Andrew Sullivan writes that Al Gore’s claims about global warming are irresponsible, just like Vice President Cheney’s claims about weapons of mass destruction:
It occurs to me that the global warming debate is not unlike the WMD-terrorist debate, except the sides are reversed. Accrding [sic] to Ron Suskind, Dick Cheney’s “one percent doctrine” means that if there’s a one percent chance that a terrorist could have access to a WMD, we must act as if it were a certainty - because the outcome, however unlikely, would be too disastrous to risk. On global warming, Gore expresses a not-too-dissimilar equation: if there’s a small chance that human behavior could lead to environmental catastrophe, we should act as if it were a certainty - because waiting too long is too big a risk to take.
Except Gore’s claims are based on scientific research that has been rigorously peer-reviewed by thousands of scientists. Cheney’s claims were based intelligence he manipulated and cherry-picked to reach a predetermined result.
There is a scientific consensus (not a “small chance”) that global warming is real and driven by humans. Even most skeptics (maybe even Cheney) would acknowledge, if the earth is going to keep getting warmer and warmer, we are in for serious trouble.
Wow. That’s really dumb.
Sully’s a wankstain, but that’s worse than his usual crap isn’t it?
July 5th, 2006 at 4:27 pmSullivan’s a halfwit. Gore’s information on global warming is backed up by about a bazillion scientists; and Cheney pulled his information about WMDs directly from his ass.
July 5th, 2006 at 4:29 pmWho’s Andrew Sullivan?
July 5th, 2006 at 4:33 pmThe real reason global warming is happening is that as the left continues to pull our culture further and further away from its judeo-christian base, Earth resembles hell more and more. And Hell is full of flames, so its hotter there. Can’t argue with science like that.
/10 out of 10 Jebus freaks agree with me.
July 5th, 2006 at 4:34 pmThe real reason global warming is happening is that as the left continues to pull our culture further and further away from its judeo-christian base, Earth resembles hell more and more. And Hell is full of flames, so its hotter there. Can’t argue with science like that.
LOL that was really rather good:-) More of that!
July 5th, 2006 at 4:35 pmOf course, there’s also the little distinction that taking action on climate change doesn’t involve pre-emptively invading and occupying another country, but perhaps Andrew Sullivan doesn’t feel that’s a distinction worth mentioning. Then there’s that little detail that measures we need to take to address climate change would be good for our kids, grandkids, etc, even aside from the affects on climate, while the invasion and occupation of Iraq is saddling our them with massive debts, and more rather than fewer enemies. But maybe that’s not a very important distinction to Mr. Sullivan either.
July 5th, 2006 at 4:36 pmThe scientific community IS in agreement and should stand up and say so. (I guess one of those full-page ads with lots of signatures is expensive, but it should be worth it,) Those who question GW should be asked, “Where are your scientists?” This is a political debate in the disgise of a scientific one - and it needs to be political because the solutions are to be found there - and the public needs to know that GW-denial is based on politics, not science.
July 5th, 2006 at 4:38 pmActually, Cheney’s evidence already proved true. We jsut released a document detailing how we have already found 500 WMD’s in Iraq. There is even more to come but most of the juicy details of even further WMD discover’s are still classified. Hillary Clinton is among a crew of Dems that are asking that the Classified section stay classified. Makes sense because it would further hurt the wackos that keep claiming we haven’t found WMD’s and Bush is a lier. The truth hurts again. Just wait another month or 2 for the rest of the classified section to be released. October suprise?
Now Gore on the other hand hasn’t proven anything. His movie is based on scientific research which has proposed a theory that looks to be true (and probably is). The difference is that Cheney predicted that we would find WMD’s and we did. Gore pridicted something he still hasn’t proven 100% correct.
July 5th, 2006 at 4:39 pmsully’s trying his hand at COMEDY…!?!? he sucks…
And, yes, I DO take it personally
July 5th, 2006 at 4:40 pmThe difference is that Cheney predicted that we would find WMD’s and we did.
No you have not. Chemicals under some ladies sink don’t count.
July 5th, 2006 at 4:43 pmWanker!
July 5th, 2006 at 4:44 pmBen,
even the pentagon, or the white house are not claiming the 500 degraded shells they have found, are the reason we invaded. I realize you need a straw to cling too, but you may want to read something besides powerline or newsmax.
July 5th, 2006 at 4:46 pmOh Ben, that was funny-WMD were found…haha LOL…
July 5th, 2006 at 4:48 pmRiiiiiight, Ben. And they found sharks with laserbeams mounted on their heads too…
July 5th, 2006 at 4:48 pmJust when you think Andrew Sullivan is getting closer and closer to lucidity, he goes and says something idiotic like this. This clown gives bloggers a bad name, or a worse one that we already have.
And have you loved thy fellow blogger today, Brothers and Sisters of the Blog? I have and have loved them well.
July 5th, 2006 at 4:49 pmBen,
The “WMDs” Santorum got slpped over were pre-Desert Storm mustard gas that was already accounted for, that we sold Saddam.
We invaded Iraq because of “mushroom” clouds. Just ask anybody at the UN or Collin Powell.
July 5th, 2006 at 4:50 pmDon’t worry, between him and Krauthammer and Klein at TIME, the truth’s bound to get out sometime in the next thousand years.
July 5th, 2006 at 4:51 pmBen, one other point you are completely at odds with your own dear Leader on this issue.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/ national/ 20060406-112119-5897r.htm
Enjoy.
July 5th, 2006 at 4:51 pmYou should never blog with one hand while scratching your ass with the other.
Good God, that’ll be up for the Stupidest Post of 2006 Award.
July 5th, 2006 at 4:52 pm“there’s also the little distinction that taking action on climate change doesn’t involve pre-emptively invading and occupying another country”
Well, if Cheney was in charge of taking action on climate change, it just might. Maybe the Iranians have illict CO2 factories or something.
July 5th, 2006 at 4:52 pmBen Ben Ben.
WMD in Iraq is fiction.
Global warming is fact.
July 5th, 2006 at 4:53 pmsully is another one: unless he is getting paid the billion dollars that the ceo of exxon got to deny climate crisis is happening, what’s in it for him? why do it? why lie about the fate of the earth?
July 5th, 2006 at 4:53 pmThe similarity is that in both cases, the right simply ignores the science, including the forensic science of intelligence work.
This is what happens when you let creationists out of the trailer park.
July 5th, 2006 at 4:55 pm.
#18 - Great round up, as usual jurassicpork.
July 5th, 2006 at 4:55 pm*sending love your way*
The similarity is that in both cases, the right simply ignores the science, including the forensic science of intelligence work.
This is the pattern. From WMD to creationism to global warming its the same. Wheel out some outlier who’ll contradict anything for a platform, and then say “See, there is a debate, at least now there is.”
July 5th, 2006 at 4:59 pmthe ONLY reason ANYBODY would pay the slightest chinchilla of attention to Andrew Sullivan is because SOMEBODY pays him to write shit for public consumption, out in the SoCalledUnbiasedMedia, the SCUM.
so it is not especially that Sully is a lying, sycophantic, conscienceless sybarite, but those who enable those lies whom we must call to account.
who pays Sullied to write in their publications? there’s your villain…
July 5th, 2006 at 5:00 pmHillary Clinton is among a crew of Dems that are asking that the Classified section stay classified. Makes sense because …
No, it doesn’t, because she’s a bigger hawk than some Republicans. She’s a technocrat, a bilderberger. The only reason it ‘makes sense’ to you is because a decade of hate radio has taught you to see her as a leftist. That’s the only thing that makes you useful on this planet: the people who’re fucking up this country can just use your dumb ass to do anything.
Pah-thetic!
July 5th, 2006 at 5:02 pm.
Brian Coughlan
You are forgetting, whatever the foul-up, its all cyclical.
July 5th, 2006 at 5:11 pmSulli might counter by saying he’s relying on the writing MIT Professor Lindzen. He is but check out the criticism of Professor Lindzen. Sulli forgot to mention that.
July 5th, 2006 at 5:12 pm“Cheney’s claims were based intelligence he manipulated and cherry-picked to reach a predetermined result.”
And I suppose you have the indisputed facts to back up this statement?
July 5th, 2006 at 5:13 pmWho gives a f*ck what Sully says. Seriously, I have no clue why anybody still pays attention to the schmuck.
July 5th, 2006 at 5:13 pmMark my words,
“October Suprise”
The Repugs are famous for it. You aren’t worry in the least when the leaders of your very own party are fighting to make sure the rest of that report stays classified? I would bet my house that the Repugs will bring out a huge surpirse right around election time. Needless to say, the Dems haven’t even let the voters know what there plan is yet, so this surprise will just be the last nail in there coffin.
July 5th, 2006 at 5:15 pmThey are everywhere. Go take a look. Or don’t nobody cares. That is why you chose a screen name like rightwing_troll. Because you know that you just posted bullshit, just to look stupid.
July 5th, 2006 at 5:18 pmwhat’s an ‘andrew sullivan’ and why should i care what he says?
July 5th, 2006 at 5:18 pmAlso mention the difference in the cost of acting. Acting on Cheney’s statements costs the Americans nearly trillions of dollars and - worse - American lives. Acton on Gore’s statements would cost no lives at all. So that is another difference ignored by Sullivan.
July 5th, 2006 at 5:21 pmAndrew Sullivan disputes science, disputes protection, worries about scare tactics: On global warming, Gore expresses a not-too-dissimilar equation: if there’s a small chance that human behavior could lead to environmental catastrophe, we should act as if it were a certainty - because waiting too long is too big a risk to take.
Fact: Andrew Sullivan is HIV+ and enjoys bareback (no protection) anal sex.
Any questions?
July 5th, 2006 at 5:21 pm“They are everywhere. Go take a look”
Where? Or is it that maybe you are just full of liberal rhetoric?
July 5th, 2006 at 5:23 pmSomeone needs to tell idiot Andy that ALL reputable scientific organizations and scientists agree that global warming is, significantly, the result of human activity. There isn’t a small chance that human activity is hastening it.
Please, Andy, just shut up!
July 5th, 2006 at 5:24 pm“Cheney’s claims were based intelligence he manipulated and cherry-picked to reach a predetermined result.â€
And I suppose you have the indisputed facts to back up this statement?
Comment by rightwing_troll
Correct me if I’m wrong, but troll and turnip both begin with the letter “t” and that is an undisputed fact. What is more unclear than Ccheney’s cherry-picking intelligence is that Cheney said the insurgency in Iraq on its “last legs.” Or was it “last throws?” Of couse, I don’t have the indisputed facts at hand that he said either of these terms, but only a turnip would disagree that he said it.
July 5th, 2006 at 5:30 pmEnding up to be weird day today > first Ken Lay dies, then Rush Limbaugh gets off again, and then Gore gets attacked once more > never ending cycle of spin comes out of the GOP on every damn thing!
July 5th, 2006 at 5:31 pmSomeone needs to tell idiot Andy that ALL reputable scientific organizations and scientists agree that global warming is, significantly, the result of human activity.
Comment by Anon1
O.K.
Andy, quit being a bonehead. If you can’t read, go outside and inhale deeply.
July 5th, 2006 at 5:35 pmI would tell you to go look it up on Google, but you won’t, because you just want to live in your rightwing_troll reality. So, don’t bother, because I personally am sick of trying to show any of you nut jobs anything.
July 5th, 2006 at 5:37 pm“but only a turnip would disagree that he said it.”
Nobody said he didn’t say that! What I’m waiting for is for one of you foolish lefties to back up the following statement?
“Cheney’s claims were based intelligence he manipulated and cherry-picked to reach a predetermined result.â€
July 5th, 2006 at 5:39 pmi agree with sullivan. the only difference is gore’s actions do no hurt anyone. i believe their could have been a threat with sadam but there was no reason to go to war. We’ve abandoned the whole world and now we can’t join them to solve larger problems in the world, IE North Korea and Iran. weve lost over 2500 soldiers and over 100,000 iraqi’s and left over 30,000 american soldiers wounded. The US is a more dangerous place now. Terrorist attacks around the world have multiplied since 9/11. The only thing Gore’s actions would prevent is companies taking a shit in our rivers and war profiteers from sucking this countries balanced economy dry.
July 5th, 2006 at 5:40 pmi agree with sullivan. the only difference is gore’s actions do no hurt anyone. i believe their could have been a threat with sadam but there was no reason to go to war. We’ve abandoned the whole world and now we can’t join them to solve larger problems in the world, IE North Korea and Iran. weve lost over 2500 soldiers and over 100,000 iraqi’s and left over 30,000 american soldiers wounded. The US is a more dangerous place now. Terrorist attacks around the world have multiplied since 9/11. The only thing Gore’s actions would prevent is companies taking a dump in our rivers and war profiteers from sucking this countries balanced economy dry.
July 5th, 2006 at 5:41 pmrightwing_troll,
Just because you are new here doesn’t mean we all need to take a stroll down memory lane for you.
try this:
go to Google.com
Type this into the search
site: thinkprogress.com “Cheney” false intellegence.
Then come back when you have caught up.
July 5th, 2006 at 5:42 pmBarebacking causes global warming.
July 5th, 2006 at 5:42 pmBut if Gore is wrong, no one is harmed. Cheney was wrong and tens of thousands of people have already died.
July 5th, 2006 at 5:44 pmDamn, I link to him on his good days and then Sully proves he is still a wanker.
July 5th, 2006 at 5:47 pm“thinkprogress.com”?????
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!!!!!! Do you really think anything that is printed on that site is credible? Ha, ha, ha, ha!!!!
July 5th, 2006 at 5:49 pmI would tell you to go look it up on Google, but you won’t, because you just want to live in your rightwing_troll reality. So, don’t bother, because I personally am sick of trying to show any of you nut jobs anything.
Comment by Spudge_Boy — July 5, 2006 @ 5:37 pm
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!!!!!! Do you really think anything that is printed on that site is credible? Ha, ha, ha, ha!!!!
Comment by rightwing_troll — July 5, 2006 @ 5:49 pm
Looks like you were right spudgeboy, and I thought rightwing_troll was really looking for help!!! Oh well …. one can only hope.
July 5th, 2006 at 5:56 pmHa, ha, ha, ha, ha!!!!!! Do you really think anything that is printed on that site is credible? Ha, ha, ha, ha!!!!
Comment by rightwing_troll
I don’t know what you’re smoking, but I bet you keep it all to yourself like some stingy republican asshole.
By the way, did I mention that the words dipshit and troll both have the letter “t” in them?
July 5th, 2006 at 5:56 pmWow, someone finally said it. This has been in the back of my mind the whole time. Gore is exaggerating the science just like he and others claimed the Bush administration did on the WMDs.
Even most skeptics (maybe even Cheney) would acknowledge, if the earth is going to keep getting warmer and warmer, we are in for serious trouble.
That’s a mighty big if there, Judd.
What the hopelessly compromised Think Progress and Judd can’t admit (check the pledge banner folks!) is that Gore did indeed exaggerate the science and has created a propaganda film that uses fear to brainwash its audience.
All I got for Judd and the corrupt individuals who are not objective in this debate is two words: twenty feet.
You can’t run away from that one Judd. Gore is exaggerating and you damn well know it.
July 5th, 2006 at 5:56 pmSpudge,
The “WMDs†Santorum got slpped over were pre-Desert Storm mustard gas that was already accounted for, that we sold Saddam.
Can you lie more please? We didn’t sell Saddam any mustard gas, and the ones that supposedly have been found were not accounted for. If you feel otherwise, please present proof that:
1. The USA sold Saddam mustard gas.
2. That the 500 chemical shells were already accounted for.
Thanks.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:00 pmThat’s a mighty big if there, Judd.
No, it’s not. It’s a known. The causes are largely understood. The evidence is in. Man, I’d love to see you discuss this with your Norwegian neighbours, I bet you can’t discuss anything with them.
Compared to Norwegians you must seem like a crazed right wing lunatic. Do you live in Norway or on an oil platform or what?
July 5th, 2006 at 6:02 pmGore did indeed exaggerate the science and has created a propaganda film that uses fear to brainwash its audience.
According to some locla low-budget Limbaugh you heard on the radio, yeah. So what?
July 5th, 2006 at 6:04 pm.
The “WMDs†Santorum got slpped over were pre-Desert Storm mustard gas that was already accounted for, that we sold Saddam.
This has been debated already this evening and refuted. Let it go please, unless you really are intent on being a troll.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:05 pmActually it was the Brits who sold Saddam his chemical gear. US contributions (aside from diplomatic support after Halabja) was in dual-use gear that was used for his bio weapons programs, which never amounted to much.
As for the meaningless shells the right has been clinging to, their last hope for justification and relevance, the Duelfer report and the DOD say otherwise, so it’s all over.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:07 pm.
Brian,
Ah, so it is a known that the Earth will get warmer forever into the future? We’re in the business of fortunetelling now? Sorry, that’s not science, that’s astrology. The IPCC scenarios, based on models, have very wide margins.
If there was no “if” then Judd wouldn’t have said there was. Gore and all of you are exaggerating the science and turning “likely” and “probably” into “will” and “is”.
You’re proving exactly what Sullivan said.
My Norwegian neighbors are pretty much brainwashed by the Norwegian media, which is even more lopsided than the American media. So debating things with them isn’t all that hard - they have no facts of their own, only what the media tells them. Like shooting a whale in a barrel. Kind of like here at TP.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:07 pmGore is exaggerating and you damn well know it.
Comment by Seixon
You’re basing this on a statement made by Andrew Sullivan?
July 5th, 2006 at 6:10 pmWhat the hopelessly compromised Think Progress and Judd can’t admit (check the pledge banner folks!) is that Gore did indeed exaggerate the science and has created a propaganda film that uses fear to brainwash its audience.
Comment by Seixon
You better hope its all BS, Sextoy. But before you completely write off the science, I suggest you make a trip to the Alaskan outback and talk to the “brainwashed” natives there and see for yourself.
Better yet, next time you watch a sun set, check out the smoggy haze on the horizon that you didn’t see in photo’s twenty years ago. It’s not all rocket science, bonehead.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:10 pmGrand Moff Texan,
Sorry, I’m in Norway, don’t get Limbaugh here. I use my own brain. I read the science. The IPCC and the national science academies of 11 nations say that the sea level is going to rise 0.1 to 0.9 meters by 2100. Gore in a propaganda film about “our ability to live is what is at stake” talks about 20 feet.
Gosh, I almost can’t decide who I want to believe. Gore… Or a massive legion of scientists…. Choices, choices.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:10 pm“Cheney’s claims were based intelligence he manipulated and cherry-picked to reach a predetermined result.â€
I’m really getting sick of left-winger’s baseless accusations and their attempts at re-writing history. Below are relevant quotes from the 2005 bi-partisan commission’s report on WMD intelligence. If you’re a lefty, and you want to be the least bit informed, read them.
“The Intelligence Community’s performance in assessing Iraq’s pre-war weapons of mass destruction programs was a major intelligence failure. The failure was not merely that the Intelligence Community’s assessments were wrong. There were also serious shortcomings in the way these assessments were made and communicated to policymakers.”
“The Commission also learned that, on the eve of war, the Intelligence Community failed to convey important information to policymakers. - These doubts never found their way to Secretary Powell, who was at that time attempting to strip questionable information from his speech.”
“The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community’s pre-war assessments of Iraq’s weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments.”
Read the whole damn thing: http://www.wmd.gov/report/index.html
There was no “manipulation”, “cherry-picking”, or “lies” from the administration. Liberals just can’t handle the truth.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:11 pmLike shooting a whale in a barrel.
Now we are discussing the national sport of Norway?
Back to the original topic. Republicans insist we find things out the hard way. The only way to “prove” Saddam had no WMD is to invade Iraq and pay a heavy price in blood. The only way to “prove” global warming is to let it happen.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:12 pmMy Norwegian neighbors are pretty much brainwashed by the Norwegian media,
Interesting to note that your contempt for your fellow man extends beyond the blogosphere. That’s noted.
Ah, so it is a known that the Earth will get warmer forever into the future?
Don’t try to be obtuse, it requires subtley and that, you lack.
I asked you a question a few threads back, you may have missed it. Given you accept that Norway is a wonderful place, why would you not want the same social protections for Americans. To put in “fox news speak” for you, why do you hate Americans?
July 5th, 2006 at 6:14 pmSeixon, have you even watched the movie, and do you even know the science? I thought not. So please stfu.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:14 pmZookeeper,
No, I don’t base anything I say on what other people say. I have my own brain. If you really want to know how Gore is exaggerating, just go back and look at all the other threads. I went into precise detail. Hell, if you’re especially brave, wander on over to my blog. I know you won’t though.
Joe Sixpack,
I’m not writing off the science, I’m actually standing with the science which says that this is not all that certain mainly because there are many things that scientists still don’t understand about how our atmosphere functions.
That a glacier in Alaska is smaller than it used to be is fine and dandy, until you look at other glaciers that are larger than they were. Anyone can cherry-pick a glacier and two points in time to “demonstrate” that it is beyond all hope. Meanwhile, the scientists show that Greenland’s ice is growing on the interior, while melting on the coasts. I wonder which one of those two facts Gore chose to present in his film………
Oh, and as for smog, I do believe that we’ve cleaned up our skies over the past 20-30 years. Smog is a real problem that we should focus on, but since that is getting better and better (in the US anyways), it doesn’t provide Gore with the ammo he needs. He needs bigger fish to fry.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:16 pmThe IPCC and the national science academies of 11 nations say that the sea level is going to rise 0.1 to 0.9 meters by 2100. Gore in a propaganda film about “our ability to live is what is at stake†talks about 20 feet.
Were they talking about the same thing? No. Check your facts again. The IPCC was talking about thermal expansion of sea levels, according to current predictions. Gore was talking about what would happen if the Antarctic ice sheet melts. You present a false choise of believing one or the other, when they are not mutually exclusive.
Show me where Gore said sea levels would rise 20 feet by 2100.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:16 pmHell, if you’re especially brave, wander on over to my blog. I know you won’t though.
Comment by Seixon
It was a simple question, George.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:19 pm“I thought rightwing_troll was really looking for help!!!
No, I was looking for liberal rhetoric and I have found plenty of it here!
July 5th, 2006 at 6:21 pmKermit,
The reason for invading Iraq was because Saddam violated resolution 1441, and the only reason we ever had a problem there in the first place was Saddam Hussein. Problem removed.
I liked the crack about whaling though. Good one. ;)
Brian,
Contempt for my fellow man? It’s not their fault that the Norwegian media is entirely monolithic and provides absolutely no diversity of opinion or coverage of the facts. Most people are too lazy or do not have time to go check on all the facts themselves, and thus they fall prey to the liars in the media. Sad but true. I don’t have any contempt for those who fall into this category, although I will leave open the door for those who willingly keep themselves in the dark.
Given you accept that Norway is a wonderful place, why would you not want the same social protections for Americans. To put in “fox news speak†for you, why do you hate Americans?
Huh? What kind of loaded question is that? What are you talking about? I’d love to know, since it looks like you are attempting to put words and views into my mouth that I have not made here. Only about the millionth time that’s happened here.
Miker,
Seixon, have you even watched the movie, and do you even know the science? I thought not. So please stfu.
I saw the trailer. That was quite enough to show that Gore is exaggerating the science. I know the science because I read the science. I don’t listen to Gore as if he is the Oracle, as it seems you have.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:23 pmI’m not writing off the science, I’m actually standing with the science which says that this is not all that certain mainly because there are many things that scientists still don’t understand about how our atmosphere functions.
This is simply untrue, and not how science works at all. There is overwhelming consensus that the models (there are several showing the same distrurbing trends) indicating human induced global warming is causing the incontrovertible rise in global temperatures.
You’ll note that the right wing have hurriedly moved there position to “ok it’s happening, but it’s not us, and even if it was we can’t do anything about it” stronghold.
I don’t think, that particular retreat is going to serve you. Best simply accept what 95% of the experts agree on, and help to address it instead being part of the problem.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:25 pmActually, Cheney’s evidence already proved true. We jsut released a document detailing how we have already found 500 WMD’s in Iraq.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:26 pmComment by Ben
We also found out that you are truly dumb.
Dumbshit,
Thinkprogress links to all of the proof you so pretend to crave.
See, as I predicted many many posts ago. You didn’t ask the question to get answers. You asked, just to be a troll. Troll.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:26 pmKermit,
Were they talking about the same thing? No. Check your facts again. The IPCC was talking about thermal expansion of sea levels, according to current predictions. Gore was talking about what would happen if the Antarctic ice sheet melts. You present a false choise of believing one or the other, when they are not mutually exclusive.
Show me where Gore said sea levels would rise 20 feet by 2100.
You’re right, Gore was talking about a scenario that the scientists don’t see as likely in the slightest. All the more reason for why I say Gore is fear-mongering and distorting the science to fool people. Gore never says anything about the time frame, as far as I know. Instead, he shows Florida, other countries, and the site of the WTC under water. Gives it that contemporary feel.
Oh, but Gore never said when! Quit defending the propaganda and admit it’s deceptive.
Seriously. Ask 20 people coming out from that movie about the sea level rising. I wonder what most of them will say……
July 5th, 2006 at 6:26 pmWhat are you talking about? I’d love to know, since it looks like you are attempting to put words and views into my mouth that I have not made here.
How easily we forget … and I thought we were having a conversation.
Saddam Hussein. Problem removed.
Yep, and 50,000 Iraqis and wait, the problem actually is worse. Bugger.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:28 pmThat a glacier in Alaska is smaller than it used to be is fine and dandy, until you look at other glaciers that are larger than they were. Anyone can cherry-pick a glacier and two points in time to “demonstrate†that it is beyond all hope.
In the interest of not “cherry picking” tell us how many glaciers have shrunk and how many have expanded. What is the ratio of glacier mass lost to that gained by those you say are larger?
Meanwhile, the scientists show that Greenland’s ice is growing on the interior, while melting on the coasts.
Again, is it a net gain or loss? Do you know or are you implying a net gain to suit a pre-conceived conclusion?
Oh, and as for smog, I do believe that we’ve cleaned up our skies over the past 20-30 years.
Thanks in large part to the people you are deriding right now. And despite the best efforts of the people who are now busy in think tanks “debunking” global warming with the very same “facts” you cite here.
If you think the scientists who back Gore are way off track, then you need to rethink whether we have cleaned up smog. One could paraphrase your stance on glaciers, and say you can look at areas where smog is reduced, and other areas where smog is increased, but without the numbers it doesn’t really say anything does it?
July 5th, 2006 at 6:29 pmOh, but Gore never said when! Quit defending the propaganda and admit it’s deceptive.
Oh Bosh, you are complaining about something you are ripping out of it’s context in a 90 minute documentary?
This is always the way, strain at a gnat and swallow a camel with these people.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:31 pm“You didn’t ask the question to get answers. You asked, just to be a troll”
No, I ask the questions to make you look stupid. If you expect any normal educated person to take seriously anything one reads on a liberal blog then you are truly delusional!
July 5th, 2006 at 6:31 pmI know the science because I read the science.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:32 pmComment by Seixon — July 5, 2006 @ 6:23 pm
If only Einstein would have known that.
The first line says it all, it occurs to him. That is his whole problem. He doesn’t think things through, has no expertise in that area and is too lazy to research it on his own.
It is a damn shame that many people pay attention to him.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:32 pmZookeeper,
It was a simple question, George.
I gave you a simple remedy: visit my blog where you will find all I have written on the subject which I really can’t be bothered with rewriting here.
Brian,
This is simply untrue, and not how science works at all. There is overwhelming consensus that the models (there are several showing the same distrurbing trends) indicating human induced global warming is causing the incontrovertible rise in global temperatures.
Actually more and more studies are coming out showing that the Sun has an increasingly larger role than previously thought. Also, all the climate scientists admit that the models are not accurate enough because they cannot accurately model factors such as clouds. Models are only as good as you make them, they are not magic.
You’ll note that the right wing have hurriedly moved there position to “ok it’s happening, but it’s not us, and even if it was we can’t do anything about it†stronghold.
Sure, the right wing will do whatever they do, but the truth is that the temperatures across most of the planet are not unprecedented in the slightest, and there is simply no conclusive evidence that man has caused the recent temperatures to rise. The scientists have no idea how much, if any, humans have actually contributed to the temperature rising. New studies on the Sun show it having anywhere up to 50% of the responsibility for the recent warming. This is after the Sun has long been neglected from the climate models.
I don’t think, that particular retreat is going to serve you. Best simply accept what 95% of the experts agree on, and help to address it instead being part of the problem.
Except that 95% figure is complete made up. Most scientists are in the middle on this issue. As the infamous “933 studies” study has shown, only 13 explicitly endorsed the “consensus” view, while the rest were more ambiguous about the conclusion on AGW.
This is a war being waged by the alarmists and the skeptics. Most of the scientists are in the middle with their caveats and qualifiers, while Gore and the gang are there with their rank assertions and “consensus”.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:33 pmYeah, you sure made me look dumb by you not realizing that Think Progress links to conservative, liberal and moderate source info.
Yeah, you sure made me look dumb.
Idiot.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:34 pmOh, but Gore never said when! Quit defending the propaganda and admit it’s deceptive.
Seriously. Ask 20 people coming out from that movie about the sea level rising. I wonder what most of them will say……
If you have not seen the movie, how can you possibly know that?
FYI the 20 foot sea rise has been in peer reviewed papers, relating to a melting of the ice caps in the runaway scenario. But don’t worry, if that ever happens, we would likely be wiped out by the precursor events so it’s not really an issue. The real point is that we can tip the balance, or preserve it. It is important to counter those who say a melting of the ice caps would be good for the shipping industry.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:35 pmIf you expect any normal educated person to take seriously anything one reads on a liberal blog then you are truly delusional!
Comment by rightwing_troll — July 5, 2006 @ 6:31 pm
I think you were thinking of the conservative blogs on that one. It’s an understandable mistake, one often made by conservatives. You’re forgiven.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:35 pmI personally don’t know much about the science of global warming, other than most of the scientists in the field tend to agree that a large part of it is human caused. Being a scientist myself, I tend to believe the consensus of a bunch of peer reviewed work. I’m very curious what peer reviewed work in this field you have actually read or created Seixon that you can now refute that consensus?
July 5th, 2006 at 6:36 pmExcept that 95% figure is complete made up. Most scientists are in the middle on this issue. As the infamous “933 studies†study has shown, only 13 explicitly endorsed the “consensus†view, while the rest were more ambiguous about the conclusion on AGW.
That particular meme has been completely discredited, you must not have got the memo.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:36 pmYeah, imaginary WMD fearmongering is exactly like educating people about the greatest current danger to our planet’s health.
And Bush pretending to play guitar while Katrina destroyed the Gulf Coast is just the same as… my Mom calling us in for dinner.
To someone who’s as dumb as a sack of rocks, I guess.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:37 pmSullivan isn’t being entirely consistent. Several posts ago he posted views of another sort. Read his “Global Warming Cant,” which I think clarifies his position.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:37 pm“It occurs to me…”
this reminds me of the david sedaris story DINAH THE CHRISTMAS WHORE.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:38 pmAs the infamous “933 studies†study has shown, only 13 explicitly endorsed the “consensus†view, while the rest were more ambiguous about the conclusion on AGW.
Except the study didn’t show that. An article in a right wing Canadian political newsletter purported to show that. Who do you believe, a climate scientist or a sociologist?
July 5th, 2006 at 6:38 pmAlso, all the climate scientists admit that the models are not accurate enough because they cannot accurately model factors such as clouds. Models are only as good as you make them, they are not magic.
Agreed, but the computing being brought to bear increases daily, and it’s a cop out to claim it’s just about models.
Global Warming is not just an output of computer models, it is an observation. The following diverse and numerous empirical observations lead us to the unequivocal conclusion that the earth is warming:
NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis
CRU direct surface temperature analysis
Satellite Data
Radiosondes
Borehole analysis
Glacial melt observations
Sea ice melt
Sea level rise
Proxy Reconstructions
Permafrost is melting
All of these completely independent analyses of widely varied aspects of the climate system lead to the same conclusion: the Earth is undergoing a rapid and large warming trend.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:41 pmSo, what you’re telling us is that potentially civilization-shattering global catastrophe is simply a matter of “likely” and “probably” rather than a matter of “will” and “is”? That’s very comforting, I’m sure . . .
July 5th, 2006 at 6:42 pmModels are only as good as you make them, they are not magic.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:44 pmComment by Seixon
Models are limited representation of a reality. What do you mean by “as good as”, in comparison to what? Have you ever made a model, Seixon? You just cant read science and then pretend to know science. My opinion is that you know nothing about science and keep an archive of scientific papers about this. If Global Warming wasnt happening, there would not be so many satellites measuring incoming and reflected UV and IR radiation. You are a phony.
Brian,
How easily we forget … and I thought we were having a conversation.
We were. About global warming. Where did the “social protections” and “why do you hate Americans” tripe come from?
Yep, and 50,000 Iraqis and wait, the problem actually is worse. Bugger.
The Iraqis don’t see it that way, but you’re free to cast judgment on other peoples’ predicaments all you like. I won’t though. How many died in other wars? People always die in a war, sad but true. Most of those were killed by insurgents and terrorists. Perhaps if the rest of the world actually gave a damn about Iraq, they would send troops to help out. But nope. They’d rather watch the USA fight it alone, hoping for their failure. You know you are too. All in the name of whipping Bush for political points. Shameful.
Oh Bosh, you are complaining about something you are ripping out of it’s context in a 90 minute documentary?
Have you seen the film? Tell me, did Gore say anything about the timeframe or the likelihood of the sea level rising 20 feet? If he didn’t, then isn’t what I said correct?
Kermit,
In the interest of not “cherry picking†tell us how many glaciers have shrunk and how many have expanded. What is the ratio of glacier mass lost to that gained by those you say are larger?
Oh, so when you cherry-pick, it’s OK, but when I do the same to show how foolish doing that is, then you demand that we not do this? Nice. I have no clue about the exact ratio but I’m fairly certain it goes towards more being melted. After all, temperatures are up in the last few decades - it’s only expected. That doesn’t mean that glaciers everywhere are disappearing as fast as cookies in front of a fat kid.
Again, is it a net gain or loss? Do you know or are you implying a net gain to suit a pre-conceived conclusion?
I don’t know, I’m just stating simple facts. I’m stating the fact that Gore most likely never mentions the fact that the ice is growing on the interior. He is only telling half the story, cherry-picking his way to an Oscar for Best Documentary for 2006.
Thanks in large part to the people you are deriding right now. And despite the best efforts of the people who are now busy in think tanks “debunking†global warming with the very same “facts†you cite here.
See, you only see things in black and white. I am a moderate, and I am totally for getting rid of real pollution to clean our skies and our waters. That’s where the real harm lies. So because I agree with you on that, does not mean I will automatically agree with you on everything else.
If you think the scientists who back Gore are way off track, then you need to rethink whether we have cleaned up smog. One could paraphrase your stance on glaciers, and say you can look at areas where smog is reduced, and other areas where smog is increased, but without the numbers it doesn’t really say anything does it?
You see there’s the fallacy right there. There are only a few scientists who would back Gore completely, as his film is riddled with half-truths, cherry.picking, and distortions. I only know of maybe two scientists who would back Gore’s claims about the sea level rising.
As I also stated, smog in the USA has gotten better on average over the last 30 years, but I seriously doubt that’s the case in places like China.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:45 pmNew studies on the Sun show it having anywhere up to 50% of the responsibility for the recent warming. This is after the Sun has long been neglected from the climate models
Once again, this is more outlier bullcrap.
Warming on another planet would be an interesting coincidence but it does not necessarily have to have the same cause. The only relevant factor the Earth and Mars share is the sun, so if the warming were real and related it would have to be due to the sun. The sun is being watched and measured very carefully back here on earth and it is not the primary cause of the current climate change.
As for this alledged finding, there is very little evidence to go on when it comes to discerning a global climate change on Mars. The only evidence out there that I am aware of is a series of photographs of a single icey region in the southern hemisphere that shows melting over a two year (~1 martian year) period. Here on earth we have direct measurements from all over the globe, widespread glacial retreat, reduction of sea ice and satellite measurements of the lower troposphere up to the stratosphere. To compare this mountain of data to a few photographs of a single region strains credulity. In fact, scientists studying Mars believe this is a regional change caused by Mars’ own orbital cycles.
As for Pluto, a cursory glance at Pluto’s orbit and atmosphere reveals how ridiculous it is to draw any conclusions about climate, much less climate change, from two occultation observations 14 years apart way out there in the ice cold and lonely Kuiper Belt!
On Earth, we have poles melting, surface temperature rising, tropospheric temperatures rising, permafrost melting, glaciers world wide melting, CO2 concentrations increasing, borehole analysis showing warming, sea ice receding, proxy reconstructions showing warming, sea level rising, sea surface temperatures rising, energy imbalance, ice sheets melting and stratosphere cooling which leads us to believe we have GHG driven global warming.
One Mars we have one spot melting which leads us to believe…one spot is melting.
Sexion either really engage on issues that require actual debate, where there is genuine play in the discussion, or pack it in. This is just a waste of your time and ours.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:45 pmIn the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, it was concluded that based on the balance of all available evidence and even considering uncertainties and areas lacking adequate research, the earth is undergoing a rapid warming trend that is outside the likely bounds of natural variations and this climate change is likely to have been due to anthropogenic emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel burning.
This statement has been explicitly endorsed by:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
in either one or both of these documents:
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619
In addition, the following institutions specializing in Climate, Atmosphere, Ocean and/or Earth sciences have published the same conclusions:
NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
July 5th, 2006 at 6:48 pmNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
If this is not consensus, then what in the world would consensus look like?
If you expect any normal educated person to take seriously anything one reads on a liberal blog then you are truly delusional!
Comment by rightwing_troll
Here is another thing any normal educated person won’t take seriously that I have noted: Not only do the words “dipshit” and “troll” both have the letter “t” in common, but I notice that the former word has two I’s and the latter word two L’s.
I find that rather fastinating, don’t you rightwing? Of course, I’m not as educated as you so I don’t think you will find that humorous, either.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:50 pmKermit,
I have been told by people who have seen the film that Gore did not specify any time frame for the supposed 20 foot sea level rise, thereby pulling some Michael Moore Innuendo Magic. Of course, I assume many of you have seen it. None of you are refuting what I said, so…
I’m only aware of one study done purporting to show 20 foot sea level rise, done by a scientist called Schlesinger. Needless to say other scientists are not all that on board with it…
Brian,
That particular meme has been completely discredited, you must not have got the memo.
Wrong. What was discredited was the notion that there were a number of articles that denied or were doubtful about the consensus opinion. That was incorrect. However, as I said, only 13 explicitly support the “consensus” view. You’re getting your memes all mixed up. A typical propaganda tactic - claim that a meme is discredited, when only parts of it have been.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:51 pmI’m stating the fact that Gore most likely never mentions the fact that the ice is growing on the interior.
He doesn’t mention this because it isn’t relevant. There is so much evidence, it’s tough to get it all in to a mere 90 minutes.
There is actually very little data about the changes in the mass of the Antarctic ice sheets, and the conclusion of some growth in the East Antarctic ice sheet is so little that with the uncertainty, it might even be shrinking. This is not a surprising phenomenon as such an increase would be the result of increasing percipitation and this is fully consistent with a warming world as the antarctic is a desert and warmer climates tend towards more percipitation. And even if you warmed 10 oC from -50 oC, you would still be accumulating snow, not melting in the rain.
There is some widespread glacial melting on the Antarctic peninsula and ice shelves are breaking up, but it does indeed appear that the mass balance on ice at the south pole may be positive but negligible. This does not, however contradict the theory of Global Warming in any way whatsoever.
While on the subject of ice sheets, Greenland is also growing ice in the center for the same reasons described above, but it is melting on the exterior regions, on the whole losing approximately 200 km^3 of ice annually, doubled now from a decade ago. This is a huge amount compared to what the changes may be in the Antarctice, around three orders of magnitude larger. So any potenial gain in total volume of ice on the planet due to the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is wiped out many many times over by Greenland’s ice sheet.
a NASA JPL news release
July 5th, 2006 at 6:53 pma CIRES study
a NASA new release
“like educating people about the greatest current danger to our planet’s health.”
Uh, global warming will not harm our planet; It may make water levels rise, but it will not harm the planet. Earth will go on without us. This has nothing to do with saving the planet, and everything to do with extending human existance.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:55 pmThe Iraqis don’t see it that way, but you’re free to cast judgment on other peoples’ predicaments all you like.
Comment by Seixon
According to who? Are you Iraqi? You probably think that insurgency is a thing of a bunch of drunken kids. It is people fighting for their occupated country. But you dont know too much about good causes. Nice centered point of view, center boy.
How many died in other wars? People always die in a war, sad but true.
How would you like being one of them? Why dont you go to Iraq and fight “evil” since it seems nobody in the world seems to care about that glorious idea of Bush? You should be consequent with your statements. Enroll, buddy.
Most of those were killed by insurgents and terrorists.
Terrorism in Iraq didnt exist before US occupation.
They’d rather watch the USA fight it alone, hoping for their failure. You know you are too
July 5th, 2006 at 6:56 pmI would answer: You bet I am hoping for a US failure.
You’re getting your memes all mixed up. A typical propaganda tactic - claim that a meme is discredited, when only parts of it have been.
Kermit addressed it directly not 5 posts up. Try harder.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:57 pmIf this is not consensus, then what in the world would consensus look like?
Apparently, it must also include sociologists and the flat earth society.
And people who hate Al Gore.
Sexion, if you don’t know the facts, stop tyring to argue on them. Increased snowfall in the interior is not “both sides of the issue.” You have yet to name the glaciers you say are growing. You admit we have a net melting, yet you say Gore is dishonest for pointing out the melting, but not saying “but we also have snow falling.” You can argue absolutely anything with that fallacy.
And when I used the same logic vis-a-vis smog, you admit it is a fallacy.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:58 pmBrian,
He doesn’t mention this because it isn’t relevant. There is so much evidence, it’s tough to get it all in to a mere 90 minutes.
LOL. Anyone lose their Gore-shill? I think I found him guys, call off the search. That’s the most ridiculous statement I’ve read all day. Of course it isn’t relevant to Gore’s “truth”, but that’s only because his “truth” is carefully constructed to be what he wants. It is a half-truth to tell people that the ice on the coast of Greenland is melting without telling them that the interior’s ice is growing. That you would even attempt to make excuses for this is hilarious.
This does not, however contradict the theory of Global Warming in any way whatsoever.
Of course not. Nothing does, I have learned.
July 5th, 2006 at 7:01 pm“Here is another thing any normal educated person won’t take seriously that I have noted: Not only do the words “dipshit†and “troll†both have the letter “t†in common, but I notice that the former word has two I’s and the latter word two L’s.”
And this is an example of your debating skills?
July 5th, 2006 at 7:01 pmNever take advice about a pending series of worldwide catastrophic events from someone with a death sentance. They’re biased.
July 5th, 2006 at 7:03 pmOf course it isn’t relevant to Gore’s “truthâ€,
Sexion, you are not reading what I am posting. This was explained in some detail several posts above. Have a reread, you seem like an intelligent fellow.
July 5th, 2006 at 7:04 pmThat particular meme has been completely discredited, you must not have got the memo.
Wrong. What was discredited was the notion that there were a number of articles that denied or were doubtful about the consensus opinion. That was incorrect.
In science, if a major portion of the paper is false, the whole paper gets thrown out. When your sociologist resubmits the study for peer review, you can bring up the results again. Or submit your own paper with the correct methodology.
July 5th, 2006 at 7:04 pmIt is a half-truth to tell people that the ice on the coast of Greenland is melting without telling them that the interior’s ice is growing. That you would even attempt to make excuses for this is hilarious.
And a non-truth to keep bringing this up without explaining the net change. If the snowfall effectively counters the effects of global warming you have a point. But you can make an intelligent guess without looking at the data, it doesn’t.
This type of argument is known as B.S.
Fox News calls it fair and balanced. You have a ton of evidence on one side, and an ounce on the other. So you deride anyone who doesn’t give them equal weight.
July 5th, 2006 at 7:10 pmJuan C,
According to who? Are you Iraqi? You probably think that insurgency is a thing of a bunch of drunken kids. It is people fighting for their occupated country. But you dont know too much about good causes. Nice centered point of view, center boy.
According to Iraqi opinion polls. The insurgency is made up of largely Sunni dissidents who will not accept the loss of their previous control of Iraq, not interested in letting the Shiites run the shop. They are not fighting for their occupied country, they are fighting against the new order in Iraq. Sounds like you’ve been duped by Iraqi insurgents. Good causes? Killing Americans and Iraqi security forces is a “good cause”? Please tell me that’s not what you meant.
How would you like being one of them? Why dont you go to Iraq and fight “evil†since it seems nobody in the world seems to care about that glorious idea of Bush? You should be consequent with your statements. Enroll, buddy.
Sure, as long as you are willing to go live in an Iraq where we leave. You up for it? So in other words, you think that everyone who supported WWII had to actually sign up and fight in it? Sorry, but that’s one of the lamest and oldest debate tactics there are.
Terrorism in Iraq didnt exist before US occupation.
Yeah, before we removed Saddam it was called torture, rape, and pillage. Not terrorism really. Well, except for killing thousands of people at a time and whole villages for the actions of a few people. Nah, you’re right, we should put Saddam back in power.
I would answer: You bet I am hoping for a US failure.
Well I’m glad we got that out of the way.
Brian,
Kermit addressed it directly not 5 posts up. Try harder.
Eh, no he said the same thing as you. You guys are getting your memes all mixed up because Think Progress only told you half of the story as usual.
Kermit,
Apparently, it must also include sociologists and the flat earth society. And people who hate Al Gore.
I don’t hate Gore. I hate lies and distortions, which is what Gore is doing with his film. If what he was saying was the truth, he wouldn’t need to mislead people.
Sexion, if you don’t know the facts, stop tyring to argue on them. Increased snowfall in the interior is not “both sides of the issue.†You have yet to name the glaciers you say are growing. You admit we have a net melting, yet you say Gore is dishonest for pointing out the melting, but not saying “but we also have snow falling.†You can argue absolutely anything with that fallacy.
I do know the facts as I have demonstrated. You and I both know that Gore is only telling half the story. Increased ice and snow on the interior is the other side of the issue that Gore is not telling, I never claimd it constituted both sides of the issue by itself. Gore told one part of the truth, I’m telling the part he left out. Gore is misleading by presenting a one-sided view of the issue.
And when I used the same logic vis-a-vis smog, you admit it is a fallacy.
I said that smog has gotten better in the USA the last 30 years. True? Yes. That doesn’t mean it is better all over the world, which it is in fact not. I’ll be waiting for the day Gore goes after China for polluting more and more.
July 5th, 2006 at 7:13 pmAnd this is an example of your debating skills?
Comment by rightwing_troll
Yeah.
Did I tell you that I am a former, rightwing redneck dipshit myself? As you can see by my poor choice of words and ability to stoop down to a very lowest levels on this site that the mean, nasty, old conservative streak is still in me.
Just call me a recovering rightwinger if you will. Thank you for asking.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I used to be much worse.
July 5th, 2006 at 7:14 pmlets recap shall we?
We’ve got :
The Antarctic Ice sheets are actually growing, which would not be happening if Global Warming were real.
Sigh. A gaggle of shrinking glaciers all around the globe doesn’t prove a thing, but one thickening ice sheet at the south pole and the debate is supposedly over. What can you do except present a few facts and explain the very simple cause?
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/ 2006/ 02/ antarctic-ice-is-growing.html
Global warming is happening on Mars and Pluto as well. Since there are no SUV’s on Mars, CO2 can’t be causing Global Warming.
This is quite rich. One hundred years of weather station temperature data all over the globe and these guys still don’t buy it. Three photos of one piece of ice on Mars and they have no doubts! As for Pluto, it hasn’t even completed one orbit in the 150 years we’ve been reading the thermometers here on Earth! Still, avoid the temptation to laugh out loud…
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/ 2006/ 02/ theres-global-warming-on-mars-too.html
Then there is this clanger : ” I am a moderate” juxtaposed against “My Norwegian neighbors are pretty much brainwashed by the Norwegian media,”. Do you actually speak norwegian?
Thats about it really, golly all this posting and you’ve said basically nothing that couldn’t be refuted with a 10 minute google search. Disappointing isn’t it? Are you going to simply say it all again?
July 5th, 2006 at 7:18 pmNot much different than yours.
Ask a question, get an answer, then say “I ain’t reading that”
July 5th, 2006 at 7:21 pmKermit,
In science, if a major portion of the paper is false, the whole paper gets thrown out. When your sociologist resubmits the study for peer review, you can bring up the results again. Or submit your own paper with the correct methodology.
Ehhhh, no? There were two positions in that study. One was that there were a number of studies that questioned or denied AGW. This was false. However, the second was that there were only 13 that explicitly took the “consensus” view. Out of 930. Now we see that you seek to throw this fact out because it is inconvenient.
This is dishonest and is what hacks usually do. They find one tiny little mistake in something and then claim the entire thing is fraudulent, which is not the case here.
And a non-truth to keep bringing this up without explaining the net change. If the snowfall effectively counters the effects of global warming you have a point. But you can make an intelligent guess without looking at the data, it doesn’t.
There isn’t a conclusive estimate of whether this counters the melting or not, so you simply have to tell both sides of the issue. At least then you are telling what you know, and not just cherry-picking what’s convenient for your own view, which is what Gore is doing.
This type of argument is known as B.S.
Telling the entire truth is BS? Wow, alright. What’s that behind you?! A giant fireball! Watch out! Oh, forgot to tell the other half of the story, it’s the sun, and it’s about a bazillion miles away. Ooops. ;)
Fox News calls it fair and balanced. You have a ton of evidence on one side, and an ounce on the other. So you deride anyone who doesn’t give them equal weight.
I just looked at a map of Greenland in a science magazine on Tuesday, and it showed the net change in ice across. To me it looked like there were more areas that increased than those along the coast that decreased. I can’t see how you can claim that is “a ton” vs. “an ounce”.
Why are we even talking about this? The scientists don’t see it as likely at all that Greenland is going to completely melt anyways.
July 5th, 2006 at 7:22 pmoops … my bad forgot this one :
Answer:
Improving agreement of model results and increasingly similar physical representations of the climate system from model to model is also perfectly consistent with better and better understanding. This is coming fast as we gather more and more historical and current data, all of which provides more testing grounds for model refinement.
Seeing collusion instead of consensus is quite a dramatic take on what is really just the normal course of scientific investigation. I suppose fewer and fewer scientists disagreeing is consistent with more and more supression of ideas, but you know, it is also the result of having the right answer.
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/ 2006/ 05/ consensus-or-collusion.html
and perhaps this
Global Warming is not an output of computer models, it is an observation. The following diverse and numerous empirical observations lead us to the unequivocal conclusion that the earth is warming:
NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis
CRU direct surface temperature analysis
Satellite Data
Radiosondes
Borehole analysis
Glacial melt observations
Sea ice melt
Sea level rise
Proxy Reconstructions
Permafrost is melting
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/ 2006/ 05/ there-is-no-evidence.html
Consider your ass kicked.
July 5th, 2006 at 7:23 pmBrian,
You evaded the fact that many studies have shown that the Sun has played a good role in the recent warming. Bringing up a bunch of morons doesn’t really help you out.
Then there is this clanger : †I am a moderate†juxtaposed against “My Norwegian neighbors are pretty much brainwashed by the Norwegian media,â€. Do you actually speak norwegian?
I’m not sure a Norwegian newspaper would let me blog for them if I couldn’t speak and write Norwegian fluently… Pointing out that people in Norway are brainwashed by the media is what an honest objective and critical thinker would say. Moderates are objective of each partisan side and able to see the truth for what it is. There’s a reason why Norwegians trust the UN more than any other country in the world (around 80%). I don’t think I need to give you a lecture on the Norwegian media here, something which you obviously know nothing about and are simply trying to kick up dust about to paint me as a conservative.
Thats about it really, golly all this posting and you’ve said basically nothing that couldn’t be refuted with a 10 minute google search. Disappointing isn’t it? Are you going to simply say it all again?
I haven’t even said any of the things you posted. I posted that studies are showing that the sun has played a role in the recent warming, anywhere from 20%-50%. Instead of just admitting this, you post a bunch of rightwing mumbo-jumbo that I never even brought up.
July 5th, 2006 at 7:27 pmWhy are we even talking about this?
Indeed why? Perhaps because we think that somewhere in there is a rational human who can be convinced of what is staring them in the face. If we can convince you, then you can turn your considerable skills to convincing others.
The consensus is overwhelming, and nothing you have said today is remotley convincing to the contrary, and you are an articulate well read fellow. But when you are shovelling shit, it’s to put a positive spin on it. Won’t you leave the dark side?:-)
July 5th, 2006 at 7:28 pmOkay Sexion I get your point. Let’s agree on this: Al Gore’s primary thesis is that global warming is man-made and we must do something about it. Now then, his movie is in support of that thesis. Therefore, he did not mention the increase in snowfall because a) It does not diminish or refute the results or his thesis, and b) it would serve only to confuse the issue.
Now then. This sociologist’s study you keep citing does exactly what you accuse Gore of doing. The study says how many papers do not explicitly endorse the AGW theory, but does not say how many papers do not explicitly deny AGW theory. So why aren’t you up in arms and calling it propaganda?
On to more…
I just looked at a map of Greenland in a science magazine on Tuesday, and it showed the net change in ice across. To me it looked like there were more areas that increased than those along the coast that decreased. I can’t see how you can claim that is “a ton†vs. “an ounceâ€.
The relative factor is mass, not area.
Why are we even talking about this? The scientists don’t see it as likely at all that Greenland is going to completely melt anyways.
Beats me, you brought it up as if it is the most damning of evidence against Gore.
July 5th, 2006 at 7:28 pmWhy are we even talking about this?
Indeed why? Perhaps because we think that somewhere in there is a rational human who can be convinced of what is staring them in the face. If we can convince you, then you can turn your considerable skills to convincing others.
The consensus is overwhelming, and nothing you have said today is remotley convincing to the contrary, and you are an articulate well read fellow. But when you are shovelling shit, it’s tough to put a positive spin on it. Won’t you leave the dark side?:-)
July 5th, 2006 at 7:29 pmwhat an honest objective and critical thinker would say
Such BOLLIX I live next door and speak fluent Swedish. Would that the US was so lucky to have a Norwegian standard of living, or even a Swedish one. You are a naughty man.
July 5th, 2006 at 7:34 pmBrian,
There’s no doubt that temperatures have been rising across most of the planet for about 30 years. Meanwhile, I think you and others are ignoring the fact that, for most of the planet, these temperatures are in fact not unprecedented even as far as the last century goes. Also, I am not convinced by this AGW stuff. I don’t find it convincing. I accept that CO2 emissions will affect the greenhouse to some degree, but what that degree actually is doesn’t seem to be fully documented or explained.
When you have Think Progress peddling essentially what are lies, and Gore doing the same thing, then the Associated Press prints lies about Gore’s movie… You can see why a critical thinker such as myself starts saying “OK… hold on a sec here…”
Kermit,
I already said that the study was wrong in its primary aim, yet another truth it revealed is perhaps even equally as harmful to the “consensus” spin. Only 13 of 930 studies explicitly endorsed the “consensus” view. That doesn’t sound like much of a consensus to me. It sounds like we have a number of skeptics, a some what larger number of alarmists, and then the majority are in the middle not ready to jump into either boat just yet.
If Gore had made his case without fear-mongering and distorting the science he claims to be speaking for, then I wouldn’t have a problem with it. Of course, nobody would even care about his damn movie if he didn’t scare people out of their minds.
The relative factor is mass, not area.
It was related to mass, in other words, area marked by change in height of ice.
Beats me, you brought it up as if it is the most damning of evidence against Gore.
Nah, the “20 feet” thing is probably the most ridiculous thing in the movie. However, having only seen the trailer for it, I’m ready for Gore to dazzle me with even more ridiculous stunts.
July 5th, 2006 at 7:36 pmI posted that studies are showing that the sun has played a role in the recent warming, anywhere from 20%-50%. Instead of just admitting this, you post a bunch of rightwing mumbo-jumbo that I never even brought up.
Um no. I posted refutations of flimsy long refuted “evidence” you trotted out. Jesus, man at least try and read this stuff!!!! You might learn something. Here is the sun thing AGAIN. STOP, READ, COGIGATE. REPEAT AS REQUIRED.
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/04/its-sun-stupid.html
July 5th, 2006 at 7:38 pmBrian,
Such BOLLIX I live next door and speak fluent Swedish. Would that the US was so lucky to have a Norwegian standard of living, or even a Swedish one. You are a naughty man.
What does the standard of living have to do with the media? Can you tell me why Norway has the highest trust of the UN in the world? I know why. I’ll let you have a chance to explain it though!
July 5th, 2006 at 7:39 pmBrian,
Um no. I posted refutations of flimsy long refuted “evidence†you trotted out. Jesus, man at least try and read this stuff!!!! You might learn something. Here is the sun thing AGAIN. STOP, READ, COGIGATE. REPEAT AS REQUIRED.
Uh, that just points to Realclimate (objective? don’t make me laugh) and like one study that says this or that. I just posted a link to one German study and I believe another one that says that the Sun has gotten brighter the last 100 years, and that the sun is responsible for a good part of the recent warming. That was just a quick search, I can dig up more if you really want. It’s out there, if you dare look at it.
July 5th, 2006 at 7:42 pmNah, the “20 feet†thing is probably the most ridiculous thing in the movie. However, having only seen the trailer for it, I’m ready for Gore to dazzle me with even more ridiculous stunts.
You think that your judgement of a film you’ve never seen on the basis of the trailer is a sound basis for decision making? Especially on such an important topic. That explains a fair bit actually, especially coupled with your obvious contempt for people in general.
Quite a nasty anti social picture emerging here. Nonetheless you seem to have all the intellectual equipment to grasp the subject, and yet it eludes you. It’s a puzzler. Need more input, tell us what you do for a living gooo on, goooo on.
July 5th, 2006 at 7:43 pmSo is Gore another Cheney on WMD in Iraq? That is empty handed in the end, prehaps Global warming isn’t as bad as those scientists think or prehaps we will see some unbelievable improvements very soon?
What Gore does differ from Cheney on this is that Gore is advocating a genuine concern while Cheney manipulated the intelligence so his administration could get Saddam. Saddam was the reason, not WMDs.
July 5th, 2006 at 7:44 pmThere is no point in arguing global warming with a phony like Seixon and there is absolutely no point in providing links to someone like Right wing troll. These a-holes are not here to share information or legitimately debate any issue. Right wing troll is just a fool and Seixon is probably paid to obfuscate this issue either directly or indirectly. Seixon has misrepresented a number of studies — he’s not interested in sharing facts, only obfuscation and confusion. Right wing troll is just pathetic. Why even engage him?
July 5th, 2006 at 7:44 pmThat was just a quick search, I can dig up more if you really want. It’s out there, if you dare look at it.
Hey I’ll look at them all, but I will insist on going with the consensus and that is still 100% it’s happening, and 95% it’s us.
July 5th, 2006 at 7:46 pmRight wing troll is just a fool and Seixon is probably paid to obfuscate this issue either directly or indirectly. Seixon has misrepresented a number of studies — he’s not interested in sharing facts, only obfuscation and confusion
Could be, but he’s not dumb, and intelligent people can be won over by evidence of which there is plenty, and the pile increases every day. The more he rubs up against reality the likelier it is that some of it will rub off on him.
July 5th, 2006 at 7:48 pm