years from now. A big market for sump pumps in coastal areas is also coming up I suspect.
June 25th, 2006 at 7:39 pmThanks Sheila…I won’t bother to respond to his nonsensical ramblings any more. These right-wing nutballs can never answer my one simple question:
I challenge those of you who support conservative ideals to show me one country that functions well with conservative ideals: no Social Security, no welfare, no maternity leave, no unions, no minimum wage, no Occupational Safety and Health Administration, no environmental protection, no science, and pre-emptive attacks on other nations. Show me your functioning model?
They always sidestep the question because they simply can’t. In years of asking it, I’ve never once received a straight answer. Try it!!
Likewise…everyone, please understand that the war in Iraq is long over. We won!! It is the occupation that has not gone well due to polical decisions by the Bush administration. This makes a huge difference in how people view bringing home the troops.
-the doc-
June 25th, 2006 at 7:44 pmthe doc,
yes, Seixon is really an idiot with his right wing rubbish. Her makes all kinds of nonsensical arguments but refuses to answer others when they query him. For example he’s never answered my post asking him to show me his model for a conservative country (read post 196). Still waiting Seixon…
Post 196 was one I wrote. Are you illiterate? It was post 197. You addressed “those of you who support conservative ideals”. Sorry, that’s not me, so there’s no reason for me to respond. You asking me to show you something that I don’t agree with nor has anything to do with the topic here. Why is that? Talk about nonsensical.
He’s an American ex-pat who left because he hated the place…need I say more? He writes this big fancy web site full of conservative BS and lives in socio-democratict-Norway!! What a hypocrite!!
Yes, I would be a hypocrit if your lies were true, but they’re not.
So once again when faced with the fact that you’re wrong, you start attacking me. That’s about the millionth time that’s happened here at Think Progress.
We see Sheila piling on telling people to ignore me simply because what I say is too true to be refuted. Pathetic.
seixon…the entire book Abrupt Climate Changes is exactly about what the title says!! I really suggest that you buy it and read it.
I suggest that you admit that scientists are not concerned about thermohaline circulation shutdown, as evidenced by the consensus of 11 nation’s national academy of sciences and the IPCC. Your theory on thermohaline circulation shutdown is supported only by a small group of scientists who haven’t even had their work on the matter published. You might as well say that Pat Roberts is Jesus Christ.
June 25th, 2006 at 7:44 pmthe doc,
I challenge those of you who support conservative ideals to show me one country that functions well with conservative ideals: no Social Security, no welfare, no maternity leave, no unions, no minimum wage, no Occupational Safety and Health Administration, no environmental protection, no science, and pre-emptive attacks on other nations. Show me your functioning model?
They always sidestep the question because they simply can’t. In years of asking it, I’ve never once received a straight answer. Try it!!
No one answers this question because it is akin to asking someone to defend racism. There’s almost no one other than far right-wingers who even support such a stance, so there’s no wonder why everyone ignores your ridiculous questions.
I would never have a country that didn’t have all the things you just cited. So why would I argue otherwise?
Later troll.
June 25th, 2006 at 7:48 pmSeixon…you aregue for conservative ideals on your web site rather consistently. It’s a matter of public record.
-the doc-
June 25th, 2006 at 7:51 pmseixon…the things I mention in my question are exactly the things the Republicans support (no Social Security, no welfare, no maternity leave, no unions, no minimum wage, no Occupational Safety and Health Administration, no environmental protection, no science, and pre-emptive attacks on other nations) and you consistently argue against progressive ideals. Why just yesterday you took a position against the minimum wage!! Stop trying to act like you are enlightened because you simply aren’t! Everyone who reads your pablum gets it…it’s only you who doesn’t!!
-the doc-
June 25th, 2006 at 7:57 pmthe doc,
Seixon…you aregue for conservative ideals on your web site rather consistently. It’s a matter of public record.
Care to name them?
Sorry for everyone that came here to discuss global warming, once again the Think Progress lynch mob wants to make the discussion all about me as a person again.
OK, that’s taken care of, now go right on ahead doc. Put up or shut up. You got shut down on the science, let’s see how you do at carrying out your personal attacks.
June 25th, 2006 at 7:59 pmahem… Did anyone read post 210? You know, the one about Global Warming.
June 25th, 2006 at 8:02 pmRah,
Let me tell you something. They don’t care about post 210. I have long since debunked both doc and Al Gore on his scare-mongering 20 feet of sea level rise, so the only avenue left for our partisan mob is to go after me as a person. Get some popcorn, this is going to be fun.
June 25th, 2006 at 8:06 pmum, seixon? You may want to read post 210 before offering popcorn. Nothing personal, I don’t even know you. I just ask that you read it all, including the links, think about it, then reply. That’s all I ask.
June 25th, 2006 at 8:14 pmseixon…I didn’t get put down on the science at all. Whatever gave you that idea? I tried to explain to you about abrupt climate change based on data from the National Academy of Sciences and you retorted with some nonsense from Wikipedia!
You might vist the Ocean and Climate Change Institute at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/viewTopic.do?o=read&id=501
You can also read the book, Abrupt Climate Change at
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309074347/html/
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory also has a site.
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309074347/html/
You might try the section for kids!
-the doc-
June 25th, 2006 at 8:21 pm“Large, abrupt, and widespread climate changes with major impacts have occurred repeatedly in the past, when the Earth system was forced across thresholds. Although abrupt climate changes can occur for many reasons, it is conceivable that human forcing of climate change is increasing the probability of large, abrupt events. Were such an event to recur, the economic and ecological impacts could be large and potentially serious.”
June 25th, 2006 at 8:22 pmAlley, R.B., J. Marotzke, W.D. Nordhaus, J.T. Overpeck, D.M. Peteet, R.A. Pielke, Jr., R.T. Pierrehumbert, P.B. Rhines, T.F. Stocker, L.D. Talley, and J.M. Wallace 2003. Abrupt climate change. Science 299, 2005-2010.
Rah,
I’m the one who wrote post #210, so unless you have a problem with your vision or browser, you might want to check which post you’re talking about.
the doc,
seixon…I didn’t get put down on the science at all. Whatever gave you that idea? I tried to explain to you about abrupt climate change based on data from the National Academy of Sciences and you retorted with some nonsense from Wikipedia!
National Research Council is not the same thing as the National Academy of Sciences, plus the source you gave does not even say anything about thermohaline circulation shutdown.
You ignored what the National Academy of Sciences signed under on a joint statement, where they reaffirmed the IPCC view that the sea level is likely to rise between 0.1 and 0.9 meters by 2100.
You keep pointing to this book, from 2002, yet cannot cite where it says what you claim it does.
I think a joint statement by the national science academies of 11 nations and the assessment of the IPCC holds a little more weight than that, don’t you? Not to mention that the research you talked about has not been published and is a minority view.
You’re claiming that the scientists are concerned about this, yet the only proof you can offer is a 4-year old book that doesn’t even say what you claim it does, and an unpublished theory by a small group of scientists.
As I said, you might as well claim Pat Roberts is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. There are probably more people that believe that than the garbage you are peddling.
June 25th, 2006 at 8:27 pmthe doc #224,
Yeah. And? Where does it say that the sea level is going to rise 20 feet? Where does it say that thermohaline circulation will shut down? You’re all washed up buddy. I might suggest you stop digging your hole larger and deeper.
June 25th, 2006 at 8:33 pmRather than quibble, why don’t you just read what I posted @ 7:31 PM.
June 25th, 2006 at 8:36 pmthe doc,
I found the actual study you just quoted the abstract for. Funny, it never claims that the sea level is going to rise due to thermohaline circulation shut down, nor does it comment on the likelihood of it even happening. In fact, in the references on the possible effects of a shut down, it says:
This was in 2003. The scientists don’t seem to be at all concerned that the sea level is going to rise 20 feet from a shut down of the thermohaline circulation, nor are they concerned that it is likely to happen.
You = debunked. Sayonara.
Rah,
Rather than quibble, why don’t you just read what I posted @ 7:31 PM.
You haven’t posted anything at 7:31pm. Are you confused? Please provide a link.
June 25th, 2006 at 8:42 pmthe doc,
How’s it coming with all these “conservative” ideals I hold? You’re done buddy. Night.
June 25th, 2006 at 8:46 pmseixon,
I never said it was going to happen. I suggest that you go back and read my post 196. The point is that it could happen and it will be a doozy if it does. It has happened in the past and we can document it. There is concern among reputable scientists about it and people are studying it. You, in your foolish, childish, conservative manner, simply want to discount the possibility that it could. I’d rather study it more to try and understand what drives the climate over such thresholds. This is important stuff. I’m just trying to understand it much as I had to properly understand Snowball Earth as well.
-the doc-
June 25th, 2006 at 8:59 pmSeixon wrote in comment 195:
“Do you have a cite for Dr. Gray admitting that he understands nothing about computer modeling? I’d love to see it.”
Read it and weep, pal:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html
June 25th, 2006 at 10:37 pm#230 – Sheila,
June 25th, 2006 at 10:37 pmHow about Iceland – oops, Waterland?
the doc,
You didn’t take my advice, now you will pay the consequences.
I never said it was going to happen.
Oh no? What about when you said:
The big deal will happen when thermo-haline circulation in the North Atlantic stops and temperatures skyrocket in just a few years (it’s happened before so it’s no pipe dream).
And when you said:
Every reputable climate scientist knows that sea level will rise at least 20 feet. In fact, the book I quoted earlier, Abrupt Climate Changes, looks into the costs of sea level rise with both perfect and myopic foresight. If North Atlantic thermohaline circulation shuts down sea level rise on the order of 5-10 meters or more is expected.
Was there something you were saying about not saying that this was going to happen?
The point is that it could happen and it will be a doozy if it does.
Yes, it could happen, but that’s not what you were saying. You said that the sea level “will rise at least 20 feet”. Will rise. Will. Your words. Not “can”, not “could”, but “will”. Try to lie your way out of it if you want.
There is concern among reputable scientists about it and people are studying it.
Yet none of them link it to global warming, and none of them link it to the sea level rising. In fact, the thing you linked to did not discuss sea level rising as a consequence of it at all, only that certain regions would experience lower temperatures.
You, in your foolish, childish, conservative manner, simply want to discount the possibility that it could.
First, I’m not a conservative. Second, you claimed that the sea level “will rise at least 20 feet”, a false statement by any standard. You claimed this would happen because the thermohaline circulation shutting down, and that “scientists” were concerned about this happening.
Then I showed that not only haven’t the scientists shown any real concern with this actually happening in any time period we should care about, they have also not linked it to a rise in the sea level, and the consensus is that the sea level will rise 0.1 to 0.9 meters in the next century.
You claimed something that was false, and got slammed. Deal with it.
I’d rather study it more to try and understand what drives the climate over such thresholds. This is important stuff. I’m just trying to understand it much as I had to properly understand Snowball Earth as well.
Then you might want to start actually reading because none of it even said what you claimed. You might start reading the IPCC report from 2001, and the joint statement from the national academy of sciences from 11 countries, all of which do not say that the sea level will rise 20 feet.
Unfortunately you had to go and discredit yourself all in the name of defending Al Gore’s ridiculous movie. The scientists do not stand behind Gore’s fear-mongering scenario of the seas rising 20 feet. Deal with it, Gore is an obfuscator just like the rest of them.
Sheila,
Maybe Seixon can see Gore’s film in Norway.
Yes, I will, but it won’t be at the cinema.
RealScientist,
Now you’ll just have to point out where Gray admits that he doesn’t understand computers. I can’t find him admitting any such thing in the entire piece, an article that is obviously biased against the guy. Distrust and disdain for computers models isn’t the same as saying you don’t understand them. Computer models aren’t magical solutions that can tell you the future. They are only as good as you make them, and a system as complex as the atmosphere is damn near impossible to model with any degree of accuracy. Not even models used to predict the weather have a confidence-building accuracy, and that is when they look at local weather systems. Yet we are supposed to believe that they have models that can fashion the entire atmosphere of Earth correctly do forecast the next 100 years.
Sorry, but as someone who actually has a degree in computers, that’s horseshit. Humans don’t know all there is to know about how the atmosphere works, and thus the computers models can’t either. We make the models, they don’t make themselves. From your article:
And so on, and so forth.
June 25th, 2006 at 11:23 pmfunny how seixon could be using his time doing just about anything else. you know — something productive. i happen to know that seixon believes we should be eliminating our dependence on fossil fuels, which is as worthy a cause as any, and would be well-served to get even a fraction of seixon’s wasted hours. but instead he spends those hours here as a naysayer and obstructionist, endlessly recounting his secret fetish for bill gray (the same bill gray, incidentally who likes to accuse those that disagree with him of “mild mccarthyism”).
anyone that spends this much time trying to debunk something that is actually worth taking action against (because of the many positive impacts for the planet and the humans that live here), regardless of the magnitude of its threat, has to be a monumental wanker and generally against the wellbeing of humanity.
the crux of seixon’s argument: do nothing, stay the same, don’t adapt, don’t improve. in other words, stagnate.
of course, there always is the chance that seixon is paid to post things here, but i’m not prepared to give him that much credit. mostly, he’s just an obfuscating distractionist.
June 25th, 2006 at 11:44 pmto seixon…
I simply cannot understand you…there’s Bill Gray and a scattering of others who haven’t published anything on global warming nor done any modeling against thousands of scientists at government labs and hundreds of universities publishing and creating computer models. I guess you creep me out a bit because you don’t reason logically and simply haven’t done the requisite background reading. I mean seriously when I make a point you rush off and search the internet to find ammunition. That’s not really how things are done in the real world. I can see from your web site that you profess to know everything, and people like you are generally quite dangerous, because you actually know so little.
Citing anything from the ultra right-wing Washington Post is ridiculous. The paper is an organ of the Bush administration and hardly non-partisan. You can see just one good example here.
Now, if I was a medical doctor and I told you that it semed you had a disease and that you needed to take such and such medicine and do so and so, would you simply pooh pooh it and fail to do anything? Of course not! Would you search out the one doctor who told you that you could use the zircon crystals plus the two drops of wild boar semen to cure yourself because you really weren’t ill at all? Not too likely!! That would be irrational. If a second and even a third doctor told yoi that you were indeed sick, wouldn’t you pay attention and believe them? Apparently, you wouldn’t! You are doing the same thing with respect to global warming by ignoring all reasonable professionals and listening to a few disgruntled scientists or those who are on the energy payroll. You certainly are not capable to judge the matter as you don’t have a Ph.D. in earth or atmospheric sciences and have done no original research nor created robust computer models. You don’t read the scientific literature and didn’t even know about abrupt climate change until I told you.
Look, sexon…we all know that computer models are just that models and that they are only as good as our basic understanding of the thing we’re modelling so that we can properly incorporate and model the various parameters. Climate modeling is especially difficult because there are so many variables, but we do have an historic record of several hundred thousand years or more and can look at what has happened in the past. That is not modeling and is much more definite. For example, coming out of the Younger Dryas period at say 12,500 years ago, average temperature rose 13° C in 10 years. Likewise at at about 14,900 years ago similar increases occured, followed shortly therafter by just as rapid a cooling. Think about it mr. wizard seixon, thirteen degrees C in 10 years!! Those data are not based on models but actual measurements.
As to the effects of climate change on humans I really think you’d learn a lot from Brian Fagan’s interesting book entitled The Long Summer: How climate changed civilization. It’s written for the layman so you could likely understand it.
As far as I can tell from your posts and your pooorly designed and written web site, you are simply a baffoon, much like those who adhere to radical Islam, believing whatever they are told to believe and paying no attention to reality. Stop being a pawn, seixon, and start to think for yourself….it will be difficult for you at first, but keep at it….
– the doc –
June 25th, 2006 at 11:49 pmseixon,
I might also mention that there are periods in earth history when it appears as though the entire earth was frozen, even at the equator. We escaped from those deep freezes because volcanoes eventually put out enough carbon dioxide to create a greenhouse effect and melt the ice. If you are interested in this idea visit this web site.
your pal
June 26th, 2006 at 12:04 am– the doc –
Progressaurus,
funny how seixon could be using his time doing just about anything else. you know — something productive.
Sorry, on a Sunday recovering from a night out, I don’t feel like doing much productive other than teaching ignorant brainwashed people to wake the hell up.
i happen to know that seixon believes we should be eliminating our dependence on fossil fuels, which is as worthy a cause as any, and would be well-served to get even a fraction of seixon’s wasted hours.
And how might I have used a few hours on a lazy Sunday to eliminate the US dependency on foreign oil? I’m all ears.
but instead he spends those hours here as a naysayer and obstructionist, endlessly recounting his secret fetish for bill gray
Naysay and obstructionist? Sorry, but I think that when Al Gore pulls off a movie misleading people, someone should speak up. When Think Progress lies right in people’s face, I think that warrants a response. First Larry Johnson alleges I have a sexual infatuation with George Bush, now you say I have a fetish for Bill Gray. What is it with you people?
the crux of seixon’s argument: do nothing, stay the same, don’t adapt, don’t improve. in other words, stagnate.
No, not at all. If the climate changes, we will have to adapt with it. This is what the human race has had to do for centuries and centuries, I don’t see any reason why we suddenly are above nature. With people building so much on the coastline, they are asking to get their homes destroyed by Mother Nature at some point. With the overpopulation of Asia, inevitable something bad is going to happen. We saw what happened with the tsunami, the poor infrastructure and poor awareness in Indonesia got many thousands of people killed.
of course, there always is the chance that seixon is paid to post things here, but i’m not prepared to give him that much credit. mostly, he’s just an obfuscating distractionist.
Yes, and there’s also the chance that I will win the lottery on Saturday, but I’m not counting on it. I’m a distractionist, sure, distracting people from the liberal dogma and giving them some much-needed truth and a fact-check. People who visit this site live in their own bubble and I’m here to burst it.
the doc,
Citing anything from the ultra right-wing Washington Post is ridiculous. The paper is an organ of the Bush administration and hardly non-partisan. You can see just one good example here.
Oh boy. The mind-rot has gone a bit far with this one. Yeah, the same Post that published the story on the secret CIA prisons, and countless other stories the Bush administration didn’t want out there. That Washington Post? What was it you said about logic?
Climate modeling is especially difficult because there are so many variables, but we do have an historic record of several hundred thousand years or more and can look at what has happened in the past. That is not modeling and is much more definite. For example, coming out of the Younger Dryas period at say 12,500 years ago, average temperature rose 13° C in 10 years. Likewise at at about 14,900 years ago similar increases occured, followed shortly therafter by just as rapid a cooling. Think about it mr. wizard seixon, thirteen degrees C in 10 years!! Those data are not based on models but actual measurements.
Measurements? No, they are reconstructions based on various indicators, and have medium to low accuracy. Read the NAS report that this thread is actually about and learn a thing or two. The only “definitive” thing we have is for the past 400 years.
Oh, and what does any of this have to do with your previous comments? Nothing.
As far as I can tell from your posts and your pooorly designed and written web site, you are simply a baffoon, much like those who adhere to radical Islam, believing whatever they are told to believe and paying no attention to reality. Stop being a pawn, seixon, and start to think for yourself….it will be difficult for you at first, but keep at it….
And thus you have avoided having to comment on the fact that you were wrong, and then lied about it. Good job.
I am thinking for myself, it’s you who isn’t doing that. You believed everything Gore told you about the 20 feet sea level rise, then when I told you it was BS, you had this book that supposedly said the same thing. Only it didn’t. Then you were faced with the fact that what Gore said was completely wrong and utter BS. Then you pretended that scientists had said the same thing, which they haven’t, as I showed. Then you claimed you never said what you did! Then I showed that you did, that you lied, and now you wrote a long tirade against me that has nothing to do with your previous comments.
You’re a coward you can’t confess that you were duped by Gore, tried to defend him with false arguments, and then tried to lie about it.
Let’s just repeat what is a definite demonstration of your dishonesty:
You lied, and then lied about lying.
All the personal attacks in the world won’t change that. Hopefully you will learn your lesson some day.
June 26th, 2006 at 12:20 amthe doc,
I might also mention that there are periods in earth history when it appears as though the entire earth was frozen, even at the equator. We escaped from those deep freezes because volcanoes eventually put out enough carbon dioxide to create a greenhouse effect and melt the ice. If you are interested in this idea visit this web site.
Now you’ll just have to tell me what in the hell this has to do with anything we have discussed. You’re just throwing up dust now to save yourself from the lies you peddled and tried to cover up. The sea level is not going to rise 20 feet in the foreseeable future, like Gore was insinuating in his movie. Fess up.
June 26th, 2006 at 12:43 amThe fact is the ice is melting. This cannot be denied. You can see it with your own eyes and it’s going to cause big problems. It could stop the Atlantic current and the weather will be vastly different. Well what the hell are we going to do about it? We certainly don’t want to accelerate it. That would be incredibly stupid.
June 26th, 2006 at 12:51 amEven if it were a natural cyclical phenomenom we have to prepare for massive disruptions of all kinds. We must err on the side of caution. To do otherwise is idiotic. It is the responsibility of the powerful who can make a difference to protect the great many who must simply suffer the consequences.
seixon,
I never lie. I haven’t seen Gore’s movie nor listened to his speeches. I merely tried to point out that current models of global warming don’t account for abrupt climate change, which you decided was hogwash, even though you didn’t know anything about them nor the thermo-haline circulation!
Pretty much all scientists are in agreement that if ice sheets in Greenland or western Antartica melted there would be a huge sea level rise. The US Geological Survey predicted potential maximum sea-level rise from melting of west Antarctic glaciers would be just over 8 meters; wheras the Greenland melting would yield a sea level rise of about 6.5 meters. The West Antarctic ice sheet is especially vulnerable, because much of it is grounded below sea level. Small changes in global sea level or a rise in ocean temperatures could cause a breakup of the two buttressing ice shelves. The resulting surge of the West Antarctic ice sheet would lead to a rapid rise in global sea level. These are plausible scenarios if there are big changes in the therno-haline circulation. They are not out of the realm of possibility at all.
You are, in fact, being an obstructionist because all you’ve done is pooh pooh everything and everybody right from the start. You’ve added nothing positive to the discussion nor nothing new. Not only that, you still sidestep my question to conservatives without answering. Show me your functioning model of a conservative state without social prgrams and environmental protections…
–the doc–
June 26th, 2006 at 12:55 amnow seixon with the bill o’reilly approach to debating. (re: calling people cowards and liars, then accusing them of personal attacks).
that’s a laugh.
acting like today is the only time you’ve been here with your “i heart bill gray” t-shirt on is another monumental laugh. the amount of time you devote to digression is astounding. you may as well stand and pound your head into a wall.
i’ve already said it seixon, yours is a worthless debate. you could be actually doing something about a real problem, but you choose instead to grandstand here on an almost daily basis because it makes you feel important. you’re not “teaching” anyone anything, you’re bloviating from a standpoint of no practical experience, no expertise and no credibility. in fact, i’ve actually shown your posts to people unsure about global warming to illustrate how irrational and unhinged people against the consensus are. you’re actually harming the cause you mean to support.
and incidentally, teaching requires respect, and not the disdain you exhibit for those you would have receive your self-absorbed, ill-informed rantings. i can’t remember any teacher i had that began their lectures with, “good morning, ignorant brainwashed people, wake the hell up! today we’re going to distract you from the liberal dogma…”
because of course liberals are the problem today. absolutely everything wrong is liberals’ fault. conservatives are always honest and never politicize things or obfuscate issues for their own profit. never.
you’re awfully easy to ridicule, seixon.
it’s because you’re a joke.
June 26th, 2006 at 12:55 amseixon,
my comment on snowball earth was simply to point out to you that we know quite a bit more than you think about the past history of our planet. The proxy data for the past few hundred thousand years are quite good actually, and even better for the past twenty thousand years or so. We have seen huge changes in sea level and also sudden jumps in temperature in the past 15,000 years. My point, and others here, is why take the chance? We don’t have to. Under your scheme we would push push until it actually happens then we’ll know it for sure. Of course, by then it’s too late. Well, I for one use my seat belt and have insurance….
-the doc-
June 26th, 2006 at 1:11 amsexion,
I agree completely with TR…
you act like global warming is something we can adapt to, but you need to remember that the larger the change and the shorter the time frame, the more challenging the adaptative and economic impacts will be.
I stand by my statements that abrupt climate change is a viable possibility and because we don’t understand the forcing mechanism, it could happen without warning. It has happened in the past, much to everyone’s surprise, so why should we listen to a know nothing like you who simply wants to cause problems. We need to slow global warming now because it will take decades to reverse it, if we even can.
Why on earth are you so against a bit of precaution? I suppose you think it a good thing that companies put out chemicals without testing them on humans. I suppose also that you are one of those pro-DDT nutballs who thinks DDT is the best thing since sliced bread and will wipe out malaria and save the Third World? My goodness, seixon…you are way out there…
-the doc-
June 26th, 2006 at 1:21 amIt’s not about global warming; it’s about Al Gore. Because global warming is an “environmental issue”, it’s the domain of liberals. That means if you dare believe it, you risk turning gay, giving your money to lazy brown people or killing your children (okay, maybe not killing your children).
You have to be religious or retarded (difference?) to think we’re not choking this planet to death.
June 26th, 2006 at 1:26 amseixert,
You might read the interesting 3 part series on warming by Elizabeth Kolbert. The first is here as is her book Field Notes.
The other two aren’t online but I’d be happy to send them to you.
You and others might be interested in this review by reknowned climatologist Jim Hansen. It is really good and worthwhile, for Jim is the person who first clued Congress in to the notion of global warming. He is no slouch! And he points out that Gore’s movie is scientifically accurate. You might also like Bill McKibben’s review entitled The Coming Meltdown. Just the following three points he made are worth thinking about:
—Arctic sea ice is melting fast. There was 20 percent less of it than normal this summer, and as Dr. Mark Serreze, one of the researchers from Colorado’s National Snow and Ice Data Center, told reporters, “the feeling is we are reaching a tipping point or threshold beyond which sea ice will not recover.” That is particularly bad news because it creates a potent feedback effect: instead of blinding white ice that bounces sunlight back into space, there is now open blue water that soaks up the sun’s heat, amplifying the melting process.
—In the tundra of Siberia, other researchers report that permafrost has begun to melt rapidly, and, as it does, formerly frozen methane—which, like the more prevalent carbon dioxide, acts as a heat-trapping “greenhouse gas”—is escaping into the atmosphere. In some places last winter, the methane bubbled up so steadily that puddles of standing water couldn’t freeze even in the depths of the Russian winter.
—British researchers, examining almost six thousand soil borings across the UK, found another feedback effect. Warmer temperatures (growing seasons now last eleven days longer at that latitude) meant that microbial activity had increased dramatically in the soil. This, in turn, meant that much of the carbon long stored in the soil was now being released into the atmosphere. The quantities were large enough to negate all the work that Britain had done to switch away from coal to reduce carbon in the atmosphere. “All the consequences of global warming will occur more rapidly,” said Guy Kirk, chief scientist on the study. “That’s the scary thing. The amount of time we have got to do something about it is smaller than we thought.”
Anyway, I offer them to those interested in learning more about global warming.
-the doc-
June 26th, 2006 at 1:42 amSeixon,
I am one of those reputable scientists and I’m telling you that it is possible. We all agree on it, your claims to the contrary. I never knew that Al Gore said it, but I know it to be a distinct and real possibility.
You are a conservative Seixon, no matter what you say. Take a poll…everyone knows that you are a right-winger so answer my question: what country is your working model for how the US should be?
BTW Sexon, why did you bail on the US? Bush get to be too much for even you?
-the doc-
June 26th, 2006 at 2:05 amseixon,
My original statement, which I stand by is: Every reputable climate scientist knows that sea level will rise at least 20 feet. In fact, the book I quoted earlier, Abrupt Climate Changes, looks into the costs of sea level rise with both perfect and myopic foresight. If North Atlantic thermohaline circulation shuts down sea level rise on the order of 5-10 meters or more is expected. Remember that these are not nice gradual changes, but abrupt changes when climate is forced over a threshold. Global warming could easily produce these changes. Even official US government web sites state it unequivocally.
-the doc-
June 26th, 2006 at 2:16 amthere are so many problems with your post, seixon, i don’t even know where to begin.
furthermore, you’re not worth another second of my time.
June 26th, 2006 at 2:30 amthe doc,
Of course it is possible. The sea level on Earth has been much higher and much lower than it is now. That’s not what the issue was. You claimed that the sea level will rise 20 feet, that the scientists are saying this. That is unequivocally false.
My original statement, which I stand by is: Every reputable climate scientist knows that sea level will rise at least 20 feet. In fact, the book I quoted earlier, Abrupt Climate Changes, looks into the costs of sea level rise with both perfect and myopic foresight. If North Atlantic thermohaline circulation shuts down sea level rise on the order of 5-10 meters or more is expected. Remember that these are not nice gradual changes, but abrupt changes when climate is forced over a threshold. Global warming could easily produce these changes. Even official US government web sites state it unequivocally.
Why do you insist on lying? The website you linked to says:
Not once does it say that the sea level will rise 20 feet. Not once. Yet you claimed that it states it “unequivocally”. No, it doesn’t.
The scientists say 0.1 to 0.9 meters, in the 2001 IPCC assessment, and in a joint statement of 11 national science academies worldwide. I guess you’re just never going to admit you are 100% wrong.
You are a conservative Seixon, no matter what you say. Take a poll…everyone knows that you are a right-winger so answer my question: what country is your working model for how the US should be?
Yes, everyone here at Think Progress says so, because anything that isn’t liberal must be conservative to the 2-bit thinkers here. I’m a moderate. Heard of that?
I already asked you to show me a single conservative ideal I hold, and you couldn’t name a single one.
What country is my working model for how the US should be? I think Norway is a good place to start, although since the USA is 300M people instead of ~5M, not everything would work out the same way. Also, Norway has vast oil wealth that pays for their national budget, which of course isn’t the same way in the USA. This means that Norway can finance very comprehensive social programs that wouldn’t be possible in the US. I’m not familiar enough with the complex inner workings of that many other countries.
BTW Sexon, why did you bail on the US? Bush get to be too much for even you?
Bail? What, a guy can’t move to another country for a while? I thought liberals were all about expanding horizons and learning things about other cultures. Guess not?
June 26th, 2006 at 2:31 amProgressaurus,
there are so many problems with your post, seixon, i don’t even know where to begin.
furthermore, you’re not worth another second of my time.
*Cough* cop out *Cough*
June 26th, 2006 at 2:34 amWhile everyone is debating the truth of global warming and which scientist said what and what report says what and what all the reports mean—the ice caps are melting.
I am from Alaska where the permafrost is now melting (”perma”frost–it never melts–but wait? huh? never? well the permafrost is melting now!)–something my grandparents (who also lived in Alaska) never saw in there lifetimes.
There is actual evidence all around you that something—yes something!—is happening to the earth’s climate….and if we can’t agree on who/what caused the climate shift–who cares??? we just need to concentrate on how correct the change–or how to survive with the Earth much warmer and the ocean levels 21 feet higher.
I am losing patience with those who cintinue to debate whether global warming or climate change is actually happening….instead of actually doing something to make a difference.
We must re-think our attitudes toward our home, The Earth, and each other, if we are to survive as a species.
June 26th, 2006 at 2:54 amanyone that spends this much time trying to debunk something that is actually worth taking action against (because of the many positive impacts for the planet and the humans that live here), regardless of the magnitude of its threat, has to be a monumental wanker and generally against the wellbeing of humanity.
the crux of seixon’s argument: do nothing, stay the same, don’t adapt, don’t improve. in other words, stagnate.
June 26th, 2006 at 4:36 amseixon, you are certifiably insane. I have tried to be helpful and educate you a bit, but it is hopeless as all you want to do is argue. You already know everything. I suggest you take your bigoted, fascist mind elsewhere…..you are O’Reilly’s blow-boy…Rush’s giz-hound!! Read the posts…everyone hates you.
=the doc-
June 26th, 2006 at 4:47 amIf only those who refuse to believe the evidence they have been presented concerning Global Warming, claiming the differing opinions cast doubt on the validity of the research results, so you shouldn’t believe any of it, applied the same high standards to the “evidence” of terrorist activities, or anything to do with the “WOT”. But no, if it comes from BushCo, that is good enough for them, even after their mistakes became public. The Right is concerned about the effects of Global Warming, that it might cost them some money, nothing else. Ignoring Global Warming is like depending on Abstinence Only. It does not work.
June 26th, 2006 at 4:53 amThe exact link, if any, between the increase in carbon dioxide emissions and the higher temperatures is still under debate.-Seixon
First, a report from the NAS trumps an article from NG any day of the week. NG really does not give the correct picture here. What’s under debate are the details, not that there is a very strong link between CO2 and GW. Look at the IPCC conclusions and the degree to which they’ve been endorsed by the scientific community: if that isn’t consensus, what would consensus look like?
Is there an “exact” link between smoking and lung cancer? No. But if you smoke a couple of packs a day for 30 years, what do you think your odds of developing lung cancer are? There are still uncertainties, sure, but that doesn’t diminish the degree of confidence in the very real dangers.
June 26th, 2006 at 9:17 amseixon,
like others have said, it is obvious that you despise Gore and you are using the GW issue to attack him. First of all, Gore is far more truthful than Bush, who has done nothing but lie to the American people, destroy our middle class, kill over 2500 of our fine soldiers, and murder over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians. Bush’s grandfather was a known Nazi sypathizer and his father a criminal, so he is toeing the family line. You claim not to be a conservative but that’s clearly a lie as anyone who reads your pseudo-fascist web site can learn for themselves. You talk a big line but clearly moved to a socio-capitalist country to enjoy the fruits of socialism while railing on decent people here in the US for wanting more of it here as well. Your morals and ethics are despicable. Based on the number of Google ads and buttons for donation on your amatuerish web site, it is obvious that you will do about anything for money…I truly think that you are being paid by the right-wing to disrupt these boards and discussions. There’s really no other answer that makes any sense.
-the doc-
June 26th, 2006 at 10:23 amwhether global warming is real or not–i think it’s real, I don’t understand the ant-warming side. Are you saying pollution is good. That we should let industry spill as much as they can in the air and water. Even if it doesn’t cause warming it certainly is harmful to us. The people on the right fight tooth and nail for for their team regardless of the impact on themselves. I don’t know if anti-warming people posting here are industry execs or not but you would think that you would want clean water and air regardless of whether it causes warming.
I also find it funny that these are the same people who are fine with pre-emptive war on the flimsiest grounds. Are Ok with the government listening to your phone calls, going through your finacial records, searching your bags, torturing people–all in the name of hopefully catching that one bad guy—so they are willing to pre-emptively do all these things to stave off a future event that may affect a small number of people—but global warming there is no reason to do somthing unless there is 100% definitive proof flown down by Jesus himself before you will act–shouldn’t we pre-empt this–i mean it only affects everyone.
June 26th, 2006 at 10:24 am#184…Damian…
“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.”
THANK YOU! That is exactly what I have been trying to explain to these folks…You mean managed to convince Brian Coughlan that the NAS said it disagreed with this conclusion of Mann’s.
I am impressed Coughlan finally acknowledged that fact…It must have been tough for him to have to finally admit what I said was accurate and he was incorrect. Congrats, Brian..It takes a big man to admit when he is wrong.
June 26th, 2006 at 11:08 amSeixon writes:
“Now you’ll just have to point out where Gray admits that he doesn’t understand computers”
Funny thing, Richard Lindzen is quoted in the same article saying that Gray doesn’t even understand theory, much less computer modeling. Here is my favorite quote from the article, though, this one from Bill Gray:
“My feeling is some of us older guys who’ve been around have not been asked about this. It’s sort of a baby boomer, yuppie thing.”
Sounds like Grandpa is upset and frustrated that the grandkids don’t want to listen to his fireside stories anymore. What an embarrassment.
June 26th, 2006 at 11:40 amRealScientist,
So I guess you couldn’t prove your claim that Gray doesn’t understand computers. What a shame. Yet another Think Progress lie bites the dust.
June 26th, 2006 at 11:42 amSeixon claims to have relevant scientific credentials:
“Sorry, but as someone who actually has a degree in computers, that’s horseshit.”
But experts on computer modeling in the physical sciences don’t have their degrees in “computers”. They have degrees in physical sciences. But this doesn’t stop Seixon from putting up his degree in “computers” against thousands of professional scientists with Ph.D.s in relevant disciplines (including me, since I have a Ph.D. in engineering and am an expert in large-scale computer simulations in computational fluid dynamics with 20 years experience).
Commenters at this site should understand that Seixon has not come to this discussion to engage in meaningful debate, and that attempting to convince him of anything is futile. Instead he is putting on a show for casual visitors who might read a few postings, but who won’t follow the thread of his writings or verify what has been written in the various articles he cites. This is obvious from the fact that he repeatedly lies, then lies about having lied, ad infinitum, even though these lies are easily verified by simply referring to the articles or to what he has previously written. At first glance the lying seems sociopathic, but sociopathic liars usually aren’t quite as calm and coherent as Seixon, and they lie to everyone about everything all the time. I doubt Seixon lies to his mother, for example. All evidence points to the likelihood that Seixon is a professional liar, a liar for a cause.
June 26th, 2006 at 12:10 pmSeixon…
you might want to read this recent article in the LA Times. It’s a good summary and also discusses the possibility of 20 foot sea level rise. I’m sure that you’ll once again attempt to diminish the possibility and continue with your nonsensical rant, but neverthess I offer it to those who are truly interested in learning more.
You’ll want to pay attention to this “From cores of ancient Greenland ice extracted by the National Science Foundation, researchers have identified at least 20 sudden climate changes in the last 110,000 years, in which average temperatures fluctuated as much as 15 degrees in a single decade.” With temperature changes this large, ice melting could easily be extreme and raise sea levels 20 feet. These are abrupt climate changes, my friend. Again, I urge you to buy the book, Abrupt Climate Changes, and read it. I know that ytou prefer to quickly scan summary articles on the web to get soundbites that bolster your anti-environmental (read Gore) cause, but sitting down and reading a book gives you the opportunity to think, reflect and digest the information.
also: By 2005, Greenland was beginning to lose more ice volume than anyone expected — an annual loss of up to 52 cubic miles a year — according to more recent satellite gravity measurements released by JPL.
The amount of freshwater ice dumped into the Atlantic Ocean has almost tripled in a decade.
You can also visit some of JPL’s sites to learn more about these measurements are done. here and here.
You need to be aware that the science is moving quickly whereas the results posted in government reports and international working groups are often clouded with politics and take years to publish. Almost by definition they don’t contain “cutting edge” science because you have a huge group of politicians from many countries that need to be mollified. Thus, when you read those reports you must understand that things are typically much graver than stated because the real scientific results were modified under great political pressure from a wide variety of sources.
-the doc-
June 26th, 2006 at 12:14 pmReal Scientist…
I second your remarks about seixon. He simply lies and lies then lies some more. No amount of data or reason would ever satisfy him, because he is a zealot for a cause and blind to anything but his twisted point of view. Just so readers understand, I too have a Ph.D., mine is in Earth Sciences with 25 years experience. I work closely with many of the climatologists at prestigious universities and know what is going on. Seixon, as I’ve stated in earlier posts, really hasn’t got a clue.
-the doc-
June 26th, 2006 at 12:27 pmThere is a lot of carbon in the atmosphere. There is a major climate crisis (affecting the life of everything on our planet) occurring. Regardless of whether it’s cyclical, pre-determined, caused by man or whatever, we should do every little thing we can to reduce our own contribution of carbon into the air if we can. Drive less, consume less, whatever it takes.
No reason I can think of NOT too.
June 26th, 2006 at 1:23 pmI’ve just seen the Seixon’s webpage. I guess that he comes here because he feels so alone in his page…
I know also something about computers and ~91,000 visits in 9 1/2 months (since 09/12/2005) and 3-4 comments per article is really pityful. I had a friend who dessinged an amateur fan page about a local singer, from Spain and had at least 2x visitors in the first year… And Seixon, having a potential market seven times greater (the USA), only manages to have some visits… I bet that a great % are posters at TP too who want to see with his own eyes the page of such a shill. I bet that Seixon is using TP because is free and gets a lot clicks on his page. Even if they are from people who won’t return any more.
And mantaining a busy web site is very time consuming… If Seixon has so much time to post here, is a good indicator that he hasn’t so much work in his own blog…
June 26th, 2006 at 1:27 pmSeixon writes:
“So I guess you couldn’t prove your claim that Gray doesn’t understand computers. What a shame. Yet another Think Progress lie bites the dust.”
Seixon, I am not here to prove anything to anybody. I am here to tell people who you are, and what you are about.
June 26th, 2006 at 1:48 pmI’m noticing a pattern in Seixon’s posts. Seixon follows three cardinal rules:
1. Never pass up the opportunity to make a purely semantic argument.
Example: “CO2 is not a pollutant.”
Call CO2 whatever you want. It has no bearing on how it behaves.
2. Ignore, at all costs, the context of any evidence that might support your position. Make sloppy, unsustainable arguments that require your opponents to do your research for you. Then, when they’ve done the research you should have, throw up another unsustainable argument to see if it sticks. Repeat ad nauseum.
In the process, sooner or later you will be able to make a purely semantic argument (#1), argue that an irrelevant uncertainty debunks an entire body of evidence (#3 below), or make your opponents (who are not paid) lose interest in the argument. This is a highly scientific process (NOT).
Example: “There are no scientists who would tell you that Gore’s presentation of the sea level rising 20 feet was in any way accurate.”
Again, I had to do Seixon’s research for him.
Gore’s movie states:
“Global sea levels could rise by more than 20 feet with the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and Antarctica”
In an interview, Gore Says:
On 11/20/05, the UK Independent reported:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1120-03.htm
Seixon’s endless capacity to ignore context allows him to make statements like “IPCC and the national science academies of 11 nations stands on my side” and have no sense of the irony of that statement.
3. Any uncertainty, no matter how irrelevant or tangential, always debunks the entire body of evidence no matter how voluminous or rigorously reviewed that evidence is.
This is a species of both 1 and 2 above. This is reminiscent of the tobacco industry’s campaign against the scientific consensus against smoking. It’s an easy rhetorical tactic. It’s very easy to say there’s some sort of raging debate somewhere and therefore the whole thing’s uncertain. It’s a strategy designed to confuse, not clarify things for the public. Maximum doubt, maximum uncertainty, maximum debate. It doesn’t matter how sloppy your arguments, just keep giving the situation this kind of appearance.
Example: Seixon says of Mann’s study “Basically everything from before 1600 and especially 900 was seen as unreliable.”
Mann drew attention to the limitations of his own study, and in spite of those limitations, still drew conclusions that the NAS found “plausible”. But most importantly, as Realclimate reports:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/national-academies-synthesis-report
But Seixon runs roughshod over all of this, saying misleadingly, “Basically everything from before 1600 and especially 900 was seen as unreliable.” As if small uncertainties in a seven year old study were the only thing that mattered. As I said before, the hockey stick is a red herring. Uncertainties present in a 1999 study do not put a dent in the larger body of evidence we now have. But Seixon wants you to think that those uncertainties are momentous, epic, paradigm-shifting, etc.
But in the end, Seixon doesn’t want you to think too much about science. The most imporant thing is everyone not take any action on this issue. Go back to sleep.
June 26th, 2006 at 2:52 pmJJ,
Yes, there is a pattern, and Seixon stays relentlessly on message with it. The tactics are far too consistent for Seixon to be “certifiably insane” as some people here seem to think. It smacks of training to me.
If Seixon really did believe what he writes, he might indeed be certifiably insane. But he doesn’t believe it. Nor do the fossil fuel industry CEOs and their lawyer-libertarian-think tank minions believe their bullshit, either. Here is what they do believe: that human beings are so resourceful, and so adaptive, and free markets are so powerful, that when the time comes we will have plenty of time to innovate our way out of trouble. In the meantime, let’s make some money. These people are true elitists. They know what is right, and having been so informed by their ideology, they don’t want science or public debate or democracy to get in their way.
Oh how I wish they were just insane, or idiots, or ignorant, or mean-spirited, or whatever. Then maybe we could talk some sense into them, or get them out of power somehow. But they are much worse than that. They are clever people who have to varying degrees abandoned morality. The worst of them are full-blown psychopaths.
June 26th, 2006 at 4:23 pmGeorge Gooding aka seixon (age 23, possibly now 24) was featured at the American Spectator site here so it is easy to see that, despite his denials, he is a conservative. Of course reading his pathetic web site or his posts in every forum would tell you that.
He also is on record as thinking that Ann Coulter is fairer than Michael Moore. He said, “Moore is a disgraceful liar, deceptionist extra-ordinaire, and not to mention a hypocrit.
Bowling for Columbine was one large reel of lies, deceptions, and what we call BULLshit. Some points of the movie were funny, yes. That cartoon about slavery, “white folks”, the NRA, etc. was funny. It was mostly funny because it was utterly ridiculous.
I don’t see how that movie got any kind of award for being a “documentary”. That, is ridiculous.
“People in Canada don’t lock their doors, see?”
No shit dumbass, no one locks their doors in the middle of the day when they’re at home!
That made me laugh. That’s what was funny about his movie, Moore trying to prove something, and making himself look like a moron.
Yet, the worst thing of all, is that people actually believe in his lies. That’s the most dangerous part about it all. If there ever was a reason to abolish Freedom of Speech, that would be it.”
the ravings of a paid neo-nazi!!
-the doc-
June 26th, 2006 at 4:53 pmDoc,
Thanks for identifying Seixon. This guy is even creepier than I realized, another one of those young Republicans who is a fanatical liar, like that plagiarist-freak Ben Domenech at RedState, or that punk working in public affairs at NASA who got fired for lying on his resume.
June 26th, 2006 at 6:23 pmRS…
yes, they are all scumbags! It’s so bizarre that all these youngsters are in love with right-wing politics. Where is their model for the type of country they want? The only ones I know without any social nets are like Russia or Guatemala. Are those their models?
-the doc-
June 26th, 2006 at 7:00 pmand note that we all have spent days discussing temperature reconstructions, and even though the conclusions on these reconstructions prove global warming is human-induced, the NAS make it clear that
June 26th, 2006 at 8:27 pm
[url=http://www.schmid.fr/images/_notes/01/alprazolam.html]alprazolam[/url] http://www.schmid.fr/images/_notes/01/alprazolam.html
July 4th, 2006 at 4:47 am[url=http://www.schmid.fr/images/_notes/02/ambien.html]ambien[/url] http://www.schmid.fr/images/_notes/02/ambien.html
July 4th, 2006 at 7:01 amcingular [URL=http://yourfmbrealtor.com/images/cingular-bean-phone.html]cingular[/URL] http://yourfmbrealtor.com/images/cingular-bean-phone.html
August 18th, 2006 at 10:39 am