Video: Chasing the Ice

Environment • Views: 3,895

Apparently, there are people who deny that global climate change is having drastic effects on the world’s ice caps and glaciers. Who knew?

If your mind isn’t closed, here’s a site that will open it even further: Extreme Ice Survey. It’s run by award-winning nature photographer James Balog, who uses time-lapse photography, conventional photography, and video to document the rapid changes occurring on the Earth’s glacial ice due to global warming.

Some of the EIS time-lapse videos are very scary indeed, graphically demonstrating the vanishing of these moving mountains of ice in a way that’s impossible to deny. (Impossible for those whose minds aren’t permanently closed, anyway.)

Here’s a teaser for the upcoming feature-length film “Chasing Ice,” about Balog’s crusade to bring awareness of these issues to the world.

UPDATE at 12/22/09 1:45:16 pm:

Here’s an extended talk by James Balog at TED, explaining his methodology and showing some of his more disturbing videos. (Hat tip: Gus 802.)

Youtube Video

Jump to bottom

472 comments
1 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:10:26pm

I had a frustrating conversation with my dad this morning, with him repeating the anti-CRU, anti-science talking points that the deniers worked so hard to get everyone talking about. My father is a good man, so I know he'll come around once he reads up on the issue, but it made me sad to see him hoodwinked like that.

2 Glen Davidson  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:11:28pm

It's transitional fossils all over again--they don't exist.

Point at them over and over, and they still don't exist Like a three year-old, they can deny what's right in front of them.

This is even better, because the missing ice is, well, missing. So they can play that game, too.

Glen Davidson
[Link: tinyurl.com...]

3 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:13:33pm

re: #2 Glen Davidson

Hey, that site sets off my Web of Trust in a big way. Says it's a spam/phishing site.

4 metrolibertarian  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:17:19pm

re: #2 Glen Davidson

It's transitional fossils all over again--they don't exist.

Point at them over and over, and they still don't exist Like a three year-old, they can deny what's right in front of them.

This is even better, because the missing ice is, well, missing. So they can play that game, too.

Glen Davidson
[Link: tinyurl.com...]

"th ice is mssng bcz god wantd hz drnk 2 b cold, he haznt drank in ions!" - Sarah Palin's twitter reply to your comment

5 Mark Winter  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:18:21pm

Soon I will be off to Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego. Very excited to do hiking in the Torre del Paine area and visiting the famous Perito Moreno glacier (btw one of only three Patagonian glaciers that are not retreating).

Look at this beauty!

Image: Perito_Moreno_Glacier_Patagonia_Argentina_Luca_Galuzzi_2005.JPG

Should I get VERY lucky I might snatch a last minute deal in Ushuaia to go to Antarctica.

6 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:24:21pm

re: #1 Obdicut

I had a frustrating conversation with my dad this morning, with him repeating the anti-CRU, anti-science talking points that the deniers worked so hard to get everyone talking about. My father is a good man, so I know he'll come around once he reads up on the issue, but it made me sad to see him hoodwinked like that.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard a religious parent use similar phrases to talk about how misguided their child is and they know they will come back to the fold once they see the "truth". (I'm not saying your science = faith based beliefs, but your language in describing your comparative knowledge is strikingly similar).

Don't start with the assumption that your Father is ignorant or hoodwinked. Validate his current understanding and add to it with sources like the one Charles linked above.

7 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:26:18pm

re: #6 DaddyG

How on earth is me saying that I know after my father reviews the science he'll correct himself similar to saying someone will regain religious faith?

And given that I know that my father is repeating things that I know to be propaganda pushed by the deniers, I think I'm fully justified in calling him hoodwinked.

8 political lunatic  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:27:04pm

If this doesn't change minds, nothing will. :(

9 Gus  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:27:43pm

James Balog at TED: Time-lapse proof of extreme ice loss

Youtube Video

Once upon a time, I was a climate-change skeptic.

I'm not one anymore. The evidence is in the ice.

James Balog on CNN

[Link: www.cnn.com...]

10 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:28:52pm

re: #2 Glen Davidson

It's transitional fossils all over again--they don't exist.

Point at them over and over, and they still don't exist Like a three year-old, they can deny what's right in front of them.

This is even better, because the missing ice is, well, missing. So they can play that game, too.

Glen Davidson
[Link: tinyurl.com...]

I was interested in the people who looked at the lasted human fossil--Ardi?--and demanded a transitional fossil. One one of the sites I was reading, one of the other posters actually said "Uh, that looks kind of both ape and human to me..." and was roundly ignored.

11 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:28:59pm

re: #8 political lunatic

This will in fact change minds.

12 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:29:09pm

re: #6 DaddyG

I can't tell you how many times I've heard a religious parent use similar phrases to talk about how misguided their child is and they know they will come back to the fold once they see the "truth". (I'm not saying your science = faith based beliefs, but your language in describing your comparative knowledge is strikingly similar).

Don't start with the assumption that your Father is ignorant or hoodwinked. Validate his current understanding and add to it with sources like the one Charles linked above.

Spot on.

13 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:32:18pm

re: #11 Rightwingconspirator

This will in fact change minds.

There are a lot of minds that aren't going to change so easily. They think that God is telling them one thing or another. They believe God is perfect, ergo we are perfect (created in God's image), therefore what we do is perfect and God's intention. Of course there are a multitude of counter arguments but they don't make a dent.

Reminds me of an old joke. A man goes to his priest and says he is dropping out of the faith. The priest asks why and the man tells him that he realized that he, himself, is God. The priest is shocked and asks the man why he thinks he's God. The man says: "Well every night, for my entire life, I kneeled by my bed and prayed before I went to sleep. The other night I realized that I was just talking to myself..."

14 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:32:57pm

re: #7 Obdicut It was the way you talked about him being hoodwinked. I see a clear distinction between an intelligent person who lacks up to date information and someone who is hoodwinked (I read that as duped).

You are fine to share information it just sounded condescending the way you phrased it. It also sounded very much like people who assume their neighbor or child is not as enlightened as them "if they could know the truth" type approach.

I see you didn't intend that to be condescending but it strikes me as counterproductive when some Lizards use lables like denier and terms like hoodwinked. Just because you are probably correct and have discussed it in detail previously doesn't mean that others are going to be attracted to better information by being called deniers or other tems that implies they are duped.

Its a fine point but one I see sticking in the craws of a lot of potential flouncers who otherwise might be more open to new ideas if treated in a less condescending manner.

15 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:35:28pm

re: #13 Cineaste
There's another great stereotype. Has anyone done a survey of people who believe in God and creation vs. agnostics and atheists to see where their beliefs about global warming fall. I'm willing to bet outside of the SoCon wingnut extreme there are a huge number of people who believe since the earth is a gift of God we should be better stewards of it and who believe the science that backs that up.

16 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:36:29pm

re: #14 DaddyG

I'm sorry, but given that I know my own father quite well, I think I can probably understand the approach best suited to convince him better than you can. I find it condescending, truly, that you'd tell me how to best approach talking to my father.

You'll also note that I didn't call him a denier for merely repeating propaganda, but said that he'd been hoodwinked-- in the same way Charles said that he had been. I don't think it's wrong to say that someone has been hoodwinked when they get misinformed by deliberate propaganda. It's embarrassing, but it happens to the best of us.

17 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:39:40pm

re: #15 DaddyG

The younger generation of Evangelical Christians has been doing good work focusing on that 'stewards of the earth' theme.

This article mainly focuses on the relationship with gay rights, but it points out environmentalism as well.

18 osprey34229  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:40:08pm

12k yrs ago the ice sheet covered over 1/2 of
the US . This is just a snapshot in time.
Lighten up!!

19 albusteve  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:41:41pm

I say, let's party like it's 10,000BC!

20 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:42:59pm

re: #13 Cineaste
Okay funny story, but I truly think videos & men like this will do a far better job than the Al Gore road show, trying to convince me my dog has a bigger carbon footprint than my SUV, or urinating before I fly commercial will help save the planet. These are things that keep an issue in mind, and matter very little outside the skull.
For example they used a medium dog as compared to an SUV driven very little, except of course to get the dog food. Even my cat is bad for the planet apparently. With all due respect for the "every little bit counts" crowd, I truly prefer a sense of proportion.

21 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:46:06pm

re: #16 Obdicut

I'm sorry, but given that I know my own father quite well, I think I can probably understand the approach best suited to convince him better than you can. I find it condescending, truly, that you'd tell me how to best approach talking to my father.

You'll also note that I didn't call him a denier for merely repeating propaganda, but said that he'd been hoodwinked-- in the same way Charles said that he had been. I don't think it's wrong to say that someone has been hoodwinked when they get misinformed by deliberate propaganda. It's embarrassing, but it happens to the best of us.

I wasn't really talking about your personal approach to your father. I'm sure you have that down pretty pat.

I was referring to the tone which turned me off a bit. I'll refrain from the condescending advice now since you definately don't want to hear what I've got to say about "how" the message is delivered.

22 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:48:10pm

re: #21 DaddyG

I wasn't really talking about your personal approach to your father. I'm sure you have that down pretty pat.

I was referring to the tone which turned me off a bit. I'll refrain from the condescending advice now since you definately don't want to hear what I've got to say about "how" the message is delivered.


OK that wasn't fair of me either. I'm just very sensitive to being hammered as a denier or dupe because I don't agree with the politics being generated out of the science. I probably read too much into your earlier statment.

23 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:48:31pm

re: #21 DaddyG

I wasn't really talking about your personal approach to your father.

I'm sorry, yes you were:

Don't start with the assumption that your Father is ignorant or hoodwinked. Validate his current understanding and add to it with sources like the one Charles linked above.

That is very clearly telling me what to do in regards to my father.

24 theheat  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:49:51pm

I haven't had any luck changing the opinions of deniers. They are tireless in their bullshit comebacks that range from it's a political plot by tree huggers, to it's just part of recurring natural events, to everything will be okay if we just have enough faith in God. There are more, but those seem to be the most common I've heard. Each one believes their own bullshit, probably more than they believe in gravity. Their bullshit is super special, incontrovertible, bulletproof bullshit.

So... my hat is off to people like Charles, and all the people you see making videos like this and publishing scientific reports, that keep fighting the good fight.

25 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:50:21pm

re: #23 Obdicut

That is very clearly telling me what to do in regards to my father.


It was an observation of your (and others) approach onLGF - honestly I don't even know how you speak to your father. I don't assume you told him to his face he was hoodwinked.

26 cliffster  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:50:35pm

"I think that man is very much a part of nature, and that nature is a part of civilization" So true. The idea that mankind is doing anything to nature is silly, it presumes that we sit over nature. We don't. Nature rules.

27 Gus  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:51:09pm

re: #18 osprey34229

12k yrs ago the ice sheet covered over 1/2 of
the US . This is just a snapshot in time.
Lighten up!!

The Wisconsin Glacial Episode did not cover over half of the United States.

28 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:51:16pm

re: #25 DaddyG

I'm going to drop this.

29 Varek Raith  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:51:43pm

re: #18 osprey34229

Having reviewed your past comments on AGW... Yeah, sure, whatever.
/condescension mode.

re: #26 cliffster

"I think that man is very much a part of nature, and that nature is a part of civilization" So true. The idea that mankind is doing anything to nature is silly, it presumes that we sit over nature. We don't. Nature rules.

Seriously?.. Sigh.

30 cliffster  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:52:43pm

re: #29 Varek Raith

Having reviewed your past comments on AGW... Yeah, sure, whatever.
/condescension mode.

re: #26 cliffster

Seriously?.. Sigh.

So you think that mankind presides over nature?

31 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:53:23pm

re: #26 cliffster

"I think that man is very much a part of nature, and that nature is a part of civilization" So true. The idea that mankind is doing anything to nature is silly, it presumes that we sit over nature. We don't. Nature rules.

How is it possible to look around you and not see humanity as doing anything to nature? We do stuff to nature all the time. Some of it good, some of it very bad in its effects.

32 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:53:29pm

re: #28 Obdicut

I'm going to drop this.

Agreed. I wasn't trying to offend you. Sorry.

33 Varek Raith  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:53:47pm

re: #30 cliffster

So you think that mankind presides over nature?

Presides, no. Able to frak it up, you betcha.

34 Gus  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:54:34pm

re: #26 cliffster

"I think that man is very much a part of nature, and that nature is a part of civilization" So true. The idea that mankind is doing anything to nature is silly, it presumes that we sit over nature. We don't. Nature rules.

That's an archaic way of thinking. With that premise in mind why do anything to curb mankind's impact on nature such as air and water pollution? Even on a basic level we have an impact on our environment.

35 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:55:18pm

re: #33 Varek Raith

Presides, no. Able to frak it up, you betcha.


We do preside by virtue of the fact that we are self aware, can imagine, have a will and have a conscience. With the ability to choose and imagine we had better darn well use it wisely. Crapping in our own sand box is not wise or moral.

36 Digital Display  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:57:21pm

re: #30 cliffster

So you think that mankind presides over nature?

When I was a kid..We had dirty water everywhere..Air in LA that would burn your eyes..Clear cut forestry...Nuclear leaks at various reactor sites..No protection of animals faced with extinction...We damn well control the environment.. Mankind has been called to be good stewards of our planet By God..It's the least we can do in our short period here...

37 albusteve  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:57:48pm

re: #33 Varek Raith

Presides, no. Able to frak it up, you betcha.

as an aside...there is a thing that has always pissed my off, always...and that is TV commercials that show big ass 4x4 trucks crashing off road through and along these nice creeks....throwing up rocks and water and looking Ford tough...it's sickening

38 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:58:11pm

Feel the love...

Is Charles Johnson (of LGF) a Transvestite Cross-Dresser?

39 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:58:36pm

re: #38 Charles

Feel the love...

Is Charles Johnson (of LGF) a Transvestite Cross-Dresser?

I did not know that. /

40 Sheila Broflovski  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:58:56pm

re: #38 Charles

Feel the love...

Is Charles Johnson (of LGF) a Transvestite Cross-Dresser?

He thought that photoshop of you as Eva Braun was real?

41 cliffster  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 1:59:45pm

re: #31 SanFranciscoZionist

re: #34 Gus 802

We are a part of nature. We have our own idea about what is good, what is bad, and the way we'd like things to be. Nature does not share those values. So if we pollute the water supplies, raise global temperatures, and generally make our home inhabitable to ourselves, then nature will quietly and without judgement snuff us out. I can see that many of you disagree with me. Check back in 100.000 years and see how much mankind sits above nature. (Ironically enough, it will probably be underneath 20 or 30 meters of nature that you'll find the remnants of man's civilization).

42 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:00:06pm

re: #38 Charles

Hey, they're just asking questions.

/

43 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:02:02pm

re: #41 cliffster

re: #34 Gus 802
Check back in 100.000 years and see how much mankind sits above nature. (Ironically enough, it will probably be underneath 20 or 30 meters of nature that you'll find the remnants of man's civilization).

I once read a comic about archaeologists unearthing present day civilization from a thick layer of dust on top of a thick layer of unsolicited mail addressed to occupant which buried the earth after the unintended consequence of a lowering of 3rd class postage rates.

I wish I could find it again. It was classic.

44 The Curmudgeon  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:03:03pm

re: #38 Charles

Feel the love...

Is Charles Johnson (of LGF) a Transvestite Cross-Dresser?

I got called precisely that at Free Republic. There must be something going around.

45 Gus  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:03:13pm

re: #41 cliffster

re: #34 Gus 802

We are a part of nature. We have our own idea about what is good, what is bad, and the way we'd like things to be. Nature does not share those values. So if we pollute the water supplies, raise global temperatures, and generally make our home inhabitable to ourselves, then nature will quietly and without judgement snuff us out. I can see that many of you disagree with me. Check back in 100.000 years and see how much mankind sits above nature. (Ironically enough, it will probably be underneath 20 or 30 meters of nature that you'll find the remnants of man's civilization).

Sounds like a form of nihilism.

46 Shiplord Kirel  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:03:53pm

I was reluctant to come around to the AGW position, but the science is compelling. I think we are facing a catastrophe. I am quite pessimistic about the ability of the global political system to formulate an effective solution.

Political opportunists and agitators of every stripe are using AGW to maneuver for advantage and promote their agendas. It is business as usual and the result is paralysis. In this country, for example, antiscience candidates like Florida's Marco Rubio are gaining in popularity. The far left, meanwhile, asserts that only rigid state control (with themselves as apparatchiks naturally) will resolve the problem.

They will still be arguing and peddling their favorite rhetoric when crops fail, the oceans rise and whole populations are displaced. They should consider the consequences for themselves, and for the political class in general, when that happens.

47 Gus  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:04:03pm

re: #38 Charles

Feel the love...

Is Charles Johnson (of LGF) a Transvestite Cross-Dresser?

Ignorant backwater hate on many levels.

48 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:04:18pm

re: #44 The Curmudgeon

Maybe they just discovered the word.

49 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:04:27pm

re: #44 The Curmudgeon

I got called precisely that [Tansvestite Cross-dresser] at Free Republic. There must be something going around.

...an attack of fabulous taste honey! /

50 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:05:43pm

re: #39 DaddyG

I did not know that. /

Here's the real question--did you care?

/

51 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:05:44pm

That was a beautiful, and very clear video. Thank you for posting.

When a politico like Sarah Palin who actually lives near this beauty decides for either political or religious reasons to deny the changes boggles the mind.

Imagine the benefit a politico from Alaska who actually understood, could provide to this issue.

52 jaunte  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:06:04pm

re: #48 Obdicut

They do seem to feel the need to immediately define 'transvestite' for an ignorant readership even if it makes the statement redundant.

53 Gus  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:06:04pm

re: #48 Obdicut

Maybe they just discovered the word.

Two words. It's kind of like calling someone a cop-policeman.

54 Semper Fi  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:06:22pm

re: #38 Charles

Feel the love...

Is Charles Johnson (of LGF) a Transvestite Cross-Dresser?

They're so desperate.

55 political lunatic  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:06:35pm

re: #38 Charles

You learn something new every day! (even if you REALLY didn't need to know it)
/// *sigh*

56 cliffster  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:07:08pm

re: #45 Gus 802

Sounds like a form of nihilism.

Seeing your place in the universe is not nihilism. Presuming to be stewards of nature is, however, highly presumptuous. Nature is the boss. Nature wins. If you think otherwise, that's ok, you have good company - so do 99% of the other humans in the civilized world.

57 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:07:37pm

re: #52 jaunte

They do seem to feel the need to immediately define 'transvestite' for an ignorant readership even if it makes the statement redundant.

Perhaps its like a double negative? If I am a Transvestite I wear women's clothing. If I am then a cross-dresser I would wear men's clothing. Therefore I am by my act of wearing men's suits a Transvestite cross-dresser.

I am also a male lesbian. /

58 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:08:12pm

re: #41 cliffster

re: #34 Gus 802

We are a part of nature. We have our own idea about what is good, what is bad, and the way we'd like things to be. Nature does not share those values. So if we pollute the water supplies, raise global temperatures, and generally make our home inhabitable to ourselves, then nature will quietly and without judgement snuff us out. I can see that many of you disagree with me. Check back in 100.000 years and see how much mankind sits above nature. (Ironically enough, it will probably be underneath 20 or 30 meters of nature that you'll find the remnants of man's civilization).

I agree that causing damage to the environment will, if we don't figure out a way to mend the damage, kill the lot of us, so I suppose we are on the same page there.

However, I would argue that we are still doing something to nature, even if the backlash is likely to deadly.

59 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:08:15pm

re: #56 cliffster

Seeing your place in the universe is not nihilism. Presuming to be stewards of nature is, however, highly presumptuous. Nature is the boss. Nature wins. If you think otherwise, that's ok, you have good company - so do 99% of the other humans in the civilized world.


If you break it you buy it.

60 brookly red  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:08:46pm

re: #57 DaddyG

Perhaps its like a double negative? If I am a Transvestite I wear women's clothing. If I am then a cross-dresser I would wear men's clothing. Therefore I am by my act of wearing men's suits a Transvestite cross-dresser.

I am also a male lesbian. /

just a long as you don't teach grade school...

61 Mark Winter  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:08:46pm

re: #38 Charles

Springtime for Hitler!
(These pitiful folks just can't hide their feelings)

62 Gus  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:08:58pm

re: #56 cliffster

Seeing your place in the universe is not nihilism. Presuming to be stewards of nature is, however, highly presumptuous. Nature is the boss. Nature wins. If you think otherwise, that's ok, you have good company - so do 99% of the other humans in the civilized world.

Presuming to be stewards of nature is, however, highly presumptuous?

Seriously?

63 Guanxi88  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:09:00pm

re: #45 Gus 802

Sounds like a form of nihilism.

I dunno. It sounds like realism, to me. We're not in charge, and we're not exempt from the causes that exterminate other species. We can do ourselves in by wholly natural processes, the inevitable consequences of our own poor decisions writ large across the face of the world.

Think of caribou out-breeding the capacity of their grazing areas.

64 The Curmudgeon  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:09:00pm

re: #48 Obdicut

Maybe they just discovered the word.

They're so quick to make such accusations over at Free Republic, I suspect they're the biggest closet on the internet.

65 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:09:00pm

re: #44 The Curmudgeon

I got called precisely that at Free Republic. There must be something going around.

Maybe they're catching the buzz off Pawlenty's thing about the cross-dressing schoolteachers?

66 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:09:28pm

re: #48 Obdicut

Maybe they just discovered the word.

If you use it three times in daily conversation, you'll remember it!

67 The Curmudgeon  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:10:51pm

re: #65 SanFranciscoZionist

Maybe they're catching the buzz off Pawlenty's thing about the cross-dressing schoolteachers?

Nah, they don't know my current persona. They were reminiscing about when I used to be there, bashing creationists.

68 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:11:09pm

re: #53 Gus 802

Two words. It's kind of like calling someone a cop-policeman.

There's an Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez novel, where a lady is warning her daughter not to go out to dinner with a woman they know, 'because she is a gay lesbian'. You know, sometimes you just have to be extra-clear about these things.

69 Mark Winter  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:12:03pm

re: #48 Obdicut

Maybe they just discovered the word.


Like toddlers who discovered that they can smear the wall with their own feces

70 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:12:10pm

re: #54 Semper Fi

They're so desperate.

Yes. They are. Charles Johnson says "these are the facts. Dispute them if you can."

The hate brigade says "Charles Johnson is a cross-dresser."

Dudes, if true, what possible relevence would this have?

71 Gus  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:12:12pm

re: #68 SanFranciscoZionist

There's an Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez novel, where a lady is warning her daughter not to go out to dinner with a woman they know, 'because she is a gay lesbian'. You know, sometimes you just have to be extra-clear about these things.

It's almost like baby talk.

Here's another one: astronaut-spaceman. ;)

72 cliffster  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:12:22pm

re: #62 Gus 802

Presuming to be stewards of nature is, however, highly presumptuous?

Seriously?

You're right, I was a little obsessed with "presumption" in that post. The point is, we are subjects of nature, not the other way around. We would be well served in understanding better our place. I say "we" would be well served, because if we don't, we are destined to be short-timers here. And when we're gone, the world will keep on truckin' without us.

73 Summer Seale  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:12:30pm

Okay, so like..somebody just showed me this video of ice melting and stuff...and I think I pretty much covered that in my talk yesterday in the other thread and stuff when I talked about how "smart" scientists don't understand that snow and ice melt, yannow?

But anyway, ok so I was thinking about it again while I was watching the video, and I'm thinking: you know, what really is amazing is how these climate change people don't understand how it's a good thing for things to be changing into a warm planet - as if it even is! You betcha it's good!

I mean, how can you not understand? Maybe it's because you weren't raised in Alass-ka like I was! But as much as snow is pretty and ice is too, you still want to be warm! Heck, even Essss-kimos want to be warm! I mean, why do you think we hunt moose up there and wear their furs? It's because we want to do everything we can to keep warm!

Am I right folks? Huh? You betcha I am! And...by golly, I'm not gonna let a bunch of brainy scientists tell me how it's supposed to be with God's plan!

You know, it's like when I was up in the wilderness hunting once with my dad, and we built a fire to stay warm at night! I mean, ice is pretty but you don't want it to kill you! Right? Right? You betcha!

Now I know that people are gonna say yeah, well, whatever....and that's okay, that's their deranged liberal opinion and all. Heck they probably like gay people too and pal around with terrorists. But it's okay because it's America, folks! That's what it's about!

We shouldn't be divided and argue about all this...we should support each other because God's plan says we're all in this together. Even the weirdos and the freaks who think that ice is melting when it shouldn't be, or whatever. And yes, even those people who think we fell off of the trees a few thousand years ago instead of being created by God....

That's why I'm running for Pres....oops...hehe...read a little too far on my speech card there, sorry. You didn't hear that, ok?

You betcha you didn't!

74 brookly red  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:12:30pm

re: #65 SanFranciscoZionist

Maybe they're catching the buzz off Pawlenty's thing about the cross-dressing schoolteachers?

/could be... I just hope the hamsters don't have to wear itty-bitty little garter belts...

75 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:13:32pm

re: #57 DaddyG

Perhaps its like a double negative? If I am a Transvestite I wear women's clothing. If I am then a cross-dresser I would wear men's clothing. Therefore I am by my act of wearing men's suits a Transvestite cross-dresser.

I am also a male lesbian. /

So's my dad.

76 Guanxi88  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:13:42pm

re: #72 cliffster

You're right, I was a little obsessed with "presumption" in that post. The point is, we are subjects of nature, not the other way around. We would be well served in understanding better our place. I say "we" would be well served, because if we don't, we are destined to be short-timers here. And when we're gone, the world will keep on truckin' without us.

When I look at our cities, I think to myself - "What ugly ruins these will make."

77 theheat  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:13:43pm

re: #38 Charles

Desperate and stupid. (C'mon, that's Hitler in the other chair. The Eva Braun thing is beyond tasteless.) The funny thing is, some of the biggest family values homophobes are the ones getting caught in compromising positions - either with other women or teh mens.

78 albusteve  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:14:25pm

re: #62 Gus 802

Presuming to be stewards of nature is, however, highly presumptuous?

Seriously?

just alot of hair splitting...nature does not 'win' every time, that's absurd on the face of it...a little too much drama me thinks

79 brookly red  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:14:28pm

re: #76 Guanxi88

When I look at our cities, I think to myself - "What ugly ruins these will make."

Osama? is that you?

80 Gus  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:15:07pm

re: #72 cliffster

You're right, I was a little obsessed with "presumption" in that post. The point is, we are subjects of nature, not the other way around. We would be well served in understanding better our place. I say "we" would be well served, because if we don't, we are destined to be short-timers here. And when we're gone, the world will keep on truckin' without us.

We are limited with what we can accomplish through technology. The majority of mankind's endeavors for 1000s of years has been to control nature in one form or another. Sometimes for good, and sometimes for bad. I presume (speaking of presumptions) that you're saying that climate change is natural and beyond our ability to control. The opposite to that is AGW which says it can be controled.

81 ryannon  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:16:02pm

re: #40 Alouette

He thought that photoshop of you as Eva Braun was real?

Eva never looked so good.

Hmm...

82 Sheila Broflovski  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:16:16pm

re: #76 Guanxi88

When I look at our cities, I think to myself - "What ugly ruins these will make ARE."

Living in Detroit, FTFY....

83 Mark Winter  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:16:41pm

re: #26 cliffster

"I think that man is very much a part of nature, and that nature is a part of civilization" So true. The idea that mankind is doing anything to nature is silly, it presumes that we sit over nature. We don't. Nature rules.

If you smoke a cigarette in a bone dry forest, you might find out what the difference between influencing nature and controlling it means.

84 theheat  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:16:56pm

re: #73 Summer

Summer, what have you been putting in your coffee? ;-)

When you start drawing your eyebrows with a Sharpie, I'm seriously going to start worrying.

85 cliffster  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:17:07pm

re: #80 Gus 802

We are limited with what we can accomplish through technology. The majority of mankind's endeavors for 1000s of years has been to control nature in one form or another. Sometimes for good, and sometimes for bad. I presume (speaking of presumptions) that you're saying that climate change is natural and beyond our ability to control. The opposite to that is AGW which says it can be controled.

I said no such thing. It's simply the attitude of Man's dominion that I am chiding. But I do feel like that attitude is responsible for our myopic treatment of the planet.

86 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:19:18pm

re: #84 theheat

Summer, what have you been putting in your coffee? ;-)

When you start drawing your eyebrows with a Sharpie, I'm seriously going to start worrying.

what do you mean, WHEN !!!

/

87 albusteve  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:19:55pm

re: #85 cliffster

I said no such thing. It's simply the attitude of Man's dominion that I am chiding. But I do feel like that attitude is responsible for our myopic treatment of the planet.

God must have intended we do something with our lives..he made sex pleasurable, therefor, population increase....he made natural grains, therefore....etc etc

88 cliffster  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:20:19pm

re: #85 cliffster

And since we're obsessing over words, "dominion" reminds me that I'm getting ready to read the book Dominion. I haven't had the stomach for it before, but I think I'm ready. Anyone else read it?

89 Mark Winter  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:21:00pm

re: #57 DaddyG

Perhaps its like a double negative? If I am a Transvestite I wear women's clothing. If I am then a cross-dresser I would wear men's clothing. Therefore I am by my act of wearing men's suits a Transvestite cross-dresser.

If a Transvestite is naked, is he still a transvestite?

90 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:21:54pm

re: #89 Mark Winter

If a Transvestite is naked, is he still a transvestite?

NATURally

91 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:21:55pm

re: #84 theheat

Summer, what have you been putting in your coffee? ;-)

When you start drawing your eyebrows with a Sharpie, I'm seriously going to start worrying.

That would just mean that she has turned into one of my least favorite students...

The totally least favorite one is a PK, naturally. He has all his own eyebrows, though.

92 theheat  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:22:03pm

re: #89 Mark Winter

He's at his most fabulous.

93 G'day Mate  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:22:30pm

[Link: wattsupwiththat.com...]

94 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:22:55pm

Here they come again.

95 brookly red  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:23:03pm

re: #87 albusteve

God must have intended we do something with our lives..he made sex pleasurable, therefor, population increase...he made natural grains, therefore...etc etc

...therefore BEER!

96 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:23:33pm

re: #89 Mark Winter

If a Transvestite is naked, is he still a transvestite?

Dunno. I guess that depends on whether he or she considers the cross-dressing to be a fundamental part of their identity, or just something that they do.

97 albusteve  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:23:55pm

re: #95 brookly red

...therefore BEER!

DRINK!

98 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:24:04pm

re: #96 SanFranciscoZionist

Dunno. I guess that depends on whether he or she considers the cross-dressing to be a fundamental part of their identity, or just something that they do.

Or, also, if he is still wearing lipstick when naked.

99 brookly red  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:24:12pm

re: #89 Mark Winter

If a Transvestite is naked, is he still a transvestite?

/it's astounding...

100 theheat  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:24:31pm

re: #91 SanFranciscoZionist

Palin and Bachmann have been sharing their Sharpies makeup tips.

I can't help it. It's my art background. I notice these things. It's a curse, really.

101 albusteve  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:26:31pm

re: #96 SanFranciscoZionist

Dunno. I guess that depends on whether he or she considers the cross-dressing to be a fundamental part of their identity, or just something that they do.

ah no...it's hardly that complicated

102 brookly red  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:27:20pm

re: #101 albusteve

ah no...it's hardly that complicated

/do tell...

103 albusteve  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:27:50pm

re: #102 brookly red

/do tell...

after I do my nails

104 harrisam  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:28:03pm

If I accept the theory that there is global warming happening currently why must I also accept that human beings contribute to it. And that eliminating or reducing that contribution will have any effect in significantly, or even marginally, reducing that warming. That is where I part ways with the people who want to negatively affect economies & quality of life. I don't understand why that makes me a "denier".

105 brookly red  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:28:36pm

re: #103 albusteve

after I do my nails

those arn't real, bitch

106 Varek Raith  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:28:58pm

Incoming!

107 theheat  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:29:57pm

re: #104 harrisam

"I'd do something unless it costs me money or is a pain in the ass."

That's the other reason I forgot to list.

108 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:30:26pm

re: #104 harrisam

2 levels of deniers

1) denying that Global Warming is even happening
(by your 1st sentence, with the "IF" preceding it, i take it you do deny it

2) agreeing that warming is happening but denying that mankind has anything to do with it

109 albusteve  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:30:54pm

re: #105 brookly red

those arn't real, bitch

neither are my lashes, so what?

110 brookly red  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:32:53pm

re: #109 albusteve

neither are my lashes, so what?

no, but they look so natural...

111 Semper Fi  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:33:08pm

re: #70 SanFranciscoZionist

Yes. They are. Charles Johnson says "these are the facts. Dispute them if you can."

The hate brigade says "Charles Johnson is a cross-dresser."

Dudes, if true, what possible relevence would this have?

Agreed. They seemingly will try anything.

112 albusteve  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:33:11pm

re: #104 harrisam

If I accept the theory that there is global warming happening currently why must I also accept that human beings contribute to it. And that eliminating or reducing that contribution will have any effect in significantly, or even marginally, reducing that warming. That is where I part ways with the people who want to negatively affect economies & quality of life. I don't understand why that makes me a "denier".

you are allowed to deny scientific fact if you want, and further if you deny scientific fact you are a denier....pretty simple

113 albusteve  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:33:37pm

re: #110 brookly red

no, but they look so natural...

I'm good

114 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:34:05pm

re: #104 harrisam

If I accept the theory that there is global warming happening currently why must I also accept that human beings contribute to it.

It's called "scientific evidence," and there is a mountain of it. Assuming you're actually asking an honest question, and are really interested in learning about the subject, here's a website that is a very good introduction to this evidence:

The Discovery of Global Warming - A History

115 brookly red  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:34:19pm

re: #113 albusteve

I'm good

you go!

116 wrenchwench  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:34:47pm

re: #104 harrisam

If I accept the theory that there is global warming happening currently why must I also accept that human beings contribute to it. And that eliminating or reducing that contribution will have any effect in significantly, or even marginally, reducing that warming. That is where I part ways with the people who want to negatively affect economies & quality of life. I don't understand why that makes me a "denier".


I guess there's a lot you don't understand, but you are willing to draw conclusions anyway.

304 harrisam11/17/2009 3:45:28 pm PST
This is just a question/ thought. Has anyone in the scientific community looked at the possibility that the earth underneath the Greenland Ice Sheet has warmed up. Considering the vents & geothermal energy that Iceland displays & uses & the research on Yellowstone, a warming earth in the area is not out of the question, is it?
117 Sharmuta  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:35:50pm

That was some very stunning photography and the time lapses almost made me cry. It's shocking, and when this film comes out, I wonder how the deniers will get around it.

118 Gus  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:35:55pm

Thanks for the hat tip Charles.

119 webevintage  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:37:57pm

OT.
Community Health Centers might just be the best part of the HCR bill being worked out:

[Link: www.c-span.org...]

[Link: sanders.senate.gov...]

I hope Sanders is able to make sure it remains in the final bill.

120 brookly red  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:39:30pm

re: #119 webevintage

OT.
Community Health Centers might just be the best part of the HCR bill being worked out:

[Link: www.c-span.org...]

[Link: sanders.senate.gov...]

I hope Sanders is able to make sure it remains in the final bill.


worked out is not the term that I would use...

121 webevintage  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:39:56pm

re: #117 Sharmuta

That was some very stunning photography and the time lapses almost made me cry. It's shocking, and when this film comes out, I wonder how the deniers will get around it.

I think these are just heartbreaking signs of the damage that has been done to our planet. I don't know how anyone can watch that and not be moved.
(Of course there are folks who still think we never landed on the moon, so...)

122 webevintage  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:40:15pm

re: #120 brookly red

worked out is not the term that I would use...

and what would you use?

123 Cheechako  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:40:26pm

I can observe the Mendenhall Glacier from my living room couch. Even this couch potato can see that the glacier has retreated in the 9 years I've lived here. Though it is amazing to see the time lapse photography.

124 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:40:33pm

re: #104 harrisam

If I accept the theory that there is global warming happening currently why must I also accept that human beings contribute to it.

Because that is where the science leads us. I suggest further reading, rather than thinking of this as a matter of like/don't like.

And that eliminating or reducing that contribution will have any effect in significantly, or even marginally, reducing that warming.

Again, where the science leads us.

That is where I part ways with the people who want to negatively affect economies & quality of life. I don't understand why that makes me a "denier".

I don't think anyone wants to negatively affect economies, except for some real jerks running small unpleasant countries. (Chavez, I'm looking at you.) What's your thought? We party until the water is over the roof?

125 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:40:47pm

re: #26 cliffster

"I think that man is very much a part of nature, and that nature is a part of civilization" So true. The idea that mankind is doing anything to nature is silly, it presumes that we sit over nature. We don't. Nature rules.

Totally. Those snow plows outside my house today are completely at nature's mercy.///

Of course we can affect nature in lots of ways, big & small. Take a look at CFC's and ozone depletion. Or do you not think that was real?

126 brookly red  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:40:50pm

re: #122 webevintage

and what would you use?

forced upon, works for me.

127 Mark Winter  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:43:26pm

re: #93 G'day Mate

Maybe you should have a reply, too.

There are hundreds of studies prepared by climatologists dealing with the influence that CO2 has on climate. The consensus is that CO2 HAS an influence.

You quote one study of a non-climatologist which does NOT investigate CO2 at all, but stipulates that CO2 has no effect.

Get the idea?

128 Locker  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:44:29pm

re: #104 harrisam

If I accept the theory that there is global warming happening currently why must I also accept that human beings contribute to it. And that eliminating or reducing that contribution will have any effect in significantly, or even marginally, reducing that warming. That is where I part ways with the people who want to negatively affect economies & quality of life. I don't understand why that makes me a "denier".

You ask "why must I also accept that human beings contribute to it" yet you remain confused as to why that makes you a "denier".

Refusing to accept the bolded statement is the core tenant of the denier community.

129 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:44:47pm

re: #26 cliffster

The idea that mankind is doing anything to nature is silly, it presumes that we sit over nature. We don't. Nature rules.

Or what about man-made jetties? We put some objects in the water and the ocean changes the way it erodes a coastline. We don't sit "over" nature and nature doesn't sit "over" us. We live in nature and we can affect the world around us by our actions.

130 Gus  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:44:56pm

re: #125 Cineaste

Totally. Those snow plows outside my house today are completely at nature's mercy.///

Of course we can affect nature in lots of ways, big & small. Take a look at CFC's and ozone depletion. Or do you not think that was real?

Or the reverse were we create artificial reefs with retired naval ships.

131 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:46:17pm

re: #128 Locker

You ask "why must I also accept that human beings contribute to it" yet you remain confused as to why that makes you a "denier".

Refusing to accept the bolded statement is the core tenant of the denier community.

there are actually two levels to the 'denier community"
see #108

132 Gus  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:46:20pm

re: #130 Gus 802

Where that is.

Google Image Search for artificial reefs.

133 brookly red  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:47:10pm

re: #131 sattv4u2

there are actually two levels to the 'denier community"
see #108

those spared & those stoned?

134 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:47:16pm

re: #130 Gus 802

Or the reverse were we create artificial reefs with retired naval ships.

English hedges, the traditional ones, are man-made and -maintained natural habitats. Also serve to keep cows in their right pasture. Some of them have been operated for eight hundred years or so.

135 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:47:40pm

re: #133 brookly red

those spared & those stoned?

good stuff, man ,,,,,

136 cliffster  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:47:58pm

re: #125 Cineaste

Totally. Those snow plows outside my house today are completely at nature's mercy.///

Of course we can affect nature in lots of ways, big & small. Take a look at CFC's and ozone depletion. Or do you not think that was real?

You miss the point. Groundhogs affect nature when they dig tunnels through the plains. They are, nonetheless, subjects of nature, not its ruler. You can say it's splitting hairs, and you wouldn't be the first to tell me that. But I think it's an important distinction. The same attitude that makes us think we can somehow hurt nature is the one that makes us think that we can do whatever we want - it's the attitude that we are the emperors of the world. We don't hurt nature, nature will be fine. What we do to ourselves, though - that's what we have to live with (or not live, as it were [did I just say "as it were"?])

137 Guanxi88  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:48:13pm

re: #134 SanFranciscoZionist

English hedges, the traditional ones, are man-made and -maintained natural habitats. Also serve to keep cows in their right pasture. Some of them have been operated for eight hundred years or so.

Hell, look at American suburbia - pure game park, my friends, perfect deer habitat.

138 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:48:40pm

re: #130 Gus 802

Or the reverse were we create artificial reefs with retired naval ships.

Exactly - a variation of my jetties comment just above yours.

Or how about a house on fire. Most people don't die from burns but they die from smoke inhalation. Well, if you set fire to your house the air becomes so filled with harmful gasses & particles (in this case, carbon monoxide, along with other things) that it will kill you. If we had no power to impact nature, wouldn't the air just absorb all that? Now take that argument and expand it, the world is our house and now set fire to it...

Obviously there is some hyperbole in that example but the concept is the same.

139 Gus  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:49:05pm

re: #134 SanFranciscoZionist

English hedges, the traditional ones, are man-made and -maintained natural habitats. Also serve to keep cows in their right pasture. Some of them have been operated for eight hundred years or so.

I assume that includes the hedgerows of Northern France?

Also to note that skyscrapers have become habitat for birds of prey.

140 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:51:15pm

re: #137 Guanxi88

Hell, look at American suburbia - pure game park, my friends, perfect deer habitat.

Over The Hedge!

141 Kilroy  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:51:37pm

re: #123 Cheechako
I've seen the same glacier for about the last 30 years and it sure has retreated a bunch.But I also see the new tree growth that occurs where the glacier was 100 or 200 years ago and it seems like it was moving back faster then. Captain Cook observed these glaciers as tidewater in the mid 1700 and they've been retreating ever since. The time lapse pictures are great but don't particularly show me anything that isn't a natural event.

142 Guanxi88  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:51:45pm

re: #136 cliffster

You miss the point. Groundhogs affect nature when they dig tunnels through the plains. They are, nonetheless, subjects of nature, not its ruler. You can say it's splitting hairs, and you wouldn't be the first to tell me that. But I think it's an important distinction. The same attitude that makes us think we can somehow hurt nature is the one that makes us think that we can do whatever we want - it's the attitude that we are the emperors of the world. We don't hurt nature, nature will be fine. What we do to ourselves, though - that's what we have to live with (or not live, as it were [did I just say "as it were"?])

Heidegger raised these and related concerns (though he was not the first) in "The Question Concerning Technology" - the rational-manipulative experience of Being as the storehouse or raw-material for human manipulation and exploitation.

Go back further to Hobbes, Bacon, and even Machiavelli, and you see the birth of the modern alienation from Nature, in which the established order is understood as necessarily defective and wholly passive.

143 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:52:09pm

re: #139 Gus 802

I assume that includes the hedgerows of Northern France?

Also to note that skyscrapers have become habitat for birds of prey.

Probably. I know more about the English ones, but I think the principle is the same.

And yeah, we have falcons in downtown SF. ;)

144 Mark Winter  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:52:34pm

re: #136 cliffster

We don't hurt nature, nature will be fine.


Sure. We can totally destroy nature, become extinct and in a million years nature will be back. Is that your point?

145 Guanxi88  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:53:34pm

re: #144 Mark Winter

Sure. We can totally destroy nature, become extinct and in a million years nature will be back. Is that your point?

We can destroy the environment, which will return the favor.

146 Sharmuta  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:53:39pm

re: #121 webevintage

I think these are just heartbreaking signs of the damage that has been done to our planet. I don't know how anyone can watch that and not be moved.
(Of course there are folks who still think we never landed on the moon, so...)

What really is sad is how easy LGF has made it for people to start enlightening themselves, and instead of watching the videos or reading the links, they carry on with their ignorance.

147 cliffster  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:53:44pm

Humans change the world to their liking. We do that as a group. Then, individually, we look at it and say, "oh shit, what have we done?" We've paved paridise and put up a parking lot, that's what we've done

148 badger1970  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:54:20pm

Other than doing our small parts to save the Earth, it's going to be up to the governments to implement real change. In the international game of chicken, the first country to do the right thing is going to get smacked economically. For right or wrong.

The global community sees the problem will never do anything about it.

149 Guanxi88  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:55:06pm

re: #147 cliffster

Humans change the world to their liking. We do that as a group. Then, individually, we look at it and say, "oh shit, what have we done?" We've paved paridise and put up a parking lot, that's what we've done

This was Pizza Hut, now it's all covered in daisies:

Youtube Video
150 cliffster  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:55:43pm

re: #147 cliffster

That was cheesy. *blush*

151 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:55:47pm

re: #146 Sharmuta

What really is sad is how easy LGF has made it for people to start enlightening themselves, and instead of watching the videos or reading the links, they carry on with their ignorance.

Don't you feel sorry for them?

152 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:56:04pm

re: #136 cliffster

You miss the point. Groundhogs affect nature when they dig tunnels through the plains. They are, nonetheless, subjects of nature, not its ruler.

So, if I read this right, you're saying that we can't affect nature because we are not it's "ruler". So that's a deist view that only God can change the world? Do you believe in free will either?

How about this, what if we launched & detonated every nuclear warhead we have on this planet tomorrow. The effects would change the environment for years if not decades or centuries. No? That would be man changing our environment and making it less habitable. Nature would still exist but our life would suffer greatly because of our own actions that changed our environment.

You can say it's splitting hairs, and you wouldn't be the first to tell me that. But I think it's an important distinction. The same attitude that makes us think we can somehow hurt nature is the one that makes us think that we can do whatever we want - it's the attitude that we are the emperors of the world. We don't hurt nature, nature will be fine. What we do to ourselves, though - that's what we have to live with (or not live, as it were [did I just say "as it were"?])

I think these are completely opposite view points. The person who says we can do whatever we want is saying we have no affect on the world around us. The person who says we can harm nature is saying that we can affect the world around us.

153 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:56:51pm

re: #123 Cheechako

I can observe the Mendenhall Glacier from my living room couch. Even this couch potato can see that the glacier has retreated in the 9 years I've lived here. Though it is amazing to see the time lapse photography.

re: #141 Kilroy

KILROY ,, that a glacier is moving (or 'retreating", as you phrase it) is not unnatural

That they are shrinking at an accelerated rate is

154 harrisam  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:56:58pm

re: #107 theheat
"I'd do something unless it costs me money or is a pain in the ass."

That is quite a jump there, "heat"! Everyone, to my knowledge, indulges in a cost/benefit consideration in a multitude of decisions. If it will cost me a million dollars to "guarantee" I won't get the flu I'll pass. I may get the flu or I may not but it's not worth a million to make certain. Same thing, for me, goes for "man made global warming". I don't see the evidence that our contribution is significant enough to affect the warming nor that it is worth, not a million, but trillions.

155 badger1970  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:57:15pm

re: #144 Mark Winter

Humans would be evolved by then if not extinct. Life on this planet will go on. The cosmic calender has us but a blip, the dinosaurs were the most successful. Humans tend to be too smart for their own good.

156 SixDegrees  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:59:41pm

re: #143 SanFranciscoZionist

Probably. I know more about the English ones, but I think the principle is the same.

And yeah, we have falcons in downtown SF. ;)

We've got a couple nesting pairs of Peregrine falcons in Detroit. I've seen and heard one of them, early in the morning, shrieking down at the empty streets with a cry that made your blood run cold.

That one nested on the Fisher Building for a while; I don't know if it's still there, but in the front of the building there is a large stone facade that partially walls off a section of flat roof where rainwater collects and runs down internal drains to storm drains below. At one point, the offices behind this structure started flooding, and when building maintenance went out to inspect the drains, they found them stuffed solid with pigeon heads put there by the falcon, who apparently didn't have much use for them.

It's been a while since I've heard anything about them. I should check and see how they're doing.

157 cliffster  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 2:59:53pm

re: #152 Cineaste

I think these are completely opposite view points. The person who says we can do whatever we want is saying we have no affect on the world around us. The person who says we can harm nature is saying that we can affect the world around us.

Agreeing to disagree is the best I can get from my shallow ability to explain things, then. We don't rule the planet. I think the attitude that we do is damaging to ourselves. I can't say it any better.

159 Sharmuta  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:02:43pm

The video of the Columbia glacier in the TED video at about 11 minutes or so is just unreal. A stunning amount of ice lost, and Sarah Palin should really, really be ashamed of herself.

160 Sharmuta  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:03:59pm

re: #151 Walter L. Newton

Don't you feel sorry for them?

No- I feel sorry for the people who will be living in the future.

161 harrisam  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:04:16pm

re: #108 sattv4u2

2 levels of deniers
1) denying that Global Warming is even happening
(by your 1st sentence, with the "IF" preceding it, i take it you do deny it
2) agreeing that warming is happening but denying that mankind has anything to do with it

(1)I should have put in "and I do" after the word theory in my original post.
(2)Never realized that qualifies me as a "denier". Very strict rules you have there. I also object to the choice of the word "denier" debate since it, I believe purposely, ties the argument to the Holocaust. An unfair & over the top association.

162 theheat  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:04:25pm

re: #154 harrisam

Obviously, it's all about you.

A habitable planet is worth how much to you? What's your health worth? What's your life worth? (To you, specifically.)

It's obvious you care a bunch unless it's inconvenient or costs money. You are precisely the type of denier I spoke of, earlier.

Pssst - money doesn't change facts. The fact is, controlling our effect on the environment will cost money, and will be a pain in the ass. No one said life is fair.

163 cliffster  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:04:58pm

I'm going to go get some stuff done. Pick weeds, clean the garage, watch ESPN, whatever. I'm on vacation. I mentioned this upstream, but if anyone has read and has any feed back on the book Dominion, let me know when we cross paths later.

164 Spare O'Lake  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:05:27pm

What it brought home to me is the incredible speed at which the changes are occurring. I have this sinking feeling that unless we luck into an extended natural cooling period then we are royally screwed, because mankind is highly unlikely to be capable of reversing this on his own initiative.

165 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:06:49pm

re: #157 cliffster

Agreeing to disagree is the best I can get from my shallow ability to explain things, then. We don't rule the planet. I think the attitude that we do is damaging to ourselves. I can't say it any better.

How is it damaging? Is it damaging to think we might be making our world less hospitable and wanting to change our actions that are doing that?

If you wake up each morning, get up, stretch, have a glass of water and then smack yourself in the face with a wood plank is it arrogant to one day decide to skip the plank?

We are doing things which are hurting us. The damage today may be minor but the accumulation of that damage over time is severe. We can stop doing some of these things. Why is it arrogant?

We learned that drinking water filled with sewage makes you sick with cholera so we invented sanitation systems so we wouldn't pollute our fresh water. We discovered that lead will poison you so we stopped using it in our dishes as a glaze and on the walls of our homes. We learned that deforestation can lead to landslides so we became smarter about where & how to log. Why should we not think about how we put carbon into the air? Why is it "ruling the planet" or "being over nature" to change our own behavior?

166 Mark Winter  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:06:57pm

re: #155 badger1970

Human life is still very young compared to the dinosaurs. It will (at least partly) depend on us whether we will share the fate of dinosaurs.

The dinosaurs could not influence their destiny.

167 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:07:05pm

re: #162 theheat

[snip]
It's obvious you care a bunch unless it's inconvenient or costs money. You are precisely the type of denier I spoke of, earlier.

Pssst - money doesn't change facts. The fact is, controlling our effect on the environment will cost money, and will be a pain in the ass. No one said life is fair.

Evidently, the money and cost was more important to the politicians in Copenhagen more so than coming up with a real binding agreement that could actually be used to hold peoples feet to a fire.

168 badger1970  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:08:50pm

re: #166 Mark Winter

Thus with our intelligence are able to weigh the options that would decide our own fate.

169 albusteve  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:08:52pm

all I can say is whoever gets to desalination and nuclear energy at a reasonable cost is going to make a mega fortune...water rules

170 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:09:02pm

re: #163 cliffster

I'm going to go get some stuff done. Pick weeds, clean the garage, watch ESPN, whatever.

Isn't that showing dominance over nature?

171 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:09:23pm

re: #161 harrisam

2 levels of deniers
1) denying that Global Warming is even happening
(by your 1st sentence, with the "IF" preceding it, i take it you do deny it
2) agreeing that warming is happening but denying that mankind has anything to do with it

(1)I should have put in "and I do" after the word theory in my original post.
(2)Never realized that qualifies me as a "denier". Very strict rules you have there. I also object to the choice of the word "denier" debate since it, I believe purposely, ties the argument to the Holocaust. An unfair & over the top association.

I see. So unless the discussion is specifically about the Holocaust, one can forevermore not use the word DENIER!?

That stated, to lump all 'deniers' into one pot is incorrect, imho. I think there are flat out deniers (damn, theres that word) (those who say there is no warming as well as those that deny (damn there's that word AGAIN) that man has anything to do with it

I think theres a 3rd set of people. They acknowledge that the earth IS warming and that man DOES it,BUT

A) they are skeptical as to what degree man causes it
and
B) they are skeptical about the dire predictions, like Kansas City will be ocean front in a decade

172 reine.de.tout  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:11:40pm

re: #38 Charles

Feel the love...

Is Charles Johnson (of LGF) a Transvestite Cross-Dresser?

Below, it says "related post - the Other McCain".
No surprise there.

173 harrisam  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:12:05pm

re: #128 Locker

That is news to me but if you say so then OK.
Tell me, if you can, why the word "denier" was chosen as the collective name for those who question the concept. It has a very pejorative connotation in light of the use of the word with respect to Holocaust Deniers.

174 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:13:12pm

re: #173 harrisam

That is news to me but if you say so then OK.
Tell me, if you can, why the word "denier" was chosen as the collective name for those who question the concept. It has a very pejorative connotation in light of the use of the word with respect to Holocaust Deniers.

1st sentence of 171

I see. So unless the discussion is specifically about the Holocaust, one can forevermore not use the word DENIER!?

175 Killgore Trout  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:13:15pm

Palin Twittering about Death Panels again...

...merged bill may b unrecognizable from what assumed was a done deal:R death panels back in?what's punishment 4not purchasing mandated HC?
176 allegro  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:14:06pm

re: #173 harrisam

So let's not call either group deniers. Dumbass works, too.

177 SixDegrees  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:14:33pm

re: #127 Mark Winter

Maybe you should have a reply, too.

There are hundreds of studies prepared by climatologists dealing with the influence that CO2 has on climate. The consensus is that CO2 HAS an influence.

You quote one study of a non-climatologist which does NOT investigate CO2 at all, but stipulates that CO2 has no effect.

Get the idea?

To be fair, the film introducing this thread wasn't made by a climatologist. Is this cause to dismiss it?

Also, there have actually been quite a number of papers published in peer- reviewed scientific journals, including climatological journals, investigating a hypothesized link between climate and cosmic rays. To date, the evidence has been inconclusive, at best, but research on the matter continues. I think the popular account linked in the original post overstates the matter significantly, but this is an active area of scientific investigation, not something hallucinated by some whacko between rants about chemtrails or something.

178 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:15:29pm

re: #173 harrisam

That is news to me but if you say so then OK.
Tell me, if you can, why the word "denier" was chosen as the collective name for those who question the concept. It has a very pejorative connotation in light of the use of the word with respect to Holocaust Deniers.

I checked the dictionary. I didn't see an entry or any sort of note "denier - see Holocaust." What are you talking about? Are you saying that pro-AGW people are using the word "denier" with the same force as it is used when referring to someone who refuses to accept that the Holocaust happened?

If you really mean that, do you have some proof of that connection?

179 albusteve  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:15:48pm

re: #173 harrisam

That is news to me but if you say so then OK.
Tell me, if you can, why the word "denier" was chosen as the collective name for those who question the concept. It has a very pejorative connotation in light of the use of the word with respect to Holocaust Deniers.

do you have a list of appropriate alternatives?

180 What, me worry?  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:16:17pm

re: #173 harrisam

That is news to me but if you say so then OK.
Tell me, if you can, why the word "denier" was chosen as the collective name for those who question the concept. It has a very pejorative connotation in light of the use of the word with respect to Holocaust Deniers.

If I could interject myself into this discussion...

I think saying One-Who-Refuses-To-Believe-In-Global-Warming is a little lengthy. I'm fairly sure the vast majority of us Jews would not object to the short version "Denier." I mean, you're not calling anyone a Nazi. A Nazi has really only one meaning (unless you're using obvious humor, like Soup Nazi), but denier? I think that's stretching it quite a bit.

181 Sharmuta  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:16:18pm

re: #173 harrisam

The word "denier" is used because it comes from the word "denial", which is what you're in. Instead of worrying about terminology and wasting our time, why don't you try looking into the actual science?

182 Mark Winter  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:16:29pm

re: #168 badger1970

Exactly. And the influence (positive or negative), we have on nature, is growing.
Nature still rules. There's little or nothing we can do about earth quakes, tsunamis, volcano eruptions. Nature could kill us all with an event we can't control.

But 50 years ago we'd have been powerless against an asteroid hitting earth and extinguishing all life.

In 50 years we won't be that powerless.

183 What, me worry?  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:18:23pm

re: #179 albusteve

do you have a list of appropriate alternatives?

This could get interesting.

They-Who-Shall-Not-Admit-to-Warming

They-Who-Shall-Not-Admit-to-Cooling

He-Who-Doesn't-Believe-In-Global-Warming (not very inventive, is it)

Oooo but then we'd leave out the ladies... my goodness, this may take some time.

184 cliffster  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:18:34pm

re: #170 Cineaste

No.


re: #165 Cineaste

Again, you're missing the point and reading into what I said. I never said it doesn't make sense to think about the carbon we put in the air. As I said many times, it's about attitude. I'm sorry I can't elucidate my point to you better.

185 theheat  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:19:37pm

re: #167 Walter L. Newton

That's because cost and personal inconvenience is a hard sell, particularly when selling to a constituency that includes deniers. That doesn't make it any less necessary. At some point, making these changes won't be voluntary, or contingent upon cost.

186 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:19:49pm

re: #177 SixDegrees

To be fair, the film introducing this thread wasn't made by a climatologist. Is this cause to dismiss it?

Well, unlike most on the denier/skeptic/doubter side, it was made by someone doing first hand documentary research. Though he is a photographer, I would submit he is documenting nature and thus equivalent to scientists. I would not put enormous stock in computer models this man wrote but rejecting his assemblage of evidence would be illogical. Most on the other side like to pick at the data put together by the consensus, they seldom never have original research to support their claims.

Also, there have actually been quite a number of papers published in peer- reviewed scientific journals, including climatological journals, investigating a hypothesized link between climate and cosmic rays. To date, the evidence has been inconclusive, at best, but research on the matter continues. I think the popular account linked in the original post overstates the matter significantly, but this is an active area of scientific investigation, not something hallucinated by some whacko between rants about chemtrails or something.

Solar activity and the current environmental change are divergent.

[Link: www.skepticalscience.com...]

1)

187 Stonemason  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:20:45pm

Let's say, hypothetically that I sit on the fence, that I can look around me and see that the climate is changing, has changed forever, but might be changing faster this time around. This change may have something to do with me, you, and every other living thing on the planet. Okay...simple question: (and I am being serious here, I am not flaming, this is what puts me on the fence)

If the science is settled now, we have caused the planet to warm, fine, I like science. Why then, when the science was settled and we humans were causing the next ice age in the mid '70s, is that science wrong but the new science right?

Please, I am serious here, I bought into that science then, that is the reason I am unsure of this science...

188 brookly red  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:21:21pm

...

189 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:21:50pm

re: #185 theheat

That's because cost and personal inconvenience is a hard sell, particularly when selling to a constituency that includes deniers. That doesn't make it any less necessary. At some point, making these changes won't be voluntary, or contingent upon cost.

What are you trying to convince me of?

190 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:21:52pm

re: #188 brookly red

...

---

191 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:22:00pm

re: #188 brookly red

?

192 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:22:11pm

re: #187 Stonemason

The science was not settled in the 70's, is the easy answer.

Here's the debunking of that:

[Link: www.skepticalscience.com...]

193 Sharmuta  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:23:18pm

re: #187 Stonemason

Because it is a myth that there was cooling in the 70s. Please check out this LGF thread about it:

Video: Climate Deniers Love the 70s

194 Spare O'Lake  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:23:26pm

re: #169 albusteve

all I can say is whoever gets to desalination and nuclear energy at a reasonable cost is going to make a mega fortune...water rules

Maybe, but something is telling me that if all the ice melts as quickly as we are being warned, then we might have a hell of a lot more rainfall, and hence fresh water, than we will be able to handle.

195 theheat  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:23:30pm

re: #189 Walter L. Newton

Don't be thick, Walter. I was basically agreeing with you, supplemented with why.

196 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:23:38pm

re: #187 Stonemason

Why then, when the science was settled and we humans were causing the next ice age in the mid '70s, is that science wrong but the new science right?

Please, I am serious here, I bought into that science then, that is the reason I am unsure of this science...

Because that statement is false.

[Link: www.skepticalscience.com...]

Go read.

197 brookly red  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:23:52pm

there is something funny happening when I try to post. It has happened before, but no it's not morse code.

198 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:24:06pm

re: #38 Charles

Real classy, those guys. Sophisticatred discourse, wrapped up nicely with a schlocky power-fantasy ultra-masculine blog title like SABER POINT.

/I'm the only crossdresser on this board

199 harrisam  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:25:08pm

re: #174 sattv4u2

I see. So unless the discussion is specifically about the Holocaust, one can forevermore not use the word DENIER!?

I don't remember saying that but when certain words have gained a reputation that connects them with certain horrendous events, that are in no way in dispute, then I figure the person/group that chose that word had an agenda. The "man made or man influenced" global warming is in dispute by not just crazy people but deniers of the holocaust are crazy people.

200 Stonemason  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:26:11pm

re: #192 Obdicut

The science was not settled in the 70's, is the easy answer.

Here's the debunking of that:

[Link: www.skepticalscience.com...]/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm


Thank you

201 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:26:19pm

re: #195 theheat

Don't be thick, Walter. I was basically agreeing with you, supplemented with why.

Really?

202 Greengolem64  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:26:23pm

re: #78 albusteve

Well...if you consider "nature" as the planetary ecosystem...then...YES...it does ultimately win every time. Certain aspects of the ecosystem lose...dinosaurs, other species that have become or are becoming extinct...but the planet goes on.

GG

203 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:27:37pm

re: #195 theheat

Don't be thick, Walter. I was basically agreeing with you, supplemented with why.

Probably could have been stated without that part!

204 windsagio  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:27:46pm

re: #198 WindUpBird

are you sure?


Like Sure-sure?

205 albusteve  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:28:36pm

re: #194 Spare O'Lake

Maybe, but something is telling me that if all the ice melts as quickly as we are being warned, then we might have a hell of a lot more rainfall, and hence fresh water, than we will be able to handle.

re: #202 Greengolem64

Well...if you consider "nature" as the planetary ecosystem...then...YES...it does ultimately win every time. Certain aspects of the ecosystem lose...dinosaurs, other species that have become or are becoming extinct...but the planet goes on.

GG

all I considered was the ridiculous semantic gymnastics applied to a simple theme...which even now you are perpetuating....have at it

206 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:28:42pm

re: #203 sattv4u2

Probably could have been stated without that part!

No it couldn't. Smart-assed is common response. Ludwig is the prime example of that.

207 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:31:03pm

re: #206 Walter L. Newton

No it couldn't. Smart-assed is common response. Ludwig is the prime example of that.

And as evidenced in the last thread!

It still always amazes me that someone has to throw a shot like that in when talking to other long time Lizards. I mean, I can see trashing a Troll with some well placed (and deserved) names, but being snarky is one thing, name calling is another, imho

208 SixDegrees  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:31:29pm

re: #186 Cineaste

Nonetheless, the statement was made that the cosmic ray hypothesis had been made by someone who wasn't a climate scientist. I assume that observation is there for a reason, and that the reason is to somehow denigrate the hypothesis on those merits. If that's a reason to reject the hypothesis, then the filmmaker's lack of credentials is also just as valid a reason for rejecting whatever message it is he's trying to convey.

I'm not sure why the reference to solar activity is relevant; the cosmic ray hypothesis has looked at extra-solar cosmic rays, which are of much higher energy than their solar counterparts, as the cause. Even if that were not the cause, a negative correlation does not eliminate an effect. In fact, it's very unlikely that cosmic rays are solely responsible, or even largely responsible for climactic effect. What's put forward is that their effect is not insignificant, and that is what has physicists interested in the first place.

209 harrisam  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:34:03pm

re: #181 Sharmuta
The word "denier" is used because it comes from the word "denial", which is what you're in. Instead of worrying about terminology and wasting our time, why don't you try looking into the actual science?

Since I am "One-Who-Refuses-To-Believe-In-Man-Made-Global-Warming" but am willing to discuss it, politely, I don't understand the need to be insulting. You can "stop wasting your time" by not replying to my posts.

210 Mark Winter  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:34:10pm

1) Questioning something means that you don't (yet) know better
2) Denying something means that you should know (or actually do know) better.

Denial is not always a lie, but almost always wilful ignorance

211 Spare O'Lake  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:34:47pm

re: #205 albusteve

all I considered was the ridiculous semantic gymnastics applied to a simple theme...which even now you are perpetuating...have at it

horse feathers

212 allegro  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:35:30pm

re: #209 harrisam

Since I am "One-Who-Refuses-To-Believe-In-Man-Made-Global-Wa rming" but am willing to discuss it, politely, I don't understand the need to be insulting. You can "stop wasting your time" by not replying to my posts.

Since, as you say, you refuse to believe it, what's the point of discussion?

213 windsagio  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:35:47pm

about the discussion of the 'kinds of deniers' (not gonna ref specific posts, too many)

Theres another kind that is being missed:

The concern-troll 'raising questions' kind, who claims to believe but throws dirt on the concepts behind AGW every chance they get.

214 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:36:36pm

re: #208 SixDegrees

Nonetheless, the statement was made that the cosmic ray hypothesis had been made by someone who wasn't a climate scientist. I assume that observation is there for a reason, and that the reason is to somehow denigrate the hypothesis on those merits. If that's a reason to reject the hypothesis, then the filmmaker's lack of credentials is also just as valid a reason for rejecting whatever message it is he's trying to convey.

[snip]

I do notice, over and over, when there is a reference to some AGW skeptic, or at least a scientist that doesn't march to the exact same tune as the Hadley/CRU group, then it's always important to point out that the person is not a climate scientist, instead he/she is a geologist or some other possibly allied regimen, but not a real climate scientist.

But if a person is totally of the "Accepted" school of AGW thought, the person can be a film maker, a geologist, a biologist (Denmark's Fog) and all sorts of allied scientist.

I wonder if underwear color also figures into the science?

215 albusteve  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:37:08pm

re: #211 Spare O'Lake

horse feathers

there is no such thing in nature

216 Sharmuta  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:37:20pm

re: #209 harrisam

You're not discussing anything relevant to the issue, and it's clear you're not interested in learning anything, otherwise you'd click the AIP link Charles gave. You are, therefore, wasting our time.

217 Spare O'Lake  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:37:55pm

re: #210 Mark Winter

1) Questioning something means that you don't (yet) know better
2) Denying something means that you should know (or actually do know) better.

Denial is not always a lie, but almost always wilful ignorance

Have you ever heard of the Socratic method?

218 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:37:58pm

re: #180 marjoriemoon

If I could interject myself into this discussion...

I think saying One-Who-Refuses-To-Believe-In-Global-Warming is a little lengthy. I'm fairly sure the vast majority of us Jews would not object to the short version "Denier." I mean, you're not calling anyone a Nazi. A Nazi has really only one meaning (unless you're using obvious humor, like Soup Nazi), but denier? I think that's stretching it quite a bit.


I think that the OWRTBIGWs would very much like to make this about the terminology, rather than the flaws in their belief.

219 Sharmuta  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:38:01pm

re: #212 allegro

Since, as you say, you refuse to believe it, what's the point of discussion?

Exactly.

220 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:38:11pm

re: #209 harrisam

Since I am "One-Who-Refuses-To-Believe-In-Man-Made-Global-Wa rming"

So you ,,, ummm,, deny it!!!

[Link: dictionary.reference.com...]

221 harrisam  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:38:44pm

re: #212 allegro

Refuses was a bad choice of words. Should have used "hesitates" maybe

222 Sharmuta  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:39:09pm

I think we should call deniers: They-Who-Cannot-Click-Links.

223 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:39:33pm

re: #214 Walter L. Newton

I wonder if underwear color also figures into the science?

What if the scientist doesn't wear any!?!?!

224 Stonemason  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:39:34pm

re: #196 Cineaste

So I did read, a site designed and supported by one side only.

Still on the fence, and here is why:

The media hyped it then, am I to think there is no hype now?

were those other papers squashed somhow? I noticed that the claim at that point was that "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…"

But in thirty years: "there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action."

I do my part to keep the world clean, I conserve fuel, I do not litter, I recycle when it makes sense, and I am a good steward of this planet.

Not becuase of some hype, but becuase it is the right thing to do. And in another few billion years, if humans are still on the planet, maybe thay can chuckle about this conversation.

225 albusteve  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:40:26pm

re: #222 Sharmuta

I think we should call deniers: They-Who-Cannot-Click-Links.

heh...heha

226 SixDegrees  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:41:28pm

re: #214 Walter L. Newton

I do notice, over and over, when there is a reference to some AGW skeptic, or at least a scientist that doesn't march to the exact same tune as the Hadley/CRU group, then it's always important to point out that the person is not a climate scientist, instead he/she is a geologist or some other possibly allied regimen, but not a real climate scientist.

But if a person is totally of the "Accepted" school of AGW thought, the person can be a film maker, a geologist, a biologist (Denmark's Fog) and all sorts of allied scientist.

I wonder if underwear color also figures into the science?

The idea that cosmic rays may have an influence on climate has been around for a few years now, and quite a number of papers have been published on it in a number of peer reviewed journals, authored by scientists from a range of disciplines including physics and climate science. As I've already noted, it is still very much an active area of investigation.

Apparently, it is necessary for me to include the disclaimer, "but this doesn't mean it's trying to overthrow AGW" or risk being labeled a 'denier.' Which has apparently become a synonym for 'asshole' for some.

227 albusteve  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:41:53pm

the Denial Panel has spoken....on to the Death Panel

228 Sharmuta  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:42:14pm

re: #224 Stonemason

Click on the link in Charles' #114. There is a lot of good, scientific information there. It's been a great resource for me, and I've learned a lot.

229 windsagio  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:42:36pm

re: #214 Walter L. Newton

random thought, can anyone find a reliable 'climate scientist' that DOES question AGW?

230 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:43:57pm

Just because

[Link: vodpod.com...]

231 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:44:38pm

re: #204 windsagio

are you sure?

Like Sure-sure?

Not sure-sure. :D Maybe I'm just the only one who would admit it!

232 Stonemason  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:45:22pm

re: #228 Sharmuta

I've read it all Sharm, really I have. and I have read the other side.

what I can not wrap my head around is the statistical insignificance of the data. we are using such a small amount of 'real' (collected, observed) data and then adding 'modeled' data to that to come up with results. Results that change every year I might add.

I'll sit on the fence and allow smarter people than me argue it.

233 SixDegrees  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:45:26pm

re: #230 sattv4u2

Just because

[Link: vodpod.com...]

Where can I buy one?

234 Kewalo  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:45:34pm

Wow! Thank you Charles. Those vids were just stunning.

235 Greengolem64  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:46:34pm

re: #152 Cineaste

I think these are completely opposite view points. The person who says we can do whatever we want is saying we have no affect on the world around us. The person who says we can harm nature is saying that we can affect the world around us.

I think the issue is that 'we' as man look at things in the context that we can understand...a blip on the Natural timeline...2000 years...maybe 10-20,000 if you want to push it back...

That doesn't even get 'us' through one Ice-age cycle...which IS a natural event.

We look at things that change in the short term and use those changes to then extrapolate and conjecture as to what is going to happen in the long term.

In the LONG term, nature will always re-balance the world, based on the status-quo of the time. Sure, we set off all the nukes in the world and that hoses up the planet for a few hundred, maybe even a 1000 years...again, just a blip in the NATURAL timeline...just as we humans are just a blip...look at how long dinosaurs were around...millions of years...

I see the point Cliffster is getting at, and I tend to agree. I used this argument during an undergrad class a few years ago and the prof. did not have a good alternative arguement at the time...

GG

236 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:47:00pm

re: #233 SixDegrees

Where can I buy one?

They're free

I do, however, own the banana concession!

237 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:47:17pm

re: #229 windsagio

random thought, can anyone find a reliable 'climate scientist' that DOES question AGW?

There's that guy Nir Shaviv that Spare hooked me up with, who had his goofy cosmic rays theory that was totally debunked because the data was exactly opposite what it would need to be for the rays theory to hold.. I don't think he's reliable, though :D

I just love how people will crawl over thousands and thousands of the top scientists on Earth and mountains of evidence that can be seen with the naked eye, to find the one guy who dissents, and he MUST BE RIGHT BECAUSE I WANT HIM TO BE RIGHT BECAUSE OMG LIBERALS

238 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:48:04pm

re: #229 windsagio

random thought, can anyone find a reliable 'climate scientist' that DOES question AGW?

Nope. Because 'reliable" is open you your interpretation, someone else's interpretation, in general open to interpretations. I've seen articles from scientist from MIT to the armchair types, who have trouble with just one model of warming. I've seen articles from scientist from MIT to the armchair types, who have no trouble with the standard warming model, but question the foundation causes and I I've seen articles from scientist from MIT to the armchair types, who are complete whack cases.

So, I can't answer your question, nor could I ever possibly satisfy anyone, from any side, on someone else's opinions.

239 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:51:49pm

re: #229 windsagio

random thought, can anyone find a reliable 'climate scientist' that DOES question AGW?

And it's not a very scientific question in itself. Define "reliable." Define "question." Is "question" one who agrees that there is warming, but has other opinion/scientist in regards to the source. Is "question" a scientist that almost 100 percent agrees with the standard model, but has "BETTER" science to prove AGW.

240 windsagio  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:51:50pm

re: #238 Walter L. Newton

Well I used 'reliable' 'cuz I worked 10 hours last night and haven't really had a chance to sleep, so I couldn't think of the real word.

"Scientist from MIT" is that just code for 'really smart qualified person'?

re: #237 WindUpBird

That is true! And I guess it speaks to Walters point I was asking about: Why do these anti AGW people get labeled as 'non-climate scientists'? Because They're not expert, and the deniers are digging through the generic scientist bin to find someone... And apparently people don't understand that 'scientists' don't know about everything.

241 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:52:39pm

re: #240 windsagio

Well I used 'reliable' 'cuz I worked 10 hours last night and haven't really had a chance to sleep, so I couldn't think of the real word.

"Scientist from MIT" is that just code for 'really smart qualified person'?

re: #237 WindUpBird

That is true! And I guess it speaks to Walters point I was asking about: Why do these anti AGW people get labeled as 'non-climate scientists'? Because They're not expert, and the deniers are digging through the generic scientist bin to find someone... And apparently people don't understand that 'scientists' don't know about everything.

Do film makers?

242 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:52:59pm

re: #229 windsagio

random thought, can anyone find a reliable 'climate scientist' that DOES question AGW?

NO, not anymore. The basic science is very firmly settled. There is plenty of debate about the various mechanisms and interactions and about how to improve predictions.

However there is no question from the data that we are warming and there is no question anymore that we are the primary cause. There is some very small debate as in a few people believe that somethings might also be significant contributors to the present trends, however, no one, and I mean no one legitimate argues with the thermometers, changing migration and climate patterns already recorded, or that CO2 is a GHG or that it is the primary driver of the current trend.

243 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:53:15pm

re: #240 windsagio

There are no currently publishing climate scientists who have challenged AGW and had their theories borne out by real-world observations.

244 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:54:05pm

re: #243 Obdicut

That is right. Reliable is in the data. The data are sound and they come in mountains from around the world.

245 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:54:32pm

re: #240 windsagio

Well I used 'reliable' 'cuz I worked 10 hours last night and haven't really had a chance to sleep, so I couldn't think of the real word.

"Scientist from MIT" is that just code for 'really smart qualified person'?

I used "Scientist from MIT" because I have read articles from MIT that questions certain aspects of AGW. You actually make my point that I can't even begin to answer your question because it is in no way a well defined question, and is more like bait, stinky.

246 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:55:52pm

re: #245 Walter L. Newton

I used "Scientist from MIT" because I have read articles from MIT that questions certain aspects of AGW. You actually make my point that I can't even begin to answer your question because it is in no way a well defined question, and is more like bait, stinky.

And I need to clarify. When I said "questions" above, I mean not questioning AGW, but questioning some of the finer points.

247 SixDegrees  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:55:56pm

re: #241 Walter L. Newton

Do film makers?

Walter, Walter, Walter - of course they do. Hollywood, after all, is the source from which all knowledge and wisdom springs, and by which it is delivered to the huddled, unwashed masses. So much so that even the lowliest of filmmakers, even one not from Hollywood, basks in enough of their beneficent dispensary of awesomeness to put them head and shoulders above any mere physicist when it comes to knowledge of climate science.
/

248 windsagio  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:57:39pm

re: #245 Walter L. Newton

dude, I was just asking, since you used the term 3 times in like 2 sentences. I'm not trying to pick a fight with you.

re: #243 Obdicut

and thank you! "Currently publishing" is what I was going for :)

re: #241 Walter L. Newton

I think theres nothing wrong with non-experts agreeing with and supporting the accepted wisdom. non-experts who disagree rightly get crapped on.

249 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 3:59:09pm

re: #247 SixDegrees

Walter, Walter, Walter - of course they do. Hollywood, after all, is the source from which all knowledge and wisdom springs, and by which it is delivered to the huddled, unwashed masses. So much so that even the lowliest of filmmakers, even one not from Hollywood, basks in enough of their beneficent dispensary of awesomeness to put them head and shoulders above any mere physicist when it comes to knowledge of climate science.
/

It nearly laughable to have someone make a statement such as "apparently people don't understand that 'scientists' don't know about everything..." yet if you asked the same question about the film maker who is the subject of this thread, you would be called a denier (which I'll say again and again, personally, I'm not).

250 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:00:00pm

re: #247 SixDegrees

Walter, Walter, Walter - of course they do. Hollywood, after all, is the source from which all knowledge and wisdom springs, and by which it is delivered to the huddled, unwashed masses. So much so that even the lowliest of filmmakers, even one not from Hollywood, basks in enough of their beneficent dispensary of awesomeness to put them head and shoulders above any mere physicist when it comes to knowledge of climate science.
/

HEY ,,,, I bathed ,,,, saturday night !! and will again ,, saturday night !!!

//

251 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:00:25pm

re: #248 windsagio

I think theres nothing wrong with non-experts agreeing with and supporting the accepted wisdom. non-experts who disagree rightly get crapped on.

LOL... you really are on record with this statement?

252 SixDegrees  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:00:50pm

re: #249 Walter L. Newton

It nearly laughable to have someone make a statement such as "apparently people don't understand that 'scientists' don't know about everything..." yet if you asked the same question about the film maker who is the subject of this thread, you would be called a denier (which I'll say again and again, personally, I'm not).

Also, the same people making such statements will leap to the film maker's defense, claiming that, well, in the film maker's case it's different...

253 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:01:08pm

re: #152 Cineaste

This discussion is a little silly. Of course we have an effect on the Earth... All of Pennsylvania used to be forest... not so much anymore huh?

What would a full out nuclear exchange do? Do people seriously doubt that we can affect our world?

Would anyone really think that 100 years of millions of coal fires and fossil fue fires world wide would have no effect?

254 SixDegrees  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:01:35pm

re: #250 sattv4u2

HEY ,,, I bathed ,,, saturday night !! and will again ,, saturday night !!!

//

Well, aren't we Mr. Fancy Pants?

255 windsagio  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:02:01pm

re: #251 Walter L. Newton

sure.

Why's it foolish?

256 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:02:38pm

re: #252 SixDegrees

Also, the same people making such statements will leap to the film maker's defense, claiming that, well, in the film maker's case it's different...

You mean like this...

re: #248 windsagio

I think theres nothing wrong with non-experts agreeing with and supporting the accepted wisdom. non-experts who disagree rightly get crapped on.

LOL.

257 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:02:52pm

re: #254 SixDegrees

Well, aren't we Mr. Fancy Pants?

What are these PANTS you speak of !?!?!

258 allegro  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:02:57pm

re: #252 SixDegrees

Also, the same people making such statements will leap to the film maker's defense, claiming that, well, in the film maker's case it's different...

This film maker needs no defense, unless one is accusing him of photoshopping or falsifying what he presents. He has produced a filmed documentary of what is actually happening along with specific measurements.

259 SixDegrees  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:03:46pm

re: #256 Walter L. Newton

LOL.

Oy.

260 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:04:02pm

re: #255 windsagio

sure.

Why's it foolish?

(here we go again, people putting words into someone's mouth)

Where did I say it's "foolish?" Where did I do anything but quote it and laughed? I can't laugh at your statement?

261 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:04:59pm

re: #252 SixDegrees


Do you feel it's no different to, say, be a non-physicist who supports the theory of relativity, and be a non-physicist who argues against the theory of relativity?

262 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:05:12pm

re: #214 Walter L. Newton

I do notice, over and over, when there is a reference to some AGW skeptic, or at least a scientist that doesn't march to the exact same tune as the Hadley/CRU group, then it's always important to point out that the person is not a climate scientist, instead he/she is a geologist or some other possibly allied regimen, but not a real climate scientist.

But if a person is totally of the "Accepted" school of AGW thought, the person can be a film maker, a geologist, a biologist (Denmark's Fog) and all sorts of allied scientist.

I wonder if underwear color also figures into the science?

Though I would submit, Walter, that often the person in question is working in their field of expertise. A photographer presenting photographic evidence of climate change is a good source. A photographer analyzing computer models is a less good source.

263 windsagio  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:05:28pm

re: #256 Walter L. Newton

no seriously. Thats it? What I said stands. A (boring) film saying that einstein was right would be fine, and would probably be in schools. A film saying that Einstein was a fool would be laughed out of the country. Its only natural.

And at the level of evidence we have, thats essentially what we're talking about here.

re: #258 allegro

exactly!

264 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:05:35pm

re: #260 Walter L. Newton

(here we go again, people putting words into someone's mouth)

Where did I say it's "foolish?" Where did I do anything but quote it and laughed? I can't laugh at your statement?

Take a shot at answering my 261, too, Walter.

265 SixDegrees  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:06:15pm

re: #258 allegro

This film maker needs no defense, unless one is accusing him of photoshopping or falsifying what he presents. He has produced a filmed documentary of what is actually happening along with specific measurements.

But he isn't a climate scientist. By the logic presented in the original post I was replying to, this is reason to reject the evidence presented in his film.

I shouldn't have to explain this, but note that I am not attacking the film. I am pointing out a lapse of logic on the part of the original poster, whose statement is a classic case of a non sequitur.

266 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:07:31pm

OT - it's fixin' to snow... you can feel it just holding itself in the air, just waiting for the right moment. Yippee, a white christmas, which is fine with me since I don't have to leave this room anytime this week. It's going to be chilly tonight, about 17, down to 3 Wed. night.

267 allegro  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:07:32pm

re: #265 SixDegrees

But he isn't a climate scientist. By the logic presented in the original post I was replying to, this is reason to reject the evidence presented in his film.

Ah, I see. Thread drift.

268 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:08:52pm

re: #265 SixDegrees

But he isn't a climate scientist. By the logic presented in the original post I was replying to, this is reason to reject the evidence presented in his film.

I shouldn't have to explain this, but note that I am not attacking the film. I am pointing out a lapse of logic on the part of the original poster, whose statement is a classic case of a non sequitur.

Neither you nor myself is attacking the film or the film maker (or the AGW model), only the silly non sequitur.

269 Pythagoras  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:09:41pm

re: #242 LudwigVanQuixote

NO, not anymore. The basic science is very firmly settled. There is plenty of debate about the various mechanisms and interactions and about how to improve predictions.

However there is no question from the data that we are warming and there is no question anymore that we are the primary cause. There is some very small debate as in a few people believe that somethings might also be significant contributors to the present trends, however, no one, and I mean no one legitimate argues with the thermometers, changing migration and climate patterns already recorded, or that CO2 is a GHG or that it is the primary driver of the current trend.

Just to be clear, you are affirming the phrase, "The science is settled."

270 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:09:46pm

re: #235 Greengolem64

In the LONG term, nature will always re-balance the world, based on the status-quo of the time. Sure, we set off all the nukes in the world and that hoses up the planet for a few hundred, maybe even a 1000 years...again, just a blip in the NATURAL timeline...just as we humans are just a blip...look at how long dinosaurs were around...millions of years...

I see the point Cliffster is getting at, and I tend to agree. I used this argument during an undergrad class a few years ago and the prof. did not have a good alternative arguement at the time...

GG

Fair enough. If you don't give a crap about what world your children and their children will live in then one can feel free to screw the joint up with the knowledge that the earth will still exist as a chunk of rock hurtling through space. I don't think there is anyone who denies that the earth will still exist in the future.

271 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:11:01pm

re: #267 allegro

Ah, I see. Thread drift.

You mean someone has gone off topic? Horrors? Whine, whine, whine. By the way, it wasn't Six Degrees who brought up the side topic that you are speaking to, go up thread and do a little homework. And who cares if the thread has drifted. Can't keep up? Do you have any idea what you sound like at this end?

272 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:12:19pm

re: #253 LudwigVanQuixote

This discussion is a little silly. Of course we have an effect on the Earth... All of Pennsylvania used to be forest... not so much anymore huh?

What would a full out nuclear exchange do? Do people seriously doubt that we can affect our world?

Would anyone really think that 100 years of millions of coal fires and fossil fue fires world wide would have no effect?

Apparently there are a few people in this thread who think just that!

273 allegro  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:13:12pm

re: #271 Walter L. Newton

You mean someone has gone off topic? Horrors? Whine, whine, whine. By the way, it wasn't Six Degrees who brought up the side topic that you are speaking to, go up thread and do a little homework. And who cares if the thread has drifted. Can't keep up? Do you have any idea what you sound like at this end?

Whoa! It was just a simple statement of understanding what started the stuff about the film and what appeared to be questioning its validity.

274 Pythagoras  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:16:01pm

re: #108 sattv4u2

2 levels of deniers

1) denying that Global Warming is even happening
(by your 1st sentence, with the "IF" preceding it, i take it you do deny it

2) agreeing that warming is happening but denying that mankind has anything to do with it

So what about this?

3) agreeing that the globe is warming and that anthropogenic CO2 contributes to this but denying that this is bad -- specifically that we're on the verge of hitting a "tipping point" where the warming will accelerate beyond just being a bit warmer and turn into a catastrophe.

275 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:17:23pm

re: #262 Cineaste

Though I would submit, Walter, that often the person in question is working in their field of expertise. A photographer presenting photographic evidence of climate change is a good source. A photographer analyzing computer models is a less good source.

How so?

Playing devils advocate here, but was that photographer at that very same place 10/20/50 years ago? Perhaps the same exact thing happens there every 50 years. A scientist would come up with ways to find out. A cinematographer, not so much

THAT a cinematographer found it to happen at the very time he was there to film it proves only that it happened at the time he was there to film it

AGAIN ,,, devils advocate

276 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:20:42pm

re: #275 sattv4u2

How so?

Playing devils advocate here, but was that photographer at that very same place 10/20/50 years ago? Perhaps the same exact thing happens there every 50 years. A scientist would come up with ways to find out. A cinematographer, not so much

THAT a cinematographer found it to happen at the very time he was there to film it proves only that it happened at the time he was there to film it

AGAIN ,,, devils advocate

You can't argue with it. If it was a freaking circus clown that agreed with the AGW model, all parts of it, 100 percent, they would be quoted.

Any other opinion, even if it was MORE science than the accepted model, bad. Notice that?

I have never denied AGW, but because I actually refuse to agree with every single thing I have had presented to me, even if I am just in the discovery stage, I'm a denier.

277 windsagio  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:22:09pm

re: #276 Walter L. Newton


Any other opinion, even if it was MORE science than the accepted model, bad. Notice that?

Find one. I dare you.

278 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:22:29pm

re: #274 Pythagoras

So what about this?

3) agreeing that the globe is warming and that anthropogenic CO2 contributes to this but denying that this is bad -- specifically that we're on the verge of hitting a "tipping point" where the warming will accelerate beyond just being a bit warmer and turn into a catastrophe.

Answered here

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

279 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:24:16pm

re: #277 windsagio

Find one. I dare you.

That's simple, Al Gore. Next question. His "science" goes far beyond the accepted model, at least now, interesting that.

280 Sharmuta  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:24:26pm

re: #273 allegro

Whoa! It was just a simple statement of understanding what started the stuff about the film and what appeared to be questioning its validity.

I'm not sure what there is to question of the photographer's credibility. He's a nature photographer who admits he was skeptical, but once he looked into the science more, was convinced by the evidence. He came up with the idea to do some time lapse photography, and it speaks for itself. What's there to question?

281 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:24:53pm

re: #276 Walter L. Newton

I'm a denier.

Can't use that word, we've been told!

282 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:26:01pm

re: #275 sattv4u2

How so?

Playing devils advocate here, but was that photographer at that very same place 10/20/50 years ago? Perhaps the same exact thing happens there every 50 years. A scientist would come up with ways to find out. A cinematographer, not so much

THAT a cinematographer found it to happen at the very time he was there to film it proves only that it happened at the time he was there to film it

AGAIN ,,, devils advocate

Good points. Perhaps I should qualify my statement. His information is reliable as primary source material. How to evaluate that information in a historical context is for someone else to say. The photographer can record evidence of what is happening in the real world, when that evidence matches up with expected behavior from climate models it becomes part of the overall argument. One big problem I have with the skeptic community is the astounding like of primary data they have.

283 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:26:45pm

re: #279 Walter L. Newton

That's simple, Al Gore. Next question. His "science" goes far beyond the accepted model, at least now, interesting that.

How, aside from times that he misspoke, does he go far beyond the accepted model?

I assume you meant models, plural.

284 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:26:53pm

re: #269 Pythagoras

Just to be clear, you are affirming the phrase, "The science is settled."

To be absolutely 100% clear the basic science of AGW is settled.

By the basic science, I mean that CO2 is a GHG, that is does indeed affect global ecology and climate, and that the basic mechanisms and largest feedbacks are well understood to be real and demonstrated to be happening right now.

This is as certain as anything ever gets in science - certain like the Earth is round and that it orbits the Earth certain. Certain like evolution happened certain. Certain that relativity is real certain.

285 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:27:15pm

re: #276 Walter L. Newton

You can't argue with it. If it was a freaking circus clown that agreed with the AGW model, all parts of it, 100 percent, they would be quoted.

You forgot your sarc tag Walter. Has anyone around here pointed to someone like that as a source? No...

286 allegro  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:27:17pm

re: #280 Sharmuta

I'm not sure what there is to question of the photographer's credibility. He's a nature photographer who admits he was skeptical, but once he looked into the science more, was convinced by the evidence. He came up with the idea to do some time lapse photography, and it speaks for itself. What's there to question?

LOL, it was a thread drift thing.

287 windsagio  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:27:50pm

re: #279 Walter L. Newton

hmm... Maybe its a clarity issue.

the quoted sentence conveys the meaning of 'if a disagreeing position had more science than the accepted model, that would be bad'.

Also, what does 'more science' mean? Do you mean 'better science'?

288 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:27:58pm

re: #280 Sharmuta

I'm not sure what there is to question of the photographer's credibility. He's a nature photographer who admits he was skeptical, but once he looked into the science more, was convinced by the evidence. He came up with the idea to do some time lapse photography, and it speaks for itself. What's there to question?

None, and nobody did question the film maker. Not one soul on this thread. There was simply a point being made using the film maker as an example. Go up thread to see what Six Degrees was talking about.

289 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:28:16pm

re: #280 Sharmuta

I'm not sure what there is to question of the photographer's credibility. He's a nature photographer who admits he was skeptical, but once he looked into the science more, was convinced by the evidence. He came up with the idea to do some time lapse photography, and it speaks for itself. What's there to question?

Well teh mode of the denier is to question anything that they don't like - even things as plain as time lapse photographs. It's like the Magritte panting of a pipe that says this is not a pipe.

290 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:28:37pm

re: #282 Cineaste

One big problem I have with the skeptic community is the astounding like of primary data they have.

Because for the most part the 'skeptic' questions the models of the coming affects. Those are yet to be seen, so they cannot present "primary data"
Thats why I differentiate between flat out deniers and skeptics

291 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:28:49pm

re: #289 LudwigVanQuixote

That's not a painting of a pipe. It says so right on the painting.

/

292 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:29:08pm

re: #279 Walter L. Newton

That's simple, Al Gore. Next question. His "science" goes far beyond the accepted model, at least now, interesting that.

That wasn't what he or you was saying, was it? You were saying that there were counter-arguments to AGW that have more science behind them than "consensus" views and you were challenged to name one. Naming Al Gore doesn't make sense...

293 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:29:42pm

re: #284 LudwigVanQuixote

PIMF

To be absolutely 100% clear the basic science of AGW is settled.

By the basic science, I mean that CO2 is a GHG, that is does indeed affect global ecology and climate, and that the basic mechanisms and largest feedbacks are well understood to be real and demonstrated to be happening right now.

This is as certain as anything ever gets in science - certain like the Earth is round and that it orbits the Sun certain. Certain like evolution happened certain. Certain that relativity is real certain.

294 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:29:55pm

re: #283 Obdicut

How, aside from times that he misspoke, does he go far beyond the accepted model?

I assume you meant models, plural.

"misspoke"?

You're kidding, right?

295 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:30:56pm

re: #279 Walter L. Newton

That's simple, Al Gore. Next question. His "science" goes far beyond the accepted model, at least now, interesting that.

Umm 1. How about actual scientists, and two Gore generally get's it right.

296 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:32:16pm

re: #294 sattv4u2

No, I'm not. Can you please provide me of an example of Gore making any mistakes with the science that are conceptual?

For the amount that he talks about AGW, for a non-scientist he does a very good job of presenting the science. Unfortunately, he's a bit of a grandstander with a big political liability as well. I'd prefer him to back off as a figurehead role, but not because he's done any sort of poor job with the science; he hasn't.

297 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:33:24pm

re: #290 sattv4u2

One big problem I have with the skeptic community is the astounding like of primary data they have.

Because for the most part the 'skeptic' questions the models of the coming affects. Those are yet to be seen, so they cannot present "primary data"
Thats why I differentiate between flat out deniers and skeptics

I don't know that I agree with the 'skeptic' definition you're using. We have seen plenty of examples of self-described 'skeptics' who repeatedly question the data itself. In fact, that was the source of much of the hysteria around the CRU. That the books were cooked and that data (which they wrongly claimed had been destroyed) had been manipulated.

298 allegro  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:33:58pm

re: #296 Obdicut

For the amount that he talks about AGW, for a non-scientist he does a very good job of presenting the science.

I applaud him for making it a big enough issue that we're finally all talking about it now and hopefully, beginning to address.

299 [deleted]  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:35:18pm
300 windsagio  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:37:07pm

re: #297 Cineaste

I think 'skeptic' can become a codeword, especially in places where outright denying AGW is unacceptable (for instance, here :p) Being a denier gets you in trouble, being a 'skeptic' both increases your credibility and shields you from criticism.

301 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:40:47pm

re: #300 windsagio

I think 'skeptic' can become a codeword, especially in places where outright denying AGW is unacceptable (for instance, here :p) Being a denier gets you in trouble, being a 'skeptic' both increases your credibility and shields you from criticism.

So anyone who questions any part of AGW is a "denier"

Are there any degrees of 'denial", or does it matter

What if someone totally agrees that the earth is warming, that it's mostly caused by man made CO 2 and that there will be problems, BUT,, they don't think that Chicago will be underwater

Same degree as someone who states flat out that not only is the earth NOt warming, it's cooling!?!?!

302 ckb  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:41:03pm

re: #186 Cineaste

Solar activity and the current environmental change are divergent.

[Link: www.skepticalscience.com...]

1)

This "rebuttal" article is concerned with solar forcing - showing that it has a negligable impact. I'm on board with that. But it has nothing to say about the Svensmark theory of cosmic rays and sunspots and clouds and their interrelation, which is what was originally being discussed.

303 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:41:16pm

re: #299 sattv4u2

Again, can you provide me with an example of a conceptual mistake that Gore made? That's not really conceptual.

I mean, Gore talks about AGW all the time. He doesn't fucking shut up about it. So you should be able to show some very serious mistakes on his part, right?

304 Right Brain  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:41:47pm

re: #284 LudwigVanQuixote

"To be absolutely 100% clear the basic science of AGW is settled."


Sorry, not this week:

Physicist Qing-Bin Lu just published a peer-reviewed paper with Elsevier's "Physic Reports" along with his data showing that Chlorofluorocabons in tandem with cosmic rays have been causing the recent heating, and not CO2.

Best quote of his paper:

“Most remarkably, the total amount of CFCs, ozone-depleting molecules that are well-known greenhouse gases, has decreased around 2000,” Lu said. “Correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate.”

Dutch science publisher Elsevier would not publish this without much thought and review. The notion that anything is settled is, well, unscientific.

305 windsagio  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:42:36pm

re: #301 sattv4u2

"can be" "CAN BE"

Obviously not every stated skeptic is just lying. I do think its something you have to look out for tho', its a reasonable enough rhetorical trick.

Putting things in absolutes doesn't help anything, but neither does dishonesty.

306 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:44:16pm

re: #303 Obdicut

Again, can you provide me with an example of a conceptual mistake that Gore made? That's not really conceptual.

I mean, Gore talks about AGW all the time. He doesn't fucking shut up about it. So you should be able to show some very serious mistakes on his part, right?

There are many websites dedicated to Al Gores 'conceptual mistakes'. Skip over the ones you will (and should) automatically dismiss as partisan, and it still leaves many more

[Link: www.google.com...]

307 Pythagoras  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:44:31pm

re: #276 Walter L. Newton

You can't argue with it. If it was a freaking circus clown that agreed with the AGW model, all parts of it, 100 percent, they would be quoted.

Any other opinion, even if it was MORE science than the accepted model, bad. Notice that?

I have never denied AGW, but because I actually refuse to agree with every single thing I have had presented to me, even if I am just in the discovery stage, I'm a denier.

Yes, the rhetoric does get overheated. As a "denier" I advise my fellow "deniers" to avoid using the word "hoax" to describe the AGW theory and its proponents. No matter how wrong they might be (still an unknown IMHO) this thing EVOLVED from a legitimate starting point. To accuse them of such a nefarious motive is at best a tactical error and probably a slander.

I happen to think that the science has advanced over the last decade or so and some of the AGW proponent are finding themselves screwed by this. Since they had developed a bit of a hero complex in the meantime, they didn't adjust to this well and this has led to some of the unfortunate behaviors we have seen.

But the skeptics have often been just as bad. Human nature is what it is.

308 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:45:37pm

re: #305 windsagio

"can be" "CAN BE"

Obviously not every stated skeptic is just lying. I do think its something you have to look out for tho', its a reasonable enough rhetorical trick.

Putting things in absolutes doesn't help anything, but neither does dishonesty.

Funny, coming from the poster that ,,, well ,,,,lumped them all together!

309 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:45:50pm

re: #306 sattv4u2

In other words, you can't actually provide an example.

Thanks.

310 windsagio  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:47:13pm

re: #308 sattv4u2

its a conditional. 'can' doesn't carry nearly the force that 'is' does.

Man, everything is about language today!

311 ckb  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:47:33pm

re: #242 LudwigVanQuixote

There is some very small debate as in a few people believe that somethings might also be significant contributors to the present trends, however, no one, and I mean no one legitimate argues ... that it is the primary driver of the current trend.

There is plenty of legitimate argument about it being the primary driver.

312 steve  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:48:12pm

A snowy dusting in Victoria's summer
Sam Terry, Friday December 11, 2009 - 18:12 EDT

[Link: www.weatherzone.com.au...]

313 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:48:14pm

re: #311 ckb

There is plenty of legitimate argument about it being the primary driver.

No, there isn't. This is simply false.

314 Sharmuta  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:48:29pm

re: #288 Walter L. Newton

None, and nobody did question the film maker. Not one soul on this thread. There was simply a point being made using the film maker as an example. Go up thread to see what Six Degrees was talking about.

I saw, and I didn't accuse anyone of anything. It's perhaps a poor analogy because I think Mr. Balog makes for a compelling figure for this issue. He'd be a better spokesman than Al Gore- less politicized and more sympathetic. A nature lover, photographer, former-skeptic going out on his own to make a documentary and coming back with some jaw dropping images.

I went back and watched the video from last night about the glacier in the Andes... That was really gut wrenching because those people are not going to be able to stay where there is no water. This is coming quickly for them, and it will be repeated around the world in countless villages, towns and cites who will no longer have water on the mountains to supply their rivers. What will happen in the United States if the Colorado goes dry? These are real changes in our climate that we are going to have to start dealing with and sooner than we may think.

So you and Six Degrees will hopefully forgive me for speaking up for this gentleman going out and immortalizing in film this moment in time. It was not meant to be a defense from a stated accusation, but in general. After watching the two videos Charles linked, this looks like an important film and adds real weight to the evidence; it provides us with a chance to visualize what exactly this whole issue means. I wanted to speak up not because a defense was needed, but because I wanted to give one. Hope that makes sense.

315 Pythagoras  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:48:35pm

re: #278 sattv4u2

Answered here

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Good -- my question is not original. However, citing a similar question is not "answering" it. What's the answer? Are they "deniers" are just legitimate "skeptics" or even something milder like "honest scientists."

316 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:49:13pm

re: #309 Obdicut

In other words, you can't actually provide an example.

Thanks.

In other words
1
Is Tennessee Warmer? Gore says that since he was a child, he has seen the effects of global warming on his family farm. Inconveniently for Gore, however, any changes on his farm could not have been caused by global warming.
According to National Climatic Data Center records, Tennessee has cooled by more than a half degree since Gore was born. Indeed, monthly temperature records show the state’s warmest 30-year period since 1895 was 1925 to 1954
2
Is Global Warming Causing the Snows of Kilimanjaro to Melt? Early in the film, Al Gore shows some powerful photographs of the diminishing snow-pack on Kenya’s Mount Kilimanjaro, implying that human-induced warming is the cause.
The snows of Kilimanjaro are retreating, but according to studies in the International Journal of Climatology and the Journal of Geophysical Research, the retreat began in the late 19th century — before most human greenhouse gases were emitted.

317 steve  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:49:15pm

re: #310 windsagio

its a conditional. 'can' doesn't carry nearly the force that 'is' does.

Man, everything is about language today!

First we must define what 'is' is!

318 windsagio  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:51:00pm

re: #317 steve

*cuts wrists*

319 Pythagoras  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:51:26pm

re: #284 LudwigVanQuixote

To be absolutely 100% clear the basic science of AGW is settled.

By the basic science, I mean that CO2 is a GHG, that is does indeed affect global ecology and climate, and that the basic mechanisms and largest feedbacks are well understood to be real and demonstrated to be happening right now.

This is as certain as anything ever gets in science - certain like the Earth is round and that it orbits the Earth certain. Certain like evolution happened certain. Certain that relativity is real certain.

We're close to agreeing. I think there's still a lot of progress to be made on the feedbacks and the non-linearities therein (e.g. clouds).

320 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:52:12pm

LGF's Law of Climate Change Discussions:

"Every thread about climate change will eventually turn into an Al Gore bashing session."

321 Right Brain  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:52:23pm

re: #313 Charles

No, there isn't. This is simply false.

Well then you would have to account for Elsevier publishing Qing-Bin Lu paper this week stating that an entirely different mechanism was responsible for warming and that it is now stopping.

322 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:54:43pm

re: #316 sattv4u2

Can you please provide the quote he said about his family farm?

The second example, you realize of course, is not a conceptual mistake. If I say that radiant heat can melt ice, and then show ice melting, and then it's revealed that it was direct sunshine melting that ice, I'm in no way making a conceptual mistake.

323 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:54:51pm

re: #302 ckb

This "rebuttal" article is concerned with solar forcing - showing that it has a negligable impact. I'm on board with that. But it has nothing to say about the Svensmark theory of cosmic rays and sunspots and clouds and their interrelation, which is what was originally being discussed.

My understanding of Svensmark's theory, which I am by no means an expert on, is that it relies on all forms of cosmic radiation, not just deep-space cosmic radiation. The predominant cosmic radiation we receive is from the Sun and the amount of radiation hitting the earth over the past six decades diverges from the expected results of Svensmark's theory. The earth has gotten warmer and yet there has been no noticeable increase in cosmic radiation (solar or otherwise). Am I incorrect on this one?

324 Pythagoras  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:57:33pm

re: #323 Cineaste

My understanding of Svensmark's theory, which I am by no means an expert on, is that it relies on all forms of cosmic radiation, not just deep-space cosmic radiation. The predominant cosmic radiation we receive is from the Sun and the amount of radiation hitting the earth over the past six decades diverges from the expected results of Svensmark's theory. The earth has gotten warmer and yet there has been no noticeable increase in cosmic radiation (solar or otherwise). Am I incorrect on this one?

The cosmic rays that Svensmark is concerned with come from deep space (e.g. from novas). The idea is that the solar flux deflects these cosmic rays (which affect cloud formation). Less solar flux means more low clouds and that may lead to cooling.

325 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:57:42pm

re: #321 Right Brain

Well then you would have to account for Elsevier publishing Qing-Bin Lu paper this week stating that an entirely different mechanism was responsible for warming and that it is now stopping.

No, actually -- you need to account for the thousands of peer reviewed scientific articles stating that CO2 is the main driver of global warming, and that it's getting worse very quickly.

326 Pythagoras  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:58:35pm

re: #325 Charles

No, actually -- you need to account for the thousands of peer reviewed scientific articles stating that CO2 is the main driver of global warming, and that it's getting worse very quickly.

But doesn't this show that there is a debate going on?

327 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 4:59:59pm

Just like clockwork -- as soon as the latest denial claim pops up at Anthony Watts's denial site, people come in and post it here as if it's the definitive proof that AGW is a hoax!

It's tedious and predictable.

328 windsagio  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:00:14pm

re: #326 Pythagoras

*prays this is just missing a sarc tag*

329 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:01:18pm

re: #322 Obdicut

Last time I gave you a direct link, I got deleted,

SO ,,,I googled for you, in quotes to narrow it down (because without the quotes I got over 148,000 hits)

"Gore says that since he was a child, he has seen the effects of global warming on his family farm"

[Link: www.google.com...]

330 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:02:11pm

re: #326 Pythagoras

But doesn't this show that there is a debate going on?

There's always debate going on and I didn't say there wasn't. I was responding to the claim that there is "plenty of legitimate argument" that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change. There isn't. There's "some" debate about this, but very little of it is legitimate.

331 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:03:37pm

re: #329 sattv4u2

And I said, can you please provide me with Gore's quote? That is a paraphrase of him. I would like to see what he actually said.

Do you get my basic point? Gore talks A LOT about global warming. For the amount he talks, it should be easy, easy, easy peasy for you to show actual quotes from him demonstrating failure to comprehend the science, if he really does. It wouldn't be hard, and take a lot of searching. I googled that myself and I couldn't find a link to what Gore actually said.

332 Right Brain  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:05:36pm

re: #325 Charles

No, actually -- you need to account for the thousands of peer reviewed scientific articles stating that CO2 is the main driver of global warming, and that it's getting worse very quickly.

Umm, they were published earlier with less information?

This is NEW information, as of this week actually. You seem to be ignoring the source because you don't recognize the name. Elsevier, the Dutch science publisher, is the leading science publisher in the world, their "Physics Report" is the most prestigious physics journal (I know I am arguing from authority which I hate) and published this research this week. Other science journals are all over it, I would link the paper but its a $31 download. Here is an abstract:

[Link: insciences.org...]

333 windsagio  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:06:12pm

re: #332 Right Brain

so newer is always righter.

Got it.

334 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:06:42pm

re: #331 Obdicut

As you stated, he talks a LOT. For me to wade through every utterance by him to give you THE quote would take eons

I provided a link that purported to state that he said it. i provided other links narrowing it down wityhin quotation marls, not even knowing if that was THE exact words he used, but if they weren't I would not have found THE exact words

335 Pythagoras  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:07:11pm

re: #330 Charles

There's always debate going on and I didn't say there wasn't. I was responding to the claim that there is "plenty of legitimate argument" that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change. There isn't. There's "some" debate about this, but very little of it is legitimate.

I suppose this boils down to how many peer reviewed papers it takes to have "plenty" of legitimate argument. I'll concede that this isn't defined well enough to resolve.

336 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:08:37pm

re: #324 Pythagoras

The cosmic rays that Svensmark is concerned with come from deep space (e.g. from novas). The idea is that the solar flux deflects these cosmic rays (which affect cloud formation). Less solar flux means more low clouds and that may lead to cooling.

There seem to be some real divergences between the expected outcome of Svensmark's theory and the observable data though. Again, I really am not well versed in this area, however the concerns seem reasonable. What seems to show up in several of these theories is that sometime in the last 40 years the earth started accelerating its warming in a way that defies almost any of the natural models for 'natural' warming.

[Link: www.skepticalscience.com...]

337 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:09:09pm

re: #332 Right Brain

Prediction: this paper is going to be checked and found to be bogus.

I do love how you just brush off all of the previous scientific research, though, as soon as Anthony Watts posts to his blog.

338 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:09:28pm

re: #331 Obdicut

And I said, can you please provide me with Gore's quote? That is a paraphrase of him. I would like to see what he actually said.

Do you get my basic point? Gore talks A LOT about global warming. For the amount he talks, it should be easy, easy, easy peasy for you to show actual quotes from him demonstrating failure to comprehend the science, if he really does. It wouldn't be hard, and take a lot of searching. I googled that myself and I couldn't find a link to what Gore actually said.

Using Gore says that since he was a child, he has seen the effects of global warming on his family farm you get 21,800,000 hits

Putting it quotes cuts it down to 5

I doubt those were his EXACT words, but i'm not wading through 21,800,000 websites tonight

339 windsagio  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:09:28pm

re: #334 sattv4u2

part of why Gore is useless as a figurehead is how often he's misquoted, and how well such things are accepted. I can't speak for Obdicut, but I think that's what he's trying to say. A made-up or distorted quote could easily have 148,000 google results if there were people with a reason to push it or it were about a famous person or... well a ton of reasons.

340 b_sharp  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:09:34pm

re: #44 The Curmudgeon

I got called precisely that at Free Republic. There must be something going around.

I have to ask, who the heck called you that? Jimbo? GGG?... The bbag ladies?

341 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:10:11pm

re: #332 Right Brain

Physics Report is in no way the most prestigious physics journal. It is a review of letters.

Nature is the pre-eminent science journal. Physics Review A is the most prestigious physics-only journal. Various other journals are more pre-eminent in sub-disciplines.

Where do you get the idea that Physics Report is the most prestigious journal?

re: #334 sattv4u2

You didn't find the exact words he used, dude. You have not linked to a quote from Gore, just other people paraphrasing him. You believe them to be accurate for some reason I can't understand.

And again, if he were as bad as you said, you'd be able to find lots and lots of other examples, quickly. You can't.

Get over Gore, man. He's not very relevant.

342 Pythagoras  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:10:18pm

re: #327 Charles

Just like clockwork -- as soon as the latest denial claim pops up at Anthony Watts's denial site, people come in and post it here as if it's the definitive proof that AGW is a hoax!

It's tedious and predictable.

That would be an overreach but if someone made that claim, I missed it.

343 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:10:30pm

re: #335 Pythagoras

I suppose this boils down to how many peer reviewed papers it takes to have "plenty" of legitimate argument. I'll concede that this isn't defined well enough to resolve.

What is defined extremely well is the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that CO2 is responsible for climate change.

344 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:10:54pm

re: #333 windsagio

so newer is always righter.

Got it.

I just published a report that I was actually the guy who won the lottery yesterday!

(checks)

Damn...

345 Right Brain  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:11:47pm

re: #337 Charles

Prediction: this paper is going to be checked and found to be bogus.

I do love how you just brush off all of the previous scientific research, though, as soon as Anthony Watts posts to his blog.

Who is Anthony Watts?

Such xenophobia, yikes.

346 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:11:52pm

re: #339 windsagio

part of why Gore is useless as a figurehead is how often he's misquoted, and how well such things are accepted. I can't speak for Obdicut, but I think that's what he's trying to say. A made-up or distorted quote could easily have 148,000 google results if there were people with a reason to push it or it were about a famous person or... well a ton of reasons.

I didn't bring Gore up. In fact, I was responding to Obdicut. For my money, I would leave Gore out of EVERY discussion, not just AGW

347 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:12:15pm

re: #339 windsagio

part of why Gore is useless as a figurehead is how often he's misquoted, and how well such things are accepted. I can't speak for Obdicut, but I think that's what he's trying to say. A made-up or distorted quote could easily have 148,000 google results if there were people with a reason to push it or it were about a famous person or... well a ton of reasons.

Isn't that what happened to some of Rush's (mis)quotes?

348 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:12:31pm

re: #341 Obdicut

Physics Report is in no way the most prestigious physics journal. It is a review of letters.

Nature is the pre-eminent science journal. Physics Review A is the most prestigious physics-only journal. Various other journals are more pre-eminent in sub-disciplines.

Where do you get the idea that Physics Report is the most prestigious journal?

Aw, come on! It has to be the most prestigious physics journal -- it published an article proving that global warming is a hoax!

Don'tcha see?

349 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:12:35pm

re: #341 Obdicut

Get over Gore, man. He's not very relevant.

YOU brought him up. I didn't !

350 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:13:08pm

re: #346 sattv4u2

I didn't bring Gore up. In fact, I was responding to Obdicut. For my money, I would leave Gore out of EVERY discussion, not just AGW

Walter brought him up.

351 windsagio  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:14:08pm

re: #347 Cineaste

oh I'm sure. It happens all the time! (obvious alert, I know ;)) Sometimes I think the greatest skill in the modern world is figuring out what sources are reliable on what subjects... and that includes an understanding that 'number of links' is largely (if not entirely) meaningless.

352 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:14:16pm

re: #304 Right Brain

Uhuh.. If this is a legitimate paper then what you will find is that whatever blog you read a cherry picked quote in was well cherry picking. How about you give an actual link to the paper in question so that we can read it. Also, Elisiver is not a journal. They publish books, so be careful about claiming peer review.

Please link the paper. I would like to debunk this right away.

353 sattv4u2  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:15:06pm

re: #350 Cineaste

Walter brought him up.

Worse yet,,, I originally responded to an Obdicut reference to him, yet I'm being excoriated to "get over Gore, man"

And I was three degrees removed from it

354 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:15:17pm

re: #352 LudwigVanQuixote

Uhuh.. If this is a legitimate paper then what you will find is that whatever blog you read a cherry picked quote in was well cherry picking. How about you give an actual link to the paper in question so that we can read it. Also, Elisiver is not a journal. They publish books, so be careful about claiming peer review.

Please link the paper. I would like to debunk this right away.

Here's the paper:

[Link: www.sciencedirect.com...]

355 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:15:35pm

re: #311 ckb

There is plenty of legitimate argument about it being the primary driver.

Really, like what?

It's not the sun. That has been ruled out because there is not sufficient energy budget.

It is not orbital variations and it is not volcanic emissions.. so what do you think it is? Do you have a paper to link that is legitimate? How about some data?

356 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:16:24pm

re: #321 Right Brain

Well then you would have to account for Elsevier publishing Qing-Bin Lu paper this week stating that an entirely different mechanism was responsible for warming and that it is now stopping.

Where is this paper dude?

357 windsagio  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:18:30pm

re: #354 Charles

Here's the paper:

[Link: www.sciencedirect.com...]

re: #356 LudwigVanQuixote

Where is this paper dude?

*cough*

358 Pythagoras  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:19:59pm

re: #343 Charles

What is defined extremely well is the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that CO2 is responsible for climate change.

I don't have much disagreement there. CO2 matters. I agree that while CO2 was a lagging indicator when man was not driving it, that doesn't prove that it couldn't be a leading indicator now. But there is much significant debate right now over the quantitative balance. CO2 might not be the dominant factor.

My disagreement is over this "tipping point" bit. If the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than now (and there's a ton of evidence that it was) then it can get a bit warmer without "tipping."

359 Right Brain  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:21:03pm

re: #352 LudwigVanQuixote

Uhuh.. If this is a legitimate paper then what you will find is that whatever blog you read a cherry picked quote in was well cherry picking. How about you give an actual link to the paper in question so that we can read it. Also, Elisiver is not a journal. They publish books, so be careful about claiming peer review.

Please link the paper. I would like to debunk this right away.

Sure:

[Link: www.sciencedirect.com...]

debunk away.

360 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:21:48pm

re: #359 Right Brain

Sure:

[Link: www.sciencedirect.com...]

debunk away.

I'll be waiting for you to debunk the thousands of peer reviewed papers showing that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change, too.

361 windsagio  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:23:37pm

re: #360 Charles

somebody had better be reaaaaaallly patient...

362 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:24:48pm

re: #361 windsagio

somebody had better be reaaallly patient...

I didn't say I'd be holding my breath for it...

363 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:24:52pm

re: #354 Charles

So let's look at that abstract:

The cosmic-ray driven electron-induced reaction of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces has been proposed as a new mechanism for the formation of the polar ozone hole. Here, experimental findings of dissociative electron transfer reactions of halogenated molecules on ice surfaces in electron-stimulated desorption, electron trapping and femtosecond time-resolved laser spectroscopic measurements are reviewed. It is followed by a review of the evidence from recent satellite observations of this new mechanism for the Antarctic ozone hole, and all other possible physical mechanisms are discussed. Moreover, new observations of the 11 year cyclic variations of both polar ozone loss and stratospheric cooling and the seasonal variations of CFCs and CH4 in the polar stratosphere are presented, and quantitative predictions of the Antarctic ozone hole in the future are given. Finally, new observation of the effects of CFCs and cosmic-ray driven ozone depletion on global climate change is also presented and discussed.

What happened was the standard, deniers saw the word cosmic ray, and assumed the paper debunked AGW without reading it trick.

What garbage.

This is a paper about the ozone hole. It does have an impact on warming believe it or don't but it is not a primary driver at all.

I know the idea of actually reading a paper before making claims about it is anathema to the denier sphere, but you all could actually try it. It would save me time and you embarrassment.

364 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:25:23pm

re: #357 windsagio

Sorry I missed your link, I was looking for the paper :)

365 windsagio  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:26:30pm

re: #364 LudwigVanQuixote

hehe np, and I have to admit, it was Charles' link not mine. I'm waaaay too lazy to look that kind of thing up ;)

366 Pythagoras  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:26:44pm

re: #354 Charles

Here's the paper:

[Link: www.sciencedirect.com...]

This is the perfect example of a post deserving an upding. Kudos! This is why I frequent this site.

367 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:27:15pm

re: #363 LudwigVanQuixote

And just to clarify, the "I know the idea of actually reading a paper before making claims about it is anathema to the denier sphere, but you all could actually try it. It would save me time and you embarrassment." was directed at the deniers and not Charles.

368 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:27:20pm

re: #360 Charles

I'll be waiting for you to debunk the thousands of peer reviewed papers showing that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change, too.

Debunk-a-nator Activate!

Youtube Video
369 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:28:21pm

re: #363 LudwigVanQuixote

So let's look at that abstract:

What happened was the standard, deniers saw the word cosmic ray, and assumed the paper debunked AGW without reading it trick.

What garbage.

This is a paper about the ozone hole. It does have an impact on warming believe it or don't but it is not a primary driver at all.

I know the idea of actually reading a paper before making claims about it is anathema to the denier sphere, but you all could actually try it. It would save me time and you embarrassment.

Yes -- it's the same old same old. The reason why at least four people have now dumped this nonsense all over LGF is right here:

[Link: wattsupwiththat.com...]

Anthony Watts is doing his usual denial dance. It's the bogus claim of the day.

370 Pythagoras  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:31:40pm

re: #363 LudwigVanQuixote

So let's look at that abstract:

What happened was the standard, deniers saw the word cosmic ray, and assumed the paper debunked AGW without reading it trick.

What garbage.

This is a paper about the ozone hole. It does have an impact on warming believe it or don't but it is not a primary driver at all.

I know the idea of actually reading a paper before making claims about it is anathema to the denier sphere, but you all could actually try it. It would save me time and you embarrassment.

I think post 304 (the one that initiated the discussion on that paper) didn't claim that this paper debunked AGW but only showed that the science wasn't settled. Also, 304 included a quote from the paper positing a temperature link.

I think he read it.

371 Mark Winter  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:33:34pm

I think we don't need to spend 31 dollars on that paper which doesn't investigate CO2 at all but says that CO2 doesn't matter.

372 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:34:44pm

re: #369 Charles

Yes -- it's the same old same old. The reason why at least four people have now dumped this nonsense all over LGF is right here:

[Link: wattsupwiththat.com...]

Anthony Watts is doing his usual denial dance. It's the bogus claim of the day.

Yeah. It gets so old. How can you argue science with people who refuse to look at science. I mean didn't they learn in grade scholl that it helps to read a book first before doing a report on it?

I am so sick of this. And what is the deal with Watts, a weather man from Fox, shamelessly promotes himself as a scientist to feed his little corporate masters... it's all so disgusting.

I was not of courserefering to you with the save embarrassment quote, but I do feel disgusted everytime I see this crap. I've been at this now for a while and it doesn't stop. You keep hearing the same shit over and over. It's the same tactics over and over, and it is always insultingly stupid.

This was a paer on the ozone hole and here was some brave lizard who couldn't be bothered to even read the abstract - and from his link didn't even know what an abstract is, proudly shouting that he has some new evidence of some sort.

I mean you would think after getting burned a dozen times with this, they would get a clue, but no... they just keep soldiering on like the little robots they are. I am so sick of it.

373 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:37:22pm

re: #370 Pythagoras

really, then how Pythagoras does this say that the basic science of AGW is not settled? I defined what I meant by that upthread.

How does this refute CO2 as a GHG or as the primary driver of AGW?

How does this affect the primary feedback mechanisms?

I;ll be honest and say that the ozone hole which incidently was also man caused does play a role in AGW models, but how does this paper unsettle the science?

As usual you are writing some pretty unscientific stuff.

374 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:41:18pm

The reason why the climate deniers are seizing on this paper is spelled out in the University of Waterloo press release: Study shows CFCs, cosmic rays major culprits for global warming.

"My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally thought that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century," Lu said. "Instead, the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming."

375 Pythagoras  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:43:43pm

re: #336 Cineaste

There seem to be some real divergences between the expected outcome of Svensmark's theory and the observable data though. Again, I really am not well versed in this area, however the concerns seem reasonable. What seems to show up in several of these theories is that sometime in the last 40 years the earth started accelerating its warming in a way that defies almost any of the natural models for 'natural' warming.

[Link: www.skepticalscience.com...]

Ten years ago, this seemed to fit. But we've had little if any warming over the last decade and now the recent temp rise doesn't seem quite so dramatic. If things don't pick up in the next decade (given a surely big rise in CO2) the lack of correlation between CO2 and global temp will be significant.

376 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:47:34pm

re: #375 Pythagoras

Ten years ago, this seemed to fit. But we've had little if any warming over the last decade and now the recent temp rise doesn't seem quite so dramatic. If things don't pick up in the next decade (given a surely big rise in CO2) the lack of correlation between CO2 and global temp will be significant.

Just when I think you're trying to be reasonable, you parrot a climate change denial talking point.

Did global warming stop in 1998?

377 Pythagoras  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:50:48pm

re: #373 LudwigVanQuixote

really, then how Pythagoras does this say that the basic science of AGW is not settled? I defined what I meant by that upthread.

How does this refute CO2 as a GHG or as the primary driver of AGW?

How does this affect the primary feedback mechanisms?

I;ll be honest and say that the ozone hole which incidently was also man caused does play a role in AGW models, but how does this paper unsettle the science?

As usual you are writing some pretty unscientific stuff.

You are correct -- I stand corrected. Since you did not claim in 284 that CO2 is the dominant driver of climate change, the article does not refute what you said. The article (which according to the link has been accepted after peer review) does challenge the theory that CO2 is the dominant driver of climate change -- a claim made by some on this thread. Still, you are right, the BASIC science that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is not challenged by this paper.

As for the insult -- it's beneath you. I usually enjoy this more.

378 Pythagoras  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:53:55pm

re: #376 Charles

Just when I think you're trying to be reasonable, you parrot a climate change denial talking point.

Did global warming stop in 1998?

You overextend my point. Ten years ago, global temp was accelerating. Now it, very much, isn't. Please don't lump me in with more extreme views. I chose my words carefully to avoid parroting that claim.

And ten years is not a long time. Twenty would make it significant since the rapid warming wasn't a lot longer than that.

379 windsagio  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 5:56:15pm

re: #378 Pythagoras

see, this is what I was talking about above.

Someone parrots client change denial points, maybe modifies them somewhat, but solidly denies they're a 'denier'.

Just raising questions, right?

380 Pythagoras  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 6:01:13pm

re: #379 windsagio

see, this is what I was talking about above.

Someone parrots client change denial points, maybe modifies them somewhat, but solidly denies they're a 'denier'.

Just raising questions, right?

My position is what it is. I mean what I say and not what others say that may sound similar. I have not been inconsistent.

There is a lot more science to be done and I am confident that delaying action of CO2 is prudent.

Like it or not, we are going to find out if I'm right on that. China is going to emit a LOT of CO2 in the next decade.

381 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 6:03:59pm

re: #374 Charles

The reason why the climate deniers are seizing on this paper is spelled out in the University of Waterloo press release: Study shows CFCs, cosmic rays major culprits for global warming.

OK so it is worth looking into a little more...

one note though is from the link that is not an abstract:

was published online in the prestigious journal Physics Reports.

If you are publishing in physics reports, then you get rejected a lot of other places. I am also wary, very wary of press releases from press people. I shall have to look into the actual paper.

Now this guy's specialty is the ozone hole - certainly it is his current focus. Here is a very respectable paper he wrote this year that was published as a PRL. Having a PRL or two is a very big deal.

[Link: www.science.uwaterloo.ca...]

However, he makes no predictions about AGW. After digging some more, he seems to be a respectable chemical physicist.

I will grant exactly this much without being at the university right now to look at the paper directly... I doubt it says what the pepole are saying it says.

The best case scenario (for the deniers) is that we have one paper that proposes a novel mechanism for warming that is not CO2. The fact that the ozone hole is man caused seems to escape them also, I mean that would be AGW too, but by a different mechanism... However, I sincerely doubt that any respectable scientist would deny the impact of CO2 on the atmosphere. So the best case is that he is arguing that this is a larger effect than has been previously taken into account in the models.

Let's say he is right. We wil wait for the other chemical physicists to weigh in on this, even if he is, it does not overturn everything we know about CO2. It really is a GHG and we have thousands of papers where the concentrations of it are doing what we think they should to the climate. Usually when estimates of impact are false, they are false the wrong way - as in too soft, as in the predictions were less severe than the data.

This is just reality. So the best case for denier types is that he is right - not known yet and that we need to take this into account more in the models and it would be confirmed by the models being worse and predicting more dire things.

382 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 6:05:25pm

re: #377 Pythagoras

You are correct -- I stand corrected. Since you did not claim in 284 that CO2 is the dominant driver of climate change, the article does not refute what you said. The article (which according to the link has been accepted after peer review) does challenge the theory that CO2 is the dominant driver of climate change -- a claim made by some on this thread. Still, you are right, the BASIC science that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is not challenged by this paper.

As for the insult -- it's beneath you. I usually enjoy this more.

Oh no, I said very clearly that the science is quite settled that CO2 is the dominant driver. I stand by that.

This paper does not change that. Not even close.

383 Pythagoras  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 6:11:37pm

re: #382 LudwigVanQuixote

Oh no, I said very clearly that the science is quite settled that CO2 is the dominant driver. I stand by that.

This paper does not change that. Not even close.

OMHO the collapse of the R-squared for CO2 vs. global temperature over the last decade has put a serious dent in the dominance claim -- or log (CO2) vs. temp or log(CO2) vs. d(temp)/dt.

CO2 as the dominant driver has become a poor fit.

384 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 6:13:55pm

re: #381 LudwigVanQuixote

Just to clarify what I was saying...

The paper in question was published in a very obscure journal from someone who has in the past published at a gold standard journal. This tends to indicate it was rejected by everyone else.

Even if it is a good paper, and it may be, I have ot read the whole thing yet, and I won't until after the holidays since I am not at the university now, one paper in an obscure journal does not overturn all the thousands of other papers out there. Not even close. It does not overturn the millions of observations made, and I sincerely doubt he says it does.

What it likely says is that this is a bigger effect than the models account for. That does not overturn anything. That only says the situation is worse and not better.

If he does say however that he has some correlation that crept out of the data that "shows" that CO2 has no effect, he has gone off the path for whatever reason. It would be like a biologist turning ID shill.

385 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 6:15:14pm

re: #383 Pythagoras

Your agenda is starting to show.

386 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 6:16:16pm

re: #383 Pythagoras

OMHO the collapse of the R-squared for CO2 vs. global temperature over the last decade has put a serious dent in the dominance claim -- or log (CO2) vs. temp or log(CO2) vs. d(temp)/dt.

CO2 as the dominant driver has become a poor fit.

Do you know how many times we have been over this... I mean it isn't like you ever faill to bring that idea up in every single thread you post on that I am on. It isn't as if I constantly say no, that is wrong and then point you to the emissions curves and the temp curves...

Let me try a new tactic. Explain to me how all that CO2 has no effect and then tell me what has an energy budget to produce the effect we do see that is not CO2?

Try that.

387 Mark Winter  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 6:25:35pm

Lemme see
We have a paper that nobody has read, that nobody has posted a peer review of, but it gets quoted around with a PR text published by the journal.

A game changer, truly.

Expect this to pop up everywhere, with nobody having a clue what it is all about,

388 mioilman  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 6:32:40pm

CO2 is absorbed by trees and recycled into oxygen.

I'm throwing another tire on the fire right now.

Ice age, warming, climate change ugh.

Stop thinking and believe us.

389 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 6:34:31pm

There is something else also very important to note...

The press release sure sounds like he is saying something very controversial.

His abstract in the paper in question has as a last sentence:

Finally, new observation of the effects of CFCs and cosmic-ray driven ozone depletion on global climate change is also presented and discussed.

after talking a lot about ozone things.

If he had some smoking gun strong statement to make about AGW not being driven by CO2, don't you think that would be the FIRST SENTENCE?

This is going to turn into a nothing when the actual paper is available.

390 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 6:36:33pm

re: #388 mioilman

CO2 is absorbed by trees and recycled into oxygen.

Not exactly, it is used in photosynthesis to make glucose. O2 is a byproduct.

I'm throwing another tire on the fire right now.

Not sure what you mean by that.

Ice age, warming, climate change ugh.

Well if it is confusing you could look at the actual science and not blog debates. I really wish more people would do that.

Stop thinking and believe us.

Or start thinking and educate yourself about the science.

391 windsagio  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 6:38:22pm

re: #390 LudwigVanQuixote

Not exactly, it is used in photosynthesis to make glucose. O2 is a byproduct.

I'm the opposite of an expert, don't plants tend to use aerobic respiration at night and release some amount of CO2 anyways?

392 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 6:39:49pm

Qing-Bin Lu has been trying to promote this nonsense since 2001: Ozone Layer Burned by Cosmic Rays %P% Physical Review Focus.

393 windsagio  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 6:41:08pm

re: #392 Charles

The interest of that is that he's freakin' lying when he says (don't have the exact quote)

I wasn't even looking for global warming, it just came up!

394 Pythagoras  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 6:44:07pm

re: #386 LudwigVanQuixote

Do you know how many times we have been over this... I mean it isn't like you ever faill to bring that idea up in every single thread you post on that I am on. It isn't as if I constantly say no, that is wrong and then point you to the emissions curves and the temp curves...

Let me try a new tactic. Explain to me how all that CO2 has no effect and then tell me what has an energy budget to produce the effect we do see that is not CO2?

Try that.

I didn't say that CO2 has no effect. Let me state that I am sure that CO2 does have an effect. This is obvious. Also, since the partial pressure of H2O rises with temperature, there is an obvious positive feedback mechanism. Another obvious positive feedback mechanism is albedo (melting snow/ice reveals darker things underneath which absorb more solar energy). On the negative side is the basic blackbody radiation increase as a function of temperature.

Those 3 things are GW 101. Methane release, increased plant growth, clouds, thermohaline circulations, arctic ozone, etc. are more advanced. (By the way, I checked the Tipping Elements paper to make sure I didn't miss anything and Arctic Ozone is on the list!)

This is a nascent field and the people who are screaming we have to act now are IMHO unprofessional. We'll know more in a few years.

395 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 6:45:36pm

re: #393 windsagio

The interest of that is that he's freakin' lying when he says (don't have the exact quote)

Exactly. The agenda is clear. And now you know why Anthony Watts is promoting this so heavily.

It's another bogus recycled claim.

396 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 6:47:30pm

re: #392 Charles

Qing-Bin Lu has been trying to promote this nonsense since 2001: Ozone Layer Burned by Cosmic Rays %P% Physical Review Focus.

That part may be legit. I do not know enough about atmospheric ozone chemistry to comment - certainly not without reading several dozen papers.

At first glance...

Cosmic rays are real, CFC's do their thing because of free radicals - which is to say it is conceivable that charged particle interactions could affect their interactions.

Now, past that, however, I do know a lot about CO2 absorption and energy budgets in the atmosphere. I have a very hard time seeing how that could possibly be a bigger signal. I also sincerely doubt, very sincerely doubt, that he is actually saying that in his papers.

397 mioilman  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 6:51:24pm

Even if we did everything the science tyrants wanted the effect on temparture would be negligible in 100 years by their own admission.

Utility bills $3000.00 a year higher for the average family has already killed this nonsense.

Gorebots just don't understand reality. Throw another tire on the fire.

398 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 6:52:19pm

re: #394 Pythagoras

This is a large field of active research for over forty years. It is no longer so nascent and we do not have time to take a wait and see attitude. The data are more than strong enough now.

BTW the first major report to say such an thing as we do not have time to take a wait and see attitude was a report to President Johnson on this which cautioned that it taking a wait and see approach would risk waiting untill it was too late to take action. That paper also predicted seeing serious effects of AGW that were distinct from noise starting in the 90's. It was correct about that.

399 windsagio  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 6:54:00pm

re: #397 mioilman

Ok, I've gotta ask, why do people keep coming on here and posting this kind of thing?

It seems like a dozen people a day come on and get ground up, all making exactly the same claims.

400 Pythagoras  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 6:54:09pm

re: #385 Charles

Your agenda is starting to show.

I do not believe that AGW is a crisis. But I believe that it's proponents are basically sincere. I do not want to see draconian measures taken without solid cause. I expect global warming over the next 50 years to be about the same as the last 50 years. That will not be a problem.

I also happen to be rubbed the wrong way by the way this "crisis" makes the US out to be the heavy. We are depicted as the destroyer of the planet.

401 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 6:55:09pm

re: #397 mioilman

"Science tyrants!"

Wow. I think we have a winner. Don Pardo, what does he get?

402 eric  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 6:56:28pm

This beautiful and inspiring. Not so much the glaciers themselves, but his work and his dedication. I smiled knowingly at his frustration over the little things that set him back. I think we've all been there when we try so hard only to be thwarted by a malfunction of one kind or another. We often see these beautiful photos, this excellent work, but forget the amount of anguish that oftn goes into it. Keeps me going for another day to know that I am not the only one. If guys as talented as this have roadblocks, then I have nothing to complain about.

403 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 6:56:38pm

re: #397 mioilman

Even if we did everything the science tyrants wanted the effect on temparture would be negligible in 100 years by their own admission.

Utility bills $3000.00 a year higher for the average family has already killed this nonsense.

Gorebots just don't understand reality. Throw another tire on the fire.

Ahhh mr. oil man... could you show your anti-science any more. I assure you that I do not weep for your profits when your hideous industry goes the way of the buggy whip. It is because of people like you that we have to deal with tyrannical Arab regimes and Venezuela. Honestly, I would much rather see that money stay in America.

However, that is a political argument that has nothing to do with teh actual science.

No scientist ahs said that temperature affects would be negigable in the next 100 years. No one says that.

What we do say though is that we are headed for drastic shifts in fresh water and food supply coupled with rising oceans, loss of major coastal cites and spread of contagion along with massive global crop failure. We are already seeing the early effects of that now.

Why not watch the video this thread is attached to?

404 Mark Winter  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 6:57:09pm

re: #389 LudwigVanQuixote

Maybe he doesn't even talk a lot about CO2 and AGW.
But what would a journal do if it wanted to sell copies for 31 dollars?

405 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 6:57:50pm

re: #399 windsagio

Ok, I've gotta ask, why do people keep coming on here and posting this kind of thing?

It seems like a dozen people a day come on and get ground up, all making exactly the same claims.

They all read the same shit from the same denier blogs.

Blogs which are funded by the oil industry ultimately - or their political shills.

And as to your earlier question yes, plants have a night cycle too that respired CO2.

406 Sharmuta  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 6:58:47pm

re: #401 Charles

"Science tyrants!"

Wow. I think we have a winner. Don Pardo, what does he get?

A rotating title?

407 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 6:59:12pm

re: #404 Mark Winter

Maybe he doesn't even talk a lot about CO2 and AGW.
But what would a journal do if it wanted to sell copies for 31 dollars?

To be honest, I don't even know if my university has a subscription to it. The journal in question is that obscure.

408 Mark Winter  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 7:00:43pm

re: #394 Pythagoras

This is a nascent field and the people who are screaming we have to act now are IMHO unprofessional. We'll know more in a few years.


I'm rather glad that when it came to do something about the ozone layer depletion we didn't treat this as "nascent science".

But ACTED

409 Pythagoras  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 7:02:25pm

re: #408 Mark Winter

I'm rather glad that when it came to do something about the ozone layer depletion we didn't treat this as "nascent science".

But ACTED

Why?

410 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 7:02:45pm

I can't stop laughing.

"Science tyrants!"

Help! I'm being oppressed by the eeevil science tyrants!

411 mioilman  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 7:02:56pm

If I want to watch socialist propaganda, I'll turn on the television, which by the way is the only place this "crisis" exists.

412 Mark Winter  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 7:03:18pm

re: #407 LudwigVanQuixote

Same here

413 Mark Winter  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 7:04:28pm

re: #410 Charles

Probably evil crossdressing science tyrants, too

414 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 7:05:03pm

re: #410 Charles

I can't stop laughing.

"Science tyrants!"

Help! I'm being oppressed by the eeevil science tyrants!

Now we see the violence inherent in the system!

Youtube Video
415 Sharmuta  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 7:06:03pm

re: #411 mioilman

If I want to watch socialist propaganda, I'll turn on the television, which by the way is the only place this "crisis" exists.

Glaciers don't have a party affiliation.

416 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 7:08:55pm

re: #411 mioilman

If I want to watch socialist propaganda, I'll turn on the television, which by the way is the only place this "crisis" exists.

Watch out. The science tyrants are gonna jump out of the TV and grab ya!

417 Mark Winter  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 7:10:35pm

re: #409 Pythagoras

[Link: www.beyonddiscovery.org...]
[Link: wildwildweather.com...]

418 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 7:11:21pm

re: #396 LudwigVanQuixote

Clarification:

That part may be legit. I do not know enough about atmospheric ozone chemistry to comment - certainly not without reading several dozen papers.

At first glance...

Cosmic rays are real, CFC's do their thing because of free radicals - which is to say it is conceivable that charged particle interactions could affect their interactions.

Now, past that, however, I do know a lot about CO2 absorption and energy budgets in the atmosphere. I have a very hard time seeing how that could possibly be a bigger signal. AS in CFCs and cosmic rays are somehow bigger in effect than CO2. I doubt it because frankly cosmic rays do not have the energy budget to cause the warming we see and an argument that somehow they make the sun's effects stronger makes little sense to me. I will always revert back to energy conservation arguments because they are amongst the most powrful in all of physics. I also sincerely doubt, very sincerely doubt, that he is actually saying that in his papers.

419 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 7:12:43pm

re: #416 Charles

Watch out. The science tyrants are gonna jump out of the TV and grab ya!

We control the horizontal... we control the vertical... Wow, I just dated myself...

420 mioilman  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 7:16:16pm

There going to melt, or not melt, (ice age, warming, climate change ugh) irregardless of how much misery our leaders press down upon our furrowed brows.

Hah, hah, hah. Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night!

421 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 7:19:50pm

re: #420 mioilman

There going to melt, or not melt, (ice age, warming, climate change ugh) irregardless of how much misery our leaders press down upon our furrowed brows.

Hah, hah, hah. Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night!

That's because there science tyrants! There pressing misery on are brows!

422 Pythagoras  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 7:20:43pm

re: #417 Mark Winter

[Link: www.beyonddiscovery.org...]
[Link: wildwildweather.com...]

Alright, I'm not going to get into the ozone thing. There is another side to this but it'll just turn into a stuipid argument anyway.

Note though, we also took bold action and banned DDT, four years after the US Bald Eagle population minimum. This led to a staggering increase in malaria cases worldwide. DDT is back in use again in some parts of Africa and malaria has diminished greatly there. This was a huge tragedy.

423 Pythagoras  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 7:21:33pm

re: #419 LudwigVanQuixote

We control the horizontal... we control the vertical... Wow, I just dated myself...

I liked twilight zone better.

424 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 7:24:02pm

re: #422 Pythagoras

Alright, I'm not going to get into the ozone thing. There is another side to this but it'll just turn into a stuipid argument anyway.

Note though, we also took bold action and banned DDT, four years after the US Bald Eagle population minimum. This led to a staggering increase in malaria cases worldwide. DDT is back in use again in some parts of Africa and malaria has diminished greatly there. This was a huge tragedy.

Ooohkay. So you're also a DDT apologist. Why am I not surprised?

425 Pythagoras  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 7:26:23pm

re: #424 Charles

Ooohkay. So you're also a DDT apologist. Why am I not surprised?

I don't recall a DDT thread here. Given that the WHO has "unbanned" it, I didn't think this was an extreme position.

Do we have some disagreement on this?

426 Mark Winter  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 7:27:41pm

re: #422 Pythagoras

Stratagem XVIII (Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy)

If you observe that your opponent has taken up a line of argument which will end in your defeat, you must not allow him to carry it to its conclusion, but interrupt the course of the dispute in time, or break it off altogether, or lead him away from the subject, and bring him to others. In short, you must effect the trick which will be noticed later on, the mutatio controversiae.

427 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 7:30:03pm

re: #425 Pythagoras

I don't recall a DDT thread here. Given that the WHO has "unbanned" it, I didn't think this was an extreme position.

Do we have some disagreement on this?

You have got to be kidding. Yes, DDT is very good at killing mosquitoes that carry malaria. And it's also very good at persisting in the environment and killing all kinds of other creatures.

And it's also very good at training insects to become resistant to pesticides.

But hey! Let's use DDT as an example of the evil agenda of the science tyrants too!

428 Pythagoras  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 7:33:18pm

re: #426 Mark Winter

Stratagem XVIII (Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy)

If you observe that your opponent has taken up a line of argument which will end in your defeat, you must not allow him to carry it to its conclusion, but interrupt the course of the dispute in time, or break it off altogether, or lead him away from the subject, and bring him to others. In short, you must effect the trick which will be noticed later on, the mutatio controversiae.

You cited CFCs as an example of something where bold action was a good idea. Heck, banning Thalidomide was a good idea. No one is arguing that bold action is wrong in general.

Yes, the efficacy of the CFC ban is debated but I am not an expert on this and I don't think it's relevant. I cited the mistaken ban on DDT as an example where bold action can be premature.

I don't think we have a dispute here. Bold action can be a good idea and it can be a bad idea.

Right?

429 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 7:36:09pm

re: #410 Charles

I can't stop laughing.

"Science tyrants!"

Help! I'm being oppressed by the eeevil science tyrants!

Charles can I please please please be the official LGF science tyrant? Please!

430 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 7:37:37pm

re: #429 LudwigVanQuixote

Charles can I please please please be the official LGF science tyrant? Please!

You'll have to wait because I can't think right now. My brow is furrowed from the pressing of the science tyrants.

431 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 7:42:50pm

My resume for science tyrant:

Qualifications:

1. Actually a scientist

2. Tyrannically oppresses people with facts, figures, data and analysis from respectable science sources. first rate journal papers and actual science sites.

3. Tyrannically uses such evil concepts as energy conservation, quantum physics and mathematics and other science elitist things to debunk foolishness.

4. Over one year of posting detailed science explanations.

5. Actually an Intergalactic Zionist Lord of Remulak with over twenty Earth years probulator experience.

6. Handy with lasers.

7. Onery.

I want the title! I am a science TYRANT! The main reason is I know I am! I own it!

432 Mark Winter  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 7:42:52pm

re: #428 Pythagoras

Yes, the efficacy of the CFC ban is debated but I am not an expert on this and I don't think it's relevant.

Ahhhhh ok...

433 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 7:44:42pm

re: #412 Mark Winter

Same here

If I may ask, what is your field? I'm a chaos guy. I used to do strings.

434 Pythagoras  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 7:44:52pm

re: #427 Charles

You have got to be kidding. Yes, DDT is very good at killing mosquitoes that carry malaria. And it's also very good at persisting in the environment and killing all kinds of other creatures.

And it's also very good at training insects to become resistant to pesticides.

But hey! Let's use DDT as an example of the evil agenda of the science tyrants too!

I did not originate the "science tyrants" term nor do I think it was anything other than totally stupid. People say totally stupid things all the time (on all sides). I do not support apply those quotes to people who did not say them.

Banning DDT was a huge, tragic mistake. Yes, it is a persistent pesticide and thus must be used properly or it will do serious damage. The Bald Eagle population was already recovering in the US when DDT was banned.

Indoor spraying of DDT has resumed in parts of Africa and malaria rates in those areas are plummeting by orders of magnitude. Had DDT not been banned, the battle against malaria would have gone vastly differently in the last 3rd of the 20th century. I doubt malaria would have become extinct but with the numbers vastly lower, the WHO might have seen this as a reachable goal. There's no telling what might have happened.

I care about nature -- I live in want is virtually a nature preserve. I get Bald Eagles in my back yard.

435 Pythagoras  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 7:46:42pm

"... what is virtually..."

I need sleep.

436 b_sharp  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 7:46:57pm

re: #56 cliffster

Seeing your place in the universe is not nihilism. Presuming to be stewards of nature is, however, highly presumptuous. Nature is the boss. Nature wins. If you think otherwise, that's ok, you have good company - so do 99% of the other humans in the civilized world.

Believing we have no immediate affect on the climate, neighbouring species and the biosphere in general is naive.

I suspect very few people believe we can have a lasting impact, geologically speaking, on the environment with our current technology. I am, and I assume many others are, concerned not with effects on a geological scale as you seem to be but in the relatively immediate future. If we simultaneously set off every nuclear weapon that exists on the Earth, which would be our best shot at disrupting the biosphere in a lasting sense, in as little as a million years any damage we did would be nothing more than a distant memory in the minds of whatever intelligence existed.

Humans don't think in geological time frames, we are concerned with the relatively immediate future, the events that will affect our children, grandchildren and maybe a half dozen generations after.

Ultimately the Earth will outlast us and recover. The question is, are we currently doing something that will affect our environment that is likely to last as long as we do in the memories of our decedents?

437 Mark Winter  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 7:48:54pm

re: #433 LudwigVanQuixote

Environmental geography

438 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 7:49:39pm

re: #434 Pythagoras

OK so the effects of DDT being horrible are so documented that I am shocked that anyone could possibly take up this line of reasoning. As to the ozone hole, bringing questions about that being a bad thing or caused by CFCs is also shocking. The Nobel prize in chemistry was handed out to the researchers that nailed that mechanism.

So you claim to love nature. OK

You were wrong about DDT.

You were wrong about CFCs and ozone. Your wait and see idea would have only made things much worse - and the science was well settled about that in the eighties.

You are currently wrong about AGW.

Dude you are 0-3 when it comes to doubting environmental science.

439 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 7:50:39pm

re: #437 Mark Winter

Environmental geography

Excellent. I am so glad to have you aboard.

440 Mark Winter  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 7:52:33pm

re: #434 Pythagoras

Indoor spraying of DDT has resumed in parts of Africa and malaria rates in those areas are plummeting by orders of magnitude.

Indoor spraying against malaria was never the problem of DDT, but its massive and widespread use against just about anything that crawled.

Malaria rates are btw no longer "plummeting" because insects built up resistance

441 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 7:52:56pm

Wow. I thought I'd seen everything. Then someone pops up and says banning DDT was "a huge mistake."

My brow is becoming even more furrowed.

442 Mark Winter  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 7:53:55pm

re: #439 LudwigVanQuixote

Thank you. I can only return the compliment

443 b_sharp  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 7:54:18pm

re: #63 Guanxi88

I dunno. It sounds like realism, to me. We're not in charge, ...

Who said we were? We don't need to be in 'charge' to cause dangerous problems.

...and we're not exempt from the causes that exterminate other species. We can do ourselves in by wholly natural processes, the inevitable consequences of our own poor decisions writ large across the face of the world.

Think of caribou out-breeding the capacity of their grazing areas.

And we are one of the largest 'causes' in recent memory, not necessarily most catastrophic in the immediate sense like a volcano, a tsunami, or even a bolide strike, but in the extended impact sense. We take a long time, but during that time our bending the environment to our needs accumulates a hell of a lot of damage to the biosphere.

444 b_sharp  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 7:59:14pm

re: #67 The Curmudgeon

Nah, they don't know my current persona. They were reminiscing about when I used to be there, bashing creationists.

Weren't you a leader of the great washed?

I remember the good old days, the chosen few, the soldiers for knowledge and science, the bashing of creationists, the tearing asunder of bad arguments. Good times.

445 Pythagoras  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 8:00:39pm

re: #438 LudwigVanQuixote

OK so the effects of DDT being horrible are so documented that I am shocked that anyone could possibly take up this line of reasoning. As to the ozone hole, bringing questions about that being a bad thing or caused by CFCs is also shocking. The Nobel prize in chemistry was handed out to the researchers that nailed that mechanism.

So you claim to love nature. OK

You were wrong about DDT.

You were wrong about CFCs and ozone. Your wait and see idea would have only made things much worse - and the science was well settled about that in the eighties.

You are currently wrong about AGW.

Dude you are 0-3 when it comes to doubting environmental science.

I did not make a claim about CFCs and ozone other than that there are other positions. I do not have a position of CFCs and ozone. Reread what I wrote.

As for DDT, do you think the WHO was wrong to start allowing it again? If not, then we agree on DDT. I clearly did NOT say it is harmless. I will say that its overuse was tragic too. Correct use is important. It is persistent (an advantage if used properly).

As for AGW, I take a moderate position. I still think we are not nearing a tipping point and, given China's energy plans, we are going to find out. How long do I need to wait to find out if I'm wrong on that one? Some people were widely quoted at the beginning of Obama's term as saying we only have 4 years until it's too late on AGW. That was a political, not scientific, statement so I'm expecting you to be more measured. But seriously, how long?

446 b_sharp  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 8:05:18pm

re: #104 harrisam

If I accept the theory that there is global warming happening currently why must I also accept that human beings contribute to it. And that eliminating or reducing that contribution will have any effect in significantly, or even marginally, reducing that warming. That is where I part ways with the people who want to negatively affect economies & quality of life. I don't understand why that makes me a "denier".

If you are unable or unwilling to change your mind in the face of evidence then you are a denier. If you will and have changed you mind when slapped in the face with information previously unknown or not understood, then you can claim to be a skeptic.

Do a worst case/best case cost/benefit analysis.

447 Pythagoras  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 8:08:55pm

re: #440 Mark Winter

Indoor spraying against malaria was never the problem of DDT, but its massive and widespread use against just about anything that crawled.

Malaria rates are btw no longer "plummeting" because insects built up resistance

Yes but the level is WAY down from what it was before the spraying.

I support the pursuit of alternatives to DDT. No pesticide works forever.

448 Pythagoras  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 8:12:33pm

re: #441 Charles

Wow. I thought I'd seen everything. Then someone pops up and says banning DDT was "a huge mistake."

My brow is becoming even more furrowed.

Good night everyone.

449 Mark Winter  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 8:17:14pm

re: #445 Pythagoras

I did not make a claim about CFCs and ozone other than that there are other positions. I do not have a position of CFCs and ozone.

Why not? Too lazy to read up on it?
But on CO2 you do have a position?
I mean, other than "that there are other positions"?

450 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 8:25:19pm

It's astounding to me that there are actually people who would apologize for the massive overuse of DDT that led to near extinction for many species of birds, helped usher in a new era of pesticide-resistant insects, and caused birth defects in human beings and poisoning of countless ground water systems.

Banning DDT was not "a huge mistake," it was vitally necessary to stop a runaway environmental catastrophe.

451 freetoken  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 8:30:17pm

I googled "tyranny of science" and was surprised at how many hits that brings up. There are some well known names who have used that phrase, but I didn't think it was a commonly used as it apparently is.

452 Varek Raith  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 8:36:19pm

re: #397 mioilman

L.O.L! 'Science tyrants'....hahahaha. You, sir or madame, win the thread with that most ludicrous post! :D...lol.
/Seriously, thanks for the laugh...

453 Mark Winter  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 8:36:52pm

re: #450 Charles


It's astounding to me that there are actually people who would apologize for the massive overuse of DDT

Rest assured you won't find many of them

454 freetoken  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 8:38:34pm

re: #453 Mark Winter

Rest assured you won't find many of them

You're overestimating the intellectual rectitude of the American populace.

455 Mark Winter  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 8:48:27pm

re: #454 freetoken

You're overestimating the intellectual rectitude of the American populace.

I'd certainly expect somewhat more from a guy usurping the name "Pythagoras"

456 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 8:53:15pm

So what's in a name...

Youtube Video

Notice the similarities...

457 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 8:54:22pm

Actually I love this video. This says a lot about the tyranny of reason and evidence in science.

Youtube Video
458 jaunte  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 8:57:34pm

re: #451 freetoken

I googled "tyranny of science" and was surprised at how many hits that brings up. There are some well known names who have used that phrase, but I didn't think it was a commonly used as it apparently is.


I did the same phrase search, and found this curious thinking from a personal blog:
"Facts don't change your perspective. Your perspective changes your facts."
It's magic! If you don't like the facts, just change your perspective!
[Link: ecomythsmith.blogspot.com...]

459 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 9:04:48pm

re: #458 jaunte

Which is why the scientific method is so keen on multiple independent observers. It is the best way to remove human bias from the science.

460 Mark Winter  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 9:07:01pm

re: #459 LudwigVanQuixote

That's an excellent video

461 stiruptheblog  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 9:09:26pm

re: #34 Gus 802

Youtube Video

Here today... So who is living in fear?
Ok, if you won't listen to the logic of us "global warming deniers",
how about listening to the greater wisdom of one of your own?
OK Mr Carlin, take it away...

462 freetoken  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 9:10:03pm

re: #458 jaunte

Amazing, isn't it?

BTW, the site to which you linked seems to wholeheartedly pick up all the usual AGW deniers, rather uncritically.

This is very similar to the plethora of creationism websites which pretend to use science to discredit evolution. Some of them run into the hundreds of pages, many many thousands of words, yet for all their effort all they end up doing is running in ever smaller circles.

"Perspective"... indeed.

463 freetoken  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 9:12:06pm

re: #461 stiruptheblog

George Carlin was a stand up comic who specialized in the mastery of the English language.

At which he was great.

Nevertheless, his shtick was just that... an act.

464 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 9:13:15pm

re: #460 Mark Winter

That's an excellent video

It's a message I have written about here many times. I get cranky at all the various people out there who believe that they have some right to confuse their beliefs and opinions with facts. The notion that everyone has an opinion is fine. Everyone has a bottom too.

Not everyone has taken the time to learn things and get the facts straight. And no, there are some things that you really don't have a right to an opinion to, unless you know what the hell you are talking about. The example I use most is that you have no right to an opinion about how to crack a chest properly if you are not a thoracic surgeon. You also have no right to an opinion on how to design a nuclear reactor if you don't know nuclear physics or an airfoil if you don't know aeronautics.

Yet we have countless pundits out there trying to lecture scientists on what is and is not science when they can not even manage algebra consistently.

465 jaunte  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 9:13:24pm

re: #462 freetoken

It's still surprising to me that that blogger expects to be taken seriously when they begin by explaining that reality is whatever the reader wants it to be.

466 Mark Winter  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 9:29:17pm

re: #461 stiruptheblog

There's a lot to say about this video, but then again, he's a comedian. He's supposed to be funny. You can be funny... and totally wrong.

Caring about the world, the environment, nature etc is caring about ourselves, naturally.

467 Mark Winter  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 9:41:18pm

re: #464 LudwigVanQuixote

The example I use most is that you have no right to an opinion about how to crack a chest properly if you are not a thoracic surgeon. You also have no right to an opinion on how to design a nuclear reactor if you don't know nuclear physics or an airfoil if you don't know aeronautics.

Yes, there's a difference between telling others how to crack a chest properly without having the expertise and forming an opinion about... say Climate Change without being a climatologist. But it's your duty to get the best info that is out there, do your own thinking, weigh the evidence as best as you can.

Dare to know. And never accept beliefs, only evidence.

468 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 9:51:15pm

re: #467 Mark Winter

Yes, there's a difference between telling others how to crack a chest properly without having the expertise and forming an opinion about... say Climate Change without being a climatologist. But it's your duty to get the best info that is out there, do your own thinking, weigh the evidence as best as you can.

Dare to know. And never accept beliefs, only evidence.

Absolutely. I did not say that it was impossible to learn enough about something to have an educated opinion. I am saying that it should be obvious that until and unless you have taken the time to get educated, you don't know anything and that some topics are life and death.

At the end of the day, AGW is a matter of life and death. The basic concepts are simple, very simple. Anyone can learn them. What we see here though over and over are those who steadfastly refuse to learn them.

Yet they keep saying the same stupid and false crap over and over. It would not matter if they were rendering an opinion on ice cream flavors. I really don't care is someone thinks that strawberry ice cream means communism. But matters of life and death matter.

469 Gus  Tue, Dec 22, 2009 9:52:08pm

re: #461 stiruptheblog

[Video]Here today... So who is living in fear?
Ok, if you won't listen to the logic of us "global warming deniers",
how about listening to the greater wisdom of one of your own?
OK Mr Carlin, take it away...

I don't understand your comment about "living in fear." I find it obtuse. Yes, and if you listen to Carlin in this routine he goes on to make light of endangered species and a litany of other environmental and ecological problems. It is after all a comedy routine however if we are going to us Carlin as a model speaker for whatever it is you're supporting keep this in mind. George Carlin had his first heart attack when he was 40 years old mainly due to his lifestyle of intense consumption and heavy drug use.

470 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:17:05am

re: #314 Sharmuta

Let me repeat myself - again. It's not about the film. It's not about the film maker. There is no need to defend either, because neither was attacked, and the original point raised had absolutely nothing to do with either.

The problem is someone making a statement that, because a scientist published a paper but wasn't a climate scientist, that alone is sufficient merit to dismiss their work. And that the follow on from that attitude demands that the film above also be rejected, because it also is not the work of a climate scientist.

It's a criticism of a non sequitur, a logical fallacy. It is also an implicit endorsement of the film if you pay attention to the argument.

471 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 12:22:42am

This excellent Veridian Dynamics commercial is finally available from the producers of Better Off Ted:

Youtube Video
472 Pythagoras  Wed, Dec 23, 2009 10:43:46am

re: #450 Charles

It's astounding to me that there are actually people who would apologize for the massive overuse of DDT that led to near extinction for many species of birds, helped usher in a new era of pesticide-resistant insects, and caused birth defects in human beings and poisoning of countless ground water systems.

Banning DDT was not "a huge mistake," it was vitally necessary to stop a runaway environmental catastrophe.

The runaway catastrophe stopped 4 years before DDT was banned -- at least with respect to Bald Eagles. There are ways to stop overuse other than total bans.

The personal insults on this board are kinda odd. I can assure you that I study the things I make comments about (e.g. global warming) and on previous threads LVQ complemented me on my following all his links. Somehow that's all forgotten now.

I don't make a lot of comments here. That's because my day job as a mathematician keeps me busy (not to mention all the honey-do projects). I'll continue to visit as time permits and comment when I think it's worth my time.

OK, that's silly, but I'll still weigh in.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 335 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1