Right-wing organization paying kids for denying global warming.
Right-wing organization paying kids for denying global warming.
The right-wing organization WorldNetDaily (WND) is rewarding children for “debunking” global warming in a new video/essay contest. “The contest was launched early in 2008 and was designed to highlight the absurdities, untruths and downright lies that children are being taught daily about ‘climate change’ in public school,” the site states. “Contest winners will receive a cash prize, a copy of ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ DVD courtesy of junkscience.com, and copies of ‘The Sky’s Not Falling‘ for their local school library and their kids’ science classroom.” Watch one of the submissions:
“Kids across America are being victimized by global warming hysteria,” according to Holly Fretwell, author of The Sky’s Not Falling: Why It’s OK to Chill About Global Warming.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
113 Responses to “Right-wing organization paying kids for denying global warming.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Well, gee, what’s wrong with that??
After all, everybody knows that cigarette smoking has NOTHING at all to do with lung cancer.
/snark off
April 30th, 2008 at 12:52 pmWorldnutdaily: Keeping America’s children ignorant and the laughingstock of the world.
I think these people should just build their own little compound, impregnate their siblings female children to keep them tied down in their lil’ wingnut compound and…HEY! WAIT A MINUTE…………..
April 30th, 2008 at 12:54 pmWhy do conservatives hate education?
April 30th, 2008 at 12:57 pmAnd these are the same “people” that believe Saddam was involved in 9/11 and had WMD.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:00 pmThis is part of Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” race to the bottom.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:00 pm“Kids across America are being victimized by global warming hysteria,” according to Holly Fretwell, author of The Sky’s Not Falling: Why It’s OK to Chill About Global Warming.
Shorter Holly Fretwell: So we decided to victimize them as well.
Sheesh…
April 30th, 2008 at 1:02 pmWhy do conservatives not understand that the debate is over?
April 30th, 2008 at 1:03 pmWe victimized them Zooey, and now they’re getting some “cool” cash for their suffering.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:05 pmZooey Says:
Shorter Holly Fretwell: So we decided to victimize them as well.
Sheesh…
April 30th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
_____
And where is this hysteria the science deniers are always talking about? The only people I see in hysterics are the science deniers themselves.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:06 pmWhen our kids learn real science like evolution and global warming….the terrorists win.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:06 pmHOME SCHOOLING FOR EVERYONE!!!!
April 30th, 2008 at 1:07 pmYou know, gravity is still an unproven theory. Perhaps some of these science deniers should disprove the myth of gravity by jumping off a bridge.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:08 pmIsn’t this called “Brain washing”?
April 30th, 2008 at 1:14 pmJust when you thought the GOP could stoop no lower or be more stupid something like this comes up.
So far, the GOP has:
Supported a war that is destroying our nation
Ignoring our troops
Sabotaging our democratic process
Infiltrating agencies with saboteurs
Stealing elections
Torturing innocent people
Killing Iraqi civilians
We already have one child, George Bush, who erroneously adenies global warming; why do we need more?
April 30th, 2008 at 1:16 pmI could not hear the audio but i read the text….then i observed the flat image of the world, or the flat planet earth in front of the sun…
Shouldnt we be alarmed by this image??? Or is it obvious that the funders of this entire commercial are as ignorant as the church was when it thought the Earth was flat?
anyone else notice?
April 30th, 2008 at 1:16 pmDaryll would have us believe that the earth is ours to ’subdue’, as his scripture says. In fact, we reap what we sow. Sow pollution, reap environmental crisis. Sow ignorance in young children, reap mindless repug sheep.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:17 pmnofltwlt Says:
We already have one child, George Bush, who erroneously adenies global warming; why do we need more?
April 30th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
_____
Bush doesn’t deny global warming. He believes in it. So strongly, in fact, that he’s announced the scheduling of numerous do-nothing meetings to set the agendas for future do-nothing meetings to someday decide on meetings about carbon emissions targets and reducing greenhouse gas. At this rate, we might actually have some policy on the table by 2050!
April 30th, 2008 at 1:21 pmGeorge Denial Bush Administration 2001-2009 / RIP
April 30th, 2008 at 1:21 pmGood in theory, HTH, but the thing is there’s no money involved in “the gravity debate”. If these folks were financially benefitting from denying the existence of gravity, you can bet your sweet bippy they’d be up in arms about all this “gravity hysteria” and they’d be pushing the theory of “intelligent falling”.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:25 pmWell, you could boycott products of the big subsidizers such as Phillip Morris, 3M, Proctor & Gamble, Kraft, W.R. Grace, Chevron, Dow, Exxon, GM, but it would be hard to find a product. Guess we’re screwed as Shakespeare said, “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings.” (i.e., not rich)
April 30th, 2008 at 1:26 pm18. Zimzone:
RIP?
Don’t you mean:
April 30th, 2008 at 1:29 pmBIH
(as in: Burn in Hell)
If we get the Global Warming question wrong, the planet will be uninhabitable. If we are going to err, would it not be best to err on the side of human survival?
April 30th, 2008 at 1:30 pmhussein toasterhead Says:
And where is this hysteria the science deniers are always talking about? The only people I see in hysterics are the science deniers themselves.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
It’s a good thing people like us are around to take care of those piss-soaked morons.
Of course, they’d be happy with the end of our ability to live on this planet, cuz they’ll get to meet God — shortly before they are denied entry into their heaven. ;)
April 30th, 2008 at 1:31 pmNow they are resorting to brainwashing our children. What will they think of next?
When the polar ice caps start melting even more and the ocean levels rise. If any of those children live in coastal towns they may find out that their homes may be underwater. So much for the Myth of Global Warming, they will see the effect first hand.
It is truly incredible the propaganda machine this administration has created. What will they think of next after they have destroyed major parts of our planet? Not to mention the extinction of many species of animals. I wish this was just a bad dream…
April 30th, 2008 at 1:32 pmI wish this was just a bad dream…
It is not a dream. It is real; and it is happening. The fact that the right side has to resort to paying children to lie, tells you all you need to know about their ’science’.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:35 pmhussein toasterhead Says:
Why do conservatives hate education?
Because Bush’s Sec. of Education says that teachers are terrorists.
Education chief calls teachers union ‘terrorist organization’
That’s why he is building schools in Iraq, but not in the US. Bush says, “We have to educate ‘em over there, so we don’t have to educate ‘em here.”
April 30th, 2008 at 1:36 pmAlthough you may believe that anyone who questions man’s role in climate change should not be seriously considered, I believe this is an example of how simply insisting that the debate is over, won’t change any minds.
I submit that what may be a more productive way (if you really want people to change their minds and their lifestyles) to proceed, would be to do the difficult work of addressing the opposition with more and more scientific evidence.
I know that most here will say that there is all the evidence anyone should need and any more would just be wasted effort. I see the point.
I just believe, arbitrarily ending debate because you’re satisfied won’t win over any new support.
In order for people to become environmentally responsible, don’t you need (or at least wouldn’t it be more effective)the more people who actually believe it and incorporate it?
If you could change the minds of the people that dreamed up this school initiative - we wouldn’t be debating the effect on the children, because the effort wouldn’t have taken place.
Will the doubts go away, if you don’t address them?
April 30th, 2008 at 1:41 pmWhy would I believe WND when it comes to complex atmospheric and oceanic physics? Does Joe Farah know about the thermohaline conveyor system? El Ninas and El Ninos?
I say Joe Farah should suck on the tailpipe of a running automobile and see what the myth does to him.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:47 pmAnd when these kids grow up, their grandkids will write essays on “Why my idiot grandpa sold his soul for some cheezy prize money, the fu(kwad!”
April 30th, 2008 at 1:51 pmIf I were to have children in today’s America, I would have to send them across the pond for a real education. How sad is that?
April 30th, 2008 at 1:54 pmSpread the word….the truth lies within http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com Watch it. It’s a two hour documentory. It will change the way you look at the world.
With a tear in my eye, I really hope we can destroy these orginizations that undermine humanity. This has to stop.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:55 pmbackup Says:
I submit that what may be a more productive way (if you really want people to change their minds and their lifestyles) to proceed, would be to do the difficult work of addressing the opposition with more and more scientific evidence.
These are people who believe dinosaur bones were planted in the ground by God in order to test our faith in the bible. You don’t try to change such minds with more scientific evidence. You marginalize them by taking away their political power. First thing is to place people on school boards who will not allow rapacious corporations to pollute the minds of students with their self-serving propaganda.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:55 pm#30 - Send them to Canada, air fare is cheaper and the dollar is on par.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:56 pmbackup Says:
Will the doubts go away, if you don’t address them?
Will you go wawy, if we don’t address you?
April 30th, 2008 at 1:57 pmMaybe there should be another kind of contest for kids.
Have them come home from school on Friday, and go into the bathroom.
Turn on the heat lamp and close the door.
The next morning, go into the bathroom and shut the door.
Don’t drink any water, cause there won’t be any left. Don’t bathe, again, no water. Don’t eat, because the crops don’t grow in 120 degree heat.
Let them out at sunset on Saturday, give them water and food.
Then have them write an essay on “What it will be like if we don’t fix this shit”.
April 30th, 2008 at 2:04 pmsurprised?
April 30th, 2008 at 2:17 pmthat’s how the reich-wing forms coalitions - with bribes. it’s all they have. it worked for the iraq invasion.
backup Says:
I submit that what may be a more productive way (if you really want people to change their minds and their lifestyles) to proceed, would be to do the difficult work of addressing the opposition with more and more scientific evidence.
I just believe, arbitrarily ending debate because you’re satisfied won’t win over any new support.
Will the doubts go away, if you don’t address them?
April 30th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
The doubts won’t do away even if we do address them, and we do address them. Every time people come in here whining about how climate change is a myth, we counteract them with mountains of scientific evidence.
Doesn’t work. They still debate. There are some people who will never be convinced by scientific evidence - they will always argue despite having nothing to stand on.
April 30th, 2008 at 2:20 pmoctamethyl Says
April 30th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Sow ignorance in young children, reap mindless repug sheep.
______________________________________________________
Um…I think that’s the objective here, isn’t it? Children who believe the earth is ours to rape and pillage as they see fit, children who believe that the earth was created 6,000 years ago, children who believe that The Rapture is right around the corner so it doesn’t matter what we do, etc. But most important — children who won’t do any thinking on their own, but will obediently lap up propaganda catapulted at them by the neocon machine.
April 30th, 2008 at 2:22 pmI may go away. But, how likely am I to adopt progressive ideas if I’m not exposed to them?
And if you ignore someone, and they go away, aren’t they still going to vote and/or affect public discourse or policy to some degree?
Would you rather have those people at least consider your positions or would you rather they be blissfully unaware?
April 30th, 2008 at 2:23 pmWill the doubts go away, if you don’t address them?
The issue, Backup, is that these issues have been addressed…time and time again and for a number of years now. All that’s left to say is, “None is so blind as he who will not see.”
April 30th, 2008 at 2:24 pmThe fact that there are those who dispute the science of global warming actually says nothing about the science of the debate.
From what I can tell, those who dispute the science responsibly (i.e. with actual scienctific arguments) are few and far between. For some reason, almost invariably, GW deniers turn out to be aligned with the political Right. Same with evolution.
For those forces, even miniscule scientific dispute is very, very convenient. And faux-moderate apologists like backup seize on it and magnify its impact in order to kick up enough dust to assure that nothing gets done.
April 30th, 2008 at 2:31 pmbackup Says
April 30th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Although you may believe that anyone who questions man’s role in climate change should not be seriously considered, I believe this is an example of how simply insisting that the debate is over, won’t change any minds.
I submit that what may be a more productive way (if you really want people to change their minds and their lifestyles) to proceed, would be to do the difficult work of addressing the opposition with more and more scientific evidence.
_________________________________________________
Some people’s minds won’t change no matter how much scientific evidence is given to them. There are still people who believe the earth is flat, despite all the evidence that the earth is a sphere. There are still people who believe that God created the entire world pretty much the way it is now, during a six-day period about 6,000 years ago. And there are people who will always believe that the concept of global warming is a hoax, despite the scientific evidence presented.
The evidence will never stop coming — as scientists discover, their discoveries will be made public. Yet there comes a point where one has to realize that to continue debate with the terminally closed-minded is futile. Hopefully more people will see the threat before it’s too late, but there will be some who will never believe (unless God Himself appears to them in the flesh and says “you’re cooking the earth — stop it!”).
April 30th, 2008 at 2:34 pmbackup Says:
Would you rather have those people at least consider your positions or would you rather they be blissfully unaware?
April 30th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
_______
I’d love for the science deniers who show up here and on my blog whenever there’s a mention of climate change “at least consider my positions.” I present them with facts and data to back up my positions, and counteract their thoroughly debunked talking points.
And you know what? They’re still blissfully unaware. They will always be blissfully unaware, and they will produce tons of talking points and propaganda documents to support their ignorance, because there are plenty of people in the extractive, agriculture, utility, and transportation industries whose livelihoods depend on the continued ignorance of the blissfully unaware.
The anti-science forces in this country have so polluted public discourse that the scientific method is no longer the means by which we evaluate scientific validity. Now science is treated as a criminal charge - any small piece of reasonable doubt can lead to a “Not Valid” verdict.
April 30th, 2008 at 2:34 pmYou’ve been exposed to progressive ideas here for months, yet you have adopted very very few. If any.
You seem to get off on teasing progressives with the possibility that you can be convinced, yet your arguments for your positions, when offered, never seem to make much sense, and this phantom conversion never seems to materialize.
Most of us are on to your game, Cap’n, but I guess there are always new people discovering TP and they can serve as fodder for ya, right?
April 30th, 2008 at 2:42 pmI agree with you somewhat, but the problem I find when bringing up the issue, is that progressives treat pro climate change data as ‘gospel’ and anti climate change data as ‘junk science’. They treat pro climate change scientists as beyond reproach and anti climate change scientists as ‘quacks’.
I personally believe that most of the scientific data points to a global warming trend. I also think that man’s behavior has some impact. I think it is possible that some of the alarmism of climate change proponents is exaggerated to expedite policy changes. I’m not very confident that our forests will turn to deserts and all our coastal areas will experience ‘Truth’ type flooding anytime soon. And if they do, the overwelming cause will be non-human factors. And I absolutely resist turning over our economic decisions to global governing bodies. I don’t think organizations like the U.N. have that great a track record, and I think we should pause before we turn over decision making rolls to them.
I have however moderated my view, in large part from discussions here. I support higher emissions standards, conservation efforts (I do more personally at home) and other green initiatives.
I currently am mostly uncomfortable when climate change is used as the rationalization for wealth redistribution. And I also believe that many who support climate change initiatives may be underestimating the costs in economic terms, even though, they additionally lament todays (pre climate change policy) economy. (Although, it could benefit the environment, greater regulation won’t make the economy stronger - most admit that).
April 30th, 2008 at 2:42 pmAt some point, the scientific evidence becomes overwhelming enough that treating something as “gospel” makes sense, despite the negative spin your phrasing puts on it.
And your right-wing paranoia is evident in your willingness to see “income redistribution” behind efforts to address climate change. Have you been as alarmed by the redistribution of wealth upward over the past seven-and-a-half years?
April 30th, 2008 at 2:48 pmAlright, I give.
I see the point on the global warming deniers. (BTW, I don’t believe in God - I’m very married to evolution - but, I still have difficulty with the alarmism of climate change and the efforts to use it for political purposes). I don’t deny the earth is warming and that man plays some role. (how much, I don’t know).
I also give on the question of me changing my mind. I’ve been here for a couple of years. I have changed my mind on some things, become more understanding on others; but to be honest, not that much.
I’ve assumed that I could understand progressivism if I made an effort. I never considered progressives ‘dumb’ for their beliefs, only of having a different view than me - and one that maybe I could understand if I tried hard enough.
I think I’ve come to the conclusion that, although there are some exceptions, peoples brains are wired to either think as a conservative or as a progressive.
If I continue to post, I’ll try to give up the ‘people can change’ mantra.
April 30th, 2008 at 2:54 pmhussein toasterhead Says:
There are some people who will never be convinced by scientific evidence - they will always argue despite having nothing to stand on.
Faith based science.
April 30th, 2008 at 2:54 pmbackup Says:
I’ve assumed that I could understand progressivism if I made an effort.
That is quite an assumption. Personally, I don’t think you are capable of understanding on a higher plane.
backup Says:
…peoples brains are wired to either think as a conservative…
Those are the one’s with loose wires.
April 30th, 2008 at 3:00 pmAs if these guys will actually pay these kids…
April 30th, 2008 at 3:13 pmNews out of Colorado losing 1/2 their protected buffalo herd due to lack of grass because of drought. Lakes are drying up from coast to coast but hey, no global warming here. How about researching the dramatic changes BEFORE destruction instead of covering our eyes and ears. We spend money for research on more useless things than this.
April 30th, 2008 at 3:29 pmWe are not your baby sitters backup, believe it or don’t we don’t really give a crap. Second, this thread is not about whether climate change is real or not or man made or not. It’s about how deniers are paying children to advance their cause. Typical Republican, you think that everything is about you and your opinion. Get lost.
April 30th, 2008 at 3:31 pmIt’s really quite simple. Environmentalism has been branded a “liberal” issue and the Reichwing will resist by any means available. It’s impossible to pry their fixed minds away from a wedge issue. When evidence is presented it receives a resounding “That’s not evidence” from a legion of paid hacks. A far cry from what a unbiased scientist does when he/she examines evidence and decides on it’s viability.
Simply look at the motivations of the experts on both sides. Those who ascribe to the theory of imminent climate change due to greenhouse emissions by human activity constitute a group of thousands. They are scientists, from all parts of the world, passionately pursuing their diverse chosen fields, often, at great personal expense. Contrary to Reichwing propaganda most climate science is done without massive grants and most grants don’t provide a huge individual salary. Scientists rarely get rich through their discoveries and the vast majority of the “grunt work” is done by student assistants. Doing the grunt work can also mean long periods of primitive living in dangerous conditions. Climatology is rarely pursued in a lab or office. It’s more usual for scientists to be in a “lab” 10,000 feet up a mountain in a blizzard. The assertion that climate scientists are, somehow, in it for personal gain is absurd.
When one examines the deniers though, a different picture is revealed. The “scientists” denying global climate change are, often, not scientists at all. Those who are usually claim a discipline that has nothing to do with climatology. They do no field work. They rarely propose a serious counter theory. And, far from the peer reviewed process of granting funds for studies, the deniers are paid by those who do have a huge financial motive.
I believe the legal term is “Conflict of Interest”. Virtually every professional denier is paid by the energy industry. The remainder have obvious political, and/or religious, motives. They can usually be debunked, or discredited, with a 2 minute Google search.
April 30th, 2008 at 3:47 pmpete Says:
I believe the legal term is “Conflict of Interest”. Virtually every professional denier is paid by the energy industry. The remainder have obvious political, and/or religious, motives. They can usually be debunked, or discredited, with a 2 minute Google search.
Yes, the charlatans who are not directly employed by the fossil fuel industry can be easily traced back the the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
in a CEI report sent to Philip Morris, the think tank identified a range of companies and foundations as having given $10,000 or more. [5] Contributors included:
Aequus Institute
Amoco Foundation, Inc.
Coca-Cola Company, contributions were $25,000 per annum for the period 1991-1995;
E.L. Craig Foundation
CSX Corporation
Fieldstead and Co.
FMC Foundation
Ford Motor Company Fund
Curtis and Edith Munson Foundation
Philip Morris Companies, Inc.
Pfizer Inc.
Precision Valve Corporation
Prince Foundation
Sheldon Rose
Texaco, Inc.
Texaco Foundation
Alex C. Walker Foundation
In a 2006 profile of CEI and other global warming skeptics, Washington Post reporter Joel Achenbach noted that “the most generous sponsors” of CEI’s 2005 annual dinner were “the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Exxon Mobil, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, and Pfizer. Other contributors included General Motors, the American Petroleum Institute, the American Plastics Council, the Chlorine Chemistry Council and Arch Coal.” [6]
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute#Funding
April 30th, 2008 at 4:00 pm53, pete, good post.
April 30th, 2008 at 4:08 pmshoeless Says:
Yes, the charlatans who are not directly employed by the fossil fuel industry can be easily traced back the the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Yep. Rotten to the core.
It’s a classic case of authoritarian projection. Having a greedy agenda of their own they project their motives on the opposition. Then they reject any source they perceive as “liberal” while ignoring the motives of the Reichwing “sources”. What’s most disgusting though is their apparent willingness to let countless people die, over countless issues, rather than admit a possibility of error. It’s a tragic blend of greed, arrogance, and willful ignorance.
April 30th, 2008 at 4:12 pmGreed and arrogance by the uber-wealthy fossil fuel corporation executives, and willful ignorance by the hoards of their ideological right-wing minions. All good right-wingers are ignorant of the existance of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Many truly are ignorant, but when the fact of it is laid before them, they instictively know to suppress such information in their own weak minds, and to never utter the name of the organization.
April 30th, 2008 at 4:24 pmWhich “FACTS” were those?
April 30th, 2008 at 5:22 pmOdd I hold three degrees in the sciences although the biological sciences. I assume yours are in meteorology and other climate related fields.
April 30th, 2008 at 5:26 pmFact: Global average temps are at historic highs and rising at historic rates.
Fact: Atmospheric CO2 has risen at a rate commensurate with human emissions, and deforestation, since readings were first taken. (NOTE: The same can be said for countless other toxins and pollutants. Each of which could pose an equal, or greater, threat than CO2.)
Fact: Atmospheric CO2 is at an, at least, 800,000 year high. CO2 levels at, or above, current levels have always been associated with drastic climate changes and mass extinction.
Fact: The pH of ocean waters, worldwide, has dipped in proportion to CO2 increase. This is already affecting the shell formation of critical species at the base of the food chain.
Fact: The Earth is in the midst of a mass extinction event. We are losing species at a faster rate than the extinction of the “megafauna” 10,000-50,000 years ago.
Fact: Animals at the top of the food chain, humans in this epoch, are always gravely affected by cataclysmic events.
So, ninja, can you cite one accredited expert who disputes any of these facts? Someone who isn’t on the Exxon payroll, a fellow of The Discovery Institute, or a Regent University “grad”?
April 30th, 2008 at 5:40 pmOdd, I kind of thought we were concerned about global warming because we’re hearing from the scientists that life as we know it may soon go bye-bye.
Those with children were kind of getting worried for them, but, according to ninja97 we have nothing to worry about! Hooray!
April 30th, 2008 at 5:43 pmI wonder if the deniers’ resistance stems from being terrified of the idea that it’s all true? It is pretty depressing and scary after all.
April 30th, 2008 at 5:45 pmI belive I asked before where the premise of a static number arose from. My crede3ntials have nothing to do with this other than you tend to imply that others do not understand science which is unfounded. I also belive that I have pointed out that my background is not in climatology and it seems that neither is yours thus I tend to differ to those who truly hold expertise in this area. A strong consensus exists among them.
April 30th, 2008 at 5:46 pmIce cores sure do help
April 30th, 2008 at 5:47 pmWhich five of you called ninja97 any names?
April 30th, 2008 at 5:49 pmwikipedia.
April 30th, 2008 at 5:53 pm“How do we know what any levels of anything were 800,000 years ago?”
Dude, are you serious?
April 30th, 2008 at 5:53 pmHow do we know what any levels of anything were 800,000 years ago?
Thank you Mary. I was going to ask the very same thing. The thing about the earth is that it remembers stuff. If a scientist knows where to look (usually ice) and how far down to get it (evolutionary layers) the secrets reveal themselves. But see, the problem is the person looking for the information must care about FINDING the information. Folks like Ninja - no disrespect - sometimes look the other way when the facts are staring them in the face. That avoidance of the facts will doom us all.
April 30th, 2008 at 5:57 pmninja97:
April 30th, 2008 at 5:58 pmAre you familiar with the Keeling Curve data? You might find it interesting.
I think there is quite a bit of information that suggests CO2 actually follows temperature and does not cause the temperature change:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeDPXtSwtFA
April 30th, 2008 at 5:59 pmbackup Says:
Would you rather have those people at least consider your positions or would you rather they be blissfully unaware?
You have now posted several comments which claim or imply that “we” have not been presenting our positions and evidence to support them regarding global warming. You have suggested that all we do is dismiss or attack the global warming deniers. Anyone who is a regular reader at this web site knows that these claims are false. Mountains of evidence have been presented to the global warming deniers who troll here, to absolutely no effect whatsoever. While it might be the case that you are simply naive and ignorant, I can’t help but get the feeling that you are trying to unfairly cast the behavior of progressives in a negative light.
April 30th, 2008 at 5:59 pmTranslation:
Pete, since you offer facts to support your position, I now must discredit your facts, under the pretense of “reserving judgment”.
Isn’t contrarianism fun?
April 30th, 2008 at 6:00 pmAh, the old “what’s one degree” argument. You see, ANY change in temperature is just a measure of, in this case, the heat retained by the atmosphere. Heat, and Coriolis effect, drive weather. ANY added heat causes change.
So when a one degree change is noted, in average global tamps, that indicates a profound change in weather patterns. O.K. So what does that mean? What it means is that weather will deviate from it’s current “normal” pattern. Don’t let yourself be fixated on that one degree. For the local changes will be more in the order of tens of degrees. I once read a list of rules for climatology. One of them was, “In order for the average temperature to increase, the local records must be historically high”.
That one degree doesn’t mean it will go up one degree in Boston and one degree in Los Angeles. It means +20 degrees in Los Angeles and -19 degrees in Boston. It means jet streams and ocean currents will change. It means droughts and floods.
BTW, the same goes for the possible changes in sea level. That same combination of heat, Coriolis effect, plus tides, will distribute a “few feet” of water in strange ways. Los Angeles could end up on stilts while Boston could be dredging channels to the sea.
These changes are happening and they are well documented. In fact, the more data is collected, the more dire the problems appear. Processes which were predicted to take decades are increasing exponentially. It is, in fact, possible that the “tipping point” in the release of CO2, and other greenhouse gases like Methane, has already been reached.
All the signs are there, in hard data, and I have yet to identify one dissenter who had any credibility.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:04 pmThere is at least as much evidence showing the reverse. At the very least, there is tremendous evidence that the two phenomena are related.
And since CO2 is recognized as a greenhouse gas, it is reasonable to suggest that as CO2 levels rise, so will the amount of heat being trapped in the atmosphere.
See, the thing that right-wing deniers always overlook is that the theory of climate change is based on more than simplistic trend lines observed over decades. It is based on a complex model of atmospheric dynamics, and the observed trend lines are important because they to some degree follow predicted results.
It’s easy to dismiss stuff if you simplify, distort or simply ignore key parts of complex systems.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:08 pmDissenters are very invested in their beliefs. I would probably predict even when the Pacific Ocean is flooding homes in Yuma, Arizona; they would still look to the sky and wonder where all the rain came from.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:08 pmWARNING: I am about to call someone a name.
ninja97, you are a global warming denier.
Okay, so “global warming denier” isn’t really a name, it is a label, and in this case I am applying it because it accurately describes ninja97.
I no longer debate with this type of person. I have spent three years now trying it both here and at the WaPo, and it simply doesn’t work. The deniers that remain at this stage are simply unreachable. Some of them are clearly imbeciles, but many of them are intellectually dishonest people who refuse to engage in honest debate. They are here to sow misinformation, and to provoke.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:08 pmIf we get the Global Warming question wrong, the planet will be uninhabitable. If we are going to err, would it not be best to err on the side of human survival?
I wrote this post at #22, and I think it is necessary to post it again. I apologize for the duplicate, but I believe it speaks to the fundamental nature of our debate.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:13 pmbackup Says:
During the later portion of the Cretaceous (65-100 million years ago), average global temperatures reached their highest level during the last ~200 million years.
And all of the dinosaurs died. Paleontologists have noted that the dinosaurs were in serious decline, due to myriad diseases well before the asteroid hit.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:25 pmB-cup, glad you could join the discussion.
Your first point. I intentionally said “temps are at historic highs etc” and meant exactly that. In the history of, relatively, accurate gathering of correlated data. I specifically chose this period as the data, showing the correlation between human emissions and environmental degradation, is concrete.
Point two. Average global temperature and greenhouse gases exist in a direct relationship. Either can drive the other in a literally endless chain of events. And various factors can contribute to reaching a tipping point. Two relationships are very clear: 1. Increased CO2, and other greenhouse gases, does raise temps. 2. Increased temps, by changing weather patterns and disruption of ecosystems and carbon sinks, increases CO2, and other greenhouse gases, leading to a runaway event.
These points hold true through both historical, direct, readings and those based on archaic data. It just makes sense to limit the amount we contribute.
“How do we know what any levels of anything were 800,000 years ago?”
There are numerous ways to research the atmosphere in prehistoric times. Some of the most valuable are ice cores, growth rings, rocks formed at specific times which capture gases (much like ice cores), sediments from many environments contain material which indicates the atmospheric conditions. Let’s see… glass beads formed during volcanic eruptions and even meteor strikes. It seems they find new sources of tiny samples of ancient atmosphere, and better ways to confirm and correlate data, every day.
But, the general consensus is that accurate, relatively gap free, correlated atmospheric data goes back roughly 800,000 years; with ice cores from Greenland, I believe, providing the base line.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:37 pmPete, you are clearly a very knowledgable, thoughtful, and polite individual but did you really have to go and scare off the potential entertainment.
best-
April 30th, 2008 at 6:46 pmI believe in climate change. But, doesn’t this example indicate that the climate changes regardless of man’s activities?
April 30th, 2008 at 6:46 pmdbadass Says:
Pete, you are clearly a very knowledgable, thoughtful, and polite individual but did you really have to go and scare off the potential entertainment.
Well thanx db. I just can’t help but try, once in a while. Plus I have a nasty cold and took my NyQuil early AND had a fabulous meal. I have lots of extra patience right now.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:51 pmThis is a little like Paschal’s argument (that I also discount). Why not believe in God, because if you’re right, you go to heaven, but if you’re wrong, you haven’t lost anything.
If you start making economic decisions (that have real consequences) based on this theory, there really is a downside. Not unlike the decision to promote ethanol (in part as a low co2 emission alternative) that has had the unintended consequence of raise world food prices.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:53 pmI can hardly believe Ninja97 really used the “it’s a theory not a fact” babble, then was shocked when people called him stupid.
And no, Ninja97, no amount of data will “upgrade” a scientific theory from theory to law. If you knew anything about science, you’d know that.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:57 pmThe Tuvaluans aren’t overly concerned with their pocketbooks. They are more concerned with their own survival. We are all Tuvaluans in one way or another
April 30th, 2008 at 6:58 pmbackup Says:
And all of the dinosaurs died.
I believe in climate change. But, doesn’t this example indicate that the climate changes regardless of man’s activities?
April 30th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
O.K. One more try.
The best independent science clearly indicates that human emissions, and other environmental disruption, are contributing significantly to an ongoing rise in average global temperature, among other problems, created by our use of fossil fuels for energy and transportation.
Abrupt rises in average global temperature are cataclysmic events.
Cataclysmic events are CATACLYSMIC!
I can’t state my case any more clearly.
We should take every step human intellect can devise to reduce our impact on the environment. We don’t have to change our lifestyles, we just need a new generation of tools and toys. Those things always bring obscene long term profits and the ONLY sacrifice needed is the obscene short term profits of the energy industry.
I read an article which surmised that 30 some percent, of the net profit of the oil industry in 2007, would have built 50 solar/wind/water generation facilities suitable for cities up to 100,000 inhabitants. (I’ll try to find the link).
The pity is that the oil industry will go along with the auto industry and cling to old ways till the wells are dry. If so much wealth weren’t lost to greed and speculation? If a coordinated effort, backed by the wealth of the energy industry, were initiated they would soon learn that people will pay for solar, or hydrogen, or even (I think it’s inevitable) a well regulated nuclear industry.
The oil industry is way out on a limb and it’s busy sawing the branch off. Business as usual will result in the control of oil wealth going back to the source countries. Sensible companies, few of them American, are taking the lead in diverse energy sources.
“Our guys” appear to be content to live off their larder when the system crashes on their heads. And the funny thing is, the alternative energy which they so vehemently condemn, is what will save the economies which survive.
April 30th, 2008 at 7:31 pmbackup Says:
And all of the dinosaurs died.
I believe in climate change. But, doesn’t this example indicate that the climate changes regardless of man’s activities?
A little slow on the uptake, eh?
OK, let’s try to make this simple for the mentally challenged kid in the back row.
Climate change can, and has been caused by many things over the long history of the Earth. Severe changes have nearly always been accompanied by mass extinctions.
The current climate change is being caused by human activity. Mass extinction doesn’t care if the climate change is caused by natural forces, or by human avarice and negligence.
April 30th, 2008 at 7:36 pmshoeless Says:
Mass extinction doesn’t care if the climate change is caused by natural forces, or by human avarice and negligence.
Or by sheer stupidity, such as the one displayed by the climate change deniers in this thread.
April 30th, 2008 at 7:46 pmpete. I really can’t disagree with your posts too much. They are reasonable.
Maybe it’s a small distinction, but the only thing I disagree with is the probability that we are in a cataclysmic event.
But, if we are talking about making better choices, I’m on board and I can even see new, better economic opportunity.
But, I resist when the talk (not from you) turns to dire circumstances that require socialism type policies to rectify.
I think Gore and climate change proponents are doing good in terms of awareness. I think collectively we can do much better by the environment. As much as climate changers caution about neglecting the issue, I would caution letting alarmism lead us to poor economic decisions with little environmental benefit.
April 30th, 2008 at 8:10 pmThe point I am making is that climate change (warming and cooling) has happened continually thoughout Earth’s history; well before man arrived.
I acknowledge that the Earth is getting warmer. It has been getting warmer since well before significant human CO2 emissions. (You use to be able to walk between France and the U.K. until the sea level rose - well before modern civilization.)
The point is, if there has been significant climate change in the past (unrelated to human activity) why is so ridiculous to believe that our current climate change event may have little to do with human activity?
April 30th, 2008 at 8:17 pmCap’n, your insistence on linking responses to climate change with economic evils (”socialism”, “redistribution of wealth”) betrays your lack of interest in the debate. As does your specious arguments, such as “dinosaurs died from climate change”.
You’re either here simply to amuse yourself by putting us on, or else your intelligence level actually lies far below what would be indcated by your ability to form sentences. My money is on the former.
April 30th, 2008 at 8:35 pmMaybe Pete’s patient example in this thread has inspired me, but I’ll give this one more shot:
Cap’n, at the start of an inquiry, it’s not at all ridiculous to believe that our current climate change event may have little to do with human activity. However, your argument for that position starts and ends there, it seems. It requires you to ignore or dismiss both the theoretical basis for anthropogenic climate change and the experimental data that supports it.
In short, your argument has little footing until you can explain why the concept of the greenhouse effect, and its relationship to increasing percentages of atmospheric CO2, is false.
All I’ve seen from you, or from any climate change critic (always right-wingers, I’ve noticed) is a variation of one of the following tactics: either introduce the element of uncertainty and magnify its impact, or offer one or several alternate explanations (sunspots, undersea volcanos, what-have-you…) and pronounce oneself satisfied with that.
It’s weak, Cap’n. Very weak.
April 30th, 2008 at 8:47 pmralph. the dinosaur comment was from shoeless.
April 30th, 2008 at 9:01 pmI’m on board with science and am a die hard evolutionist.
But, scientists are not infallible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
If you consider Piltdown Man, it took scientists over 40 years to figure out they had been wrong about something much more obvious than climate change.
I also believe that we are currently in a political environment where, when people bring up contrary evidence to climate change theory, they are being castigated. Similar to the environment here, when someone brings up objections.
In that atmosphere, it is possible that an honest debate (even among scientists) about how critical the warming is, may not be possible.
April 30th, 2008 at 9:07 pmInteresting. Piltdown Man is usually brought up buy creationists when debating against the theory of evolution. They are also the ones who prefer the use of the term ‘evolutionist’ -whatever the hell that might mean.
Science and scientists are not infallible, that is true. It is, however, self-correcting -something that the people who argue against it often fail to grasp.
If it has been said before, I will say it again: There is consensus in the scientific community that global climate change is a reality and that human activity has an impact on global climate. The ’scientists’ who disagree are not ‘castigated’ -talk about conservative victim syndrome!- they are challenged to present facts to support their contention that the current rise in global temperatures either isn’t actually happening, or that it is unrelated to human activity. Global warming deniers have merely failed to make their case.
Much progress has been made since the times of the Piltdown Man fiasco. That is another scientific fact creationists tend to overlook.
April 30th, 2008 at 9:25 pmAs far as the “dinosaur’ remark goes, I was referring to this comment, Cap’n:
So, yes, you are technically correct that you weren’t the one who made the “dinosaur” comment. But, as is your habit, you somehow misread what I posted and, because I used the word “dinosaur”, you seem to have decided that my criticism was misdirected, even though I was clearly referring to the defense you posted in response to shoeless’s ‘dinosaur” comment.
As for the CO2 comment, yes, you provided a link that CO2 follows temperature. And pete addressed that claim very efficiently at 6:37.
I guess you are refuting my claim that I’ve only seen two variations of denier arguments, by demonstrating that you can, when it suits you, offer scientific evidence. I stand corrected. I generally consider uncompelling or easily dismantled scientific arguments to be worthless in debate, but it must be admitted that you did go beyond the typical script that I identified.
Please accept my apology.
April 30th, 2008 at 9:28 pmDid anyone on this thread say “scientists are infallible”?
If not, that consitutes something like a straw man argument, doesn’t it?
Oh, and Piltdown Man always makes me think of the Cardiff Giant. Not a clever as Piltdown, but then, the only ones it fooled were fundamentalists of the day.
April 30th, 2008 at 9:36 pmMaybe we should introduce Piltdown Man to Flores Man. Science is self correcting
April 30th, 2008 at 9:41 pmCreationists tend to bring up Piltdown Man whenever arguing against the theory of evolution in order to cast doubts on science as a whole.
Yes, science is fallible. But even more fallible are the fools who decide to believe blindly, in spite of the lack of evidence, and sometimes in spite of the evidence. Much like our latest troll here.
April 30th, 2008 at 9:42 pmThe point is, if there has been significant climate change in the past (unrelated to human activity) why is so ridiculous to believe that our current climate change event may have little to do with human activity?
Prehistoric environmental changes showed similar patterns to what we are seeing now. The difference is that we don’t know, in all cases, what caused the similar increase of the greenhouse effect. I might remind you that the measure of the greenhouse effect is temp and atmospheric gases combined. Some past events are attributed to volcanic activity, some to drastic changes in temp initiating a “cascade effect”, some for a hundred other causes. There is even some evidence that Solar activity can cause brief, dramatic changes. But, contrary to some rather questionable sources, there is no model of Solar activity that would cause the long warming trend we have directly observed. And many we don’t know.
That is, we don’t know specifically what caused the event. But we know with some precision what the environment does to initiate extinction events. And all the independent science indicates the human race is directly causing conditions which, historically, lead to catastrophic events.
Today we DO KNOW what is causing the increase in the greenhouse effect. We measure the increase, and our contribution to that increase, in great detail. We precisely weigh the exhaust of a million smokestacks and tailpipes and have hard numbers for what we are contributing. And, while it’s not 1-1-1, human emissions, greenhouse gases, and global average temps have risen in direct proportion since the beginning of modern industrialization and scientific discovery.
It doesn’t matter how many billions Mobile spends to cloud the issues. Any curious person with internet access can judge the data on their own. Start with Google and follow links. Check the vetting of the publication. If one examines the flawed reasoning of energy industry shills? There’s only one logical conclusion:
Humans are destroying the whole planet’s ecology by burning fossil fuels. There is no way to spin the discussion away from that conclusion. All that can be argued are time frames and matters of degree. Perhaps some discussion over weather a species was lost to toxicity or climate change.
I try to avoid the “worst possible case” for two reasons. 1. The worst possible case, though unknowable in degree, would already be inevitable. 2. The “best possible case”, which would be everything continues as is without imminent catastrophic effects, still results in the human race eventually destroying themselves and most everything else. To put it crudely, “we seem destined to poop ourselves out of existence”.
I defy anyone to find one reputable source which claims the Earth can simply heal itself, of our worst ravages, without a profound change in energy use and disposal of waste. Or our use of any resource.
It could be too late to prevent the damage. But we owe it to our descendants to mitigate the damage and strive to find ways to reverse it.
Will one see many people with financial/political agendas arguing for drastic action? Yes. Though the overwhelming number have scientific agendas. The same agenda as the ancient Greeks. To expand knowledge and improve the Human condition.
But I guarantee that every single one arguing for no change have a radical financial/political agenda. None have scientific agendas. And none seem to be expanding Human knowledge and improving the Human condition.
April 30th, 2008 at 9:46 pmAnd since we are talking about scientific shortcomings/fiascos, how about we mention its successes?
Penicillin, vaccination, computers, space travel, plate tectonics (A theory! Gasp!) -just to name a few.
Should I mention that space travel was made possible partially by our understanding of gravity (another theory!), and that vaccinations are a reality thanks to our understanding of virus and cells (Cells? Another theory!).
April 30th, 2008 at 9:55 pmWow, pete. Your performance on this thread has been just awesome. Truly worthy of some wide recognition. Thanks.
April 30th, 2008 at 9:56 pmralph. you never have to apologize to me.
April 30th, 2008 at 9:57 pmPete:
April 30th, 2008 at 9:59 pmApparantly you get better NyQuill than most! If no one else says it, thanks for being here and sharing your thoughts. I think you may very well be one of those global Tuvaluans
pete. you are on top of your game.
I am open to the science. But, again, for me I think it’s spliting hairs.
I agree with most of the initiatives, because they’re good for the environment (regardless of the cause of the warming).
April 30th, 2008 at 10:02 pmThanx for the kind words. But, it’s nothing not widely available. As a life-long outdoors man I’ve seen the destruction of local ecosystems. In places I used to catch frogs, as bait and dinner, there have been no frogs for years. Common species I’ve observed for 40 odd years are scarce or gone. In some cases they are being supplanted by intruders from the South. Opossum are common and were not considered indigenous to my region 30 years ago. Wetlands have become townhouses.
So, the environment has always been a particular area of interest. Once one starts reading the science, the conclusions are pretty obvious. And, though I haven’t done any formal research, I do have a lifetime of intimate participation in nature to add meaning to the theories and raw data.
I’ve also seen some local successes. We can restore some damage. Careful regulation has brought remarkable increases in some, formerly threatened, species. In many cases we know what to do but no one is throwing in the first dollar, or committing to long term investment.
So,I try to spread the word where I can. Feel free to quote me. I’m not above shameless self-promotion.
April 30th, 2008 at 10:22 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
Wow, pete. Your performance on this thread has been just awesome. Truly worthy of some wide recognition. Thanks.
May I second that sentiment?
April 30th, 2008 at 10:38 pmbackup Says:
I am open to the science.
In the same way the Vatican was open to the ideas of Galileo.
April 30th, 2008 at 10:44 pmbackup Says:
I am open to the science. But, again, for me I think it’s spliting atoms, which we know, is impossible.
April 30th, 2008 at 10:46 pmnsect Attack May Have Finished Off Dinosaurs
Asteroid impacts or massive volcanic flows might have occurred around the time dinosaurs became extinct, but a new arguemet is that the mightiest creatures the world has ever known may have been brought down by a tiny, much less dramatic force — biting, disease-carrying insects.
“In dinosaur feces, we found nematodes, trematodes and even protozoa that could have caused dysentery and other abdominal disturbances. The infective stages of these intestinal parasites are carried by filth-visiting insects.”
In the Late Cretaceous, Poinar said, the world was covered with warm-temperate to tropical areas that swarmed with blood-sucking insects carrying leishmania, malaria, intestinal parasites, arboviruses and other pathogens, and caused repeated epidemics that slowly-but-surely wore down dinosaur populations. Ticks, mites, lice and biting flies would have tormented and weakened them.
“Smaller and separated populations of dinosaurs could have been repeatedly wiped out, just like when bird malaria was introduced into Hawaii, it killed off many of the honeycreepers,” Poinar said. “After many millions of years of evolution, mammals, birds and reptiles have evolved some resistance to these diseases. But back in the Cretaceous, these diseases were new and invasive, and vertebrates had little or no natural or acquired immunity to them. Massive outbreaks causing death and localized extinctions would have occurred.”
April 30th, 2008 at 10:54 pmDid someone mentioned the atom?
That’s yet another theory! Is our entire understanding of how the universe works based on theories!?
Oh, the humanity!!!
/sarcasm off
April 30th, 2008 at 11:18 pmThanx again (blushing). I do what i can.
G’night good people.
April 30th, 2008 at 11:27 pmYou too trolls.
This is not even the worst of it. Ben Stein now claims that the teaching of evolution causes ‘kids’ to want to go murder folk! This was told Ben by Jesus, I’m sure!
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:14 am