Sigh. More lies from the climate denialists. These are all just from one recent post.
The lie: the whole global warming agenda is a hoax
The truth: There is a scientific consensus based on decades of research. And every major scientific organization in the world agrees.
The lie: CO2 is a natural compound that has always been resident in Earth's atmosphere for millions of years.
The truth: It is true that CO2 is natural, and even vital. But we've added so much more of it to the atmosphere in a very short time, which is not natural, or good. Think of drinking a glass of water. Now think of drinking a swimming pool full of water all in one gulp.
The lie: There are tens of thousands of scientist who do not concur with the findings that governments are spoon feeding us
The truth: There really are only a handful of scientists that are most often cited, and they are all associated with free market lobbying groups whose mission it is to deny anything that might result in regulations they don't like.
The lie: however, no airtime on any major news network is allowed for debates on this topic.
The truth: Climate change and global warming get huge amounts of airtime. What the denialists want are people to accept their lies, which cannot stand the test of scrutiny.
The lie: And, further if our planet is the only one being affected then why are other planets in our solar system heating up at the same time too.
The truth: Here's a link to explain what is happening (don't forget to click on each link at the site to get to the full explanations). The conclusion is "The causal link between the Earth’s warming and the alleged warming of other planets would have to be solar activity. But a recent study has shown that solar activity, including cosmic rays, are not responsible for recent planetary warming."
The lie: At present there are 30,000 scientist who have a signed petition to sue Al Gore on the issue of global warming.
The truth: It is true that there is a petition to sue Al Gore, but the entire concept is a lie. First, the list is actually a meaningless fakery. Second, it's a straw man to sue Al Gore since he is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion (the premise is that he somehow "invented" global warming with his 2006 slide show, which conveniently ignores that his slide show was based on the decades of research by thousands of scientists). And third, it epitomizes the idea of "frivolous lawsuits" and if they ever do actual file a lawsuit (which is unlikely, since this is really just a PR ruse), the suit would be dismissed by summary judgment (and the suers could possibly be fined).
The lie: Fox news was the only channel to carry a message to viewers that actually allowed them to have full expression of their views.
The truth: This is the same Fox News in which Sean Hannity deleted sections of the President's speech and then accused the President of not saying the things Hannity deleted. I think that says it all.
The lie: Are we quietly being mislead by our own government?
The truth: The scientific consensus is based on tens of thousands of peer-reviewed studies from thousands of researchers from every country in the world (well, those that have scientists) and every relevant scientific institution in the word over several decades of research. Just what "government" is doing the misleading here?
The lie: But be sure to go see Davids articles...even the ones he didn't allow post on....
The truth: My climate change articles generally have between 300 and over 600 comments on them when the loading times get to the point where the pages won't load anymore and I am forced to close comments. If 300 to 600 comments isn't enough time to get our point across, maybe that says something about your ability to communicate honestly. Click here and use "most discussed" in the drop down box.
The lie: You'll find me there a lot...except the ones that he didn't allow posts on...
The truth: Because the tactics of the denialists are to saturate the comments until the page won't load in a reasonable time (thereby depriving others of the right to read the article), I posted one article without allowing comments as an experiment. Seems my experiment revealed quite a bit about that particular commenter.
The lie: David can't seem to come to accept...as the IPCC has come to accept that the planet's temperature has moderated in the last few years.
The truth: It doesn't matter whether David, or any other single person, accepts any particular data point. Because single data points (i.e., outliers) do not define the totality of the data. The one red ball up in the corner doesn't define the regression line that fits all the rest of the data. On top of that, the idea that the temperature has moderated isn't particularly meaningful anyway, as temperatures fluctuate a lot, and it is the long term trend that matters. But the commenter seems to be confused and thinks that a plateauing, or even a short term cooling, invalidates the rest of the data. It doesn't. As I've said there is natural variability and only the long term trend is important. [Today is rainy, but that doesn't mean tomorrow won't be sunny.]
But the more important point here is how the commenter "supports" this illogical concept. He provides a partial quote of the head of the IPCC in which he cherry picks the parts that he thinks support his view that the IPCC "has come to accept..." (even though Pachauri's words don't support the commenters view at all) and ignores the parts that show the IPCC knows that denialists will jump on any chance to spin (i.e., lie) about what the data say.
For example, the commenter provided the quote:
"One would really have to see on the basis of some analysis what this really represents," he told Reuters, adding "are there natural factors compensating?" for increases in greenhouse gases from human activities."
Which doesn't actually support the commenters view at all. But the commenter omits the paragraph immediately following:
He added that sceptics about a human role in climate change delighted in hints that temperatures might not be rising. "There are some people who would want to find every single excuse to say that this is all hogwash," he said.
Of course, the entire "support" comes from a blogger, who has extracted the parts of the interview with Pachauri that he likes, so the comment is pretty meaningless anyway.
The lie: Note that the IPCC has not come to an official conclusion since....about a year ago as to why the planet's temperature has moderated but many scientists are now publicly attributing the shift to the current period of a lack of sunspot activity which began about the same time that the planet stopped warming.
The truth: Scientists do not "come to an official conclusion" on anything just because they want a result. They examine the issue from multiple views and do research. Eventually they might reach a consensus, but the "conclusion" is data driven (unlike the denialists who simply say "it's sunspots stupid" without any evidence or proof). Oh, and "many scientists" is like saying "many Americans believe Elvis is alive." Science depends on the sum total of all the data, not just the opinions of a few bloggers or free market lobbying groups.
The lie: "...don't you think it would be a matter common courtesy to provide her examples of the "facts" that prove the skeptics distortions?"
The truth: All of the "facts" that denialists have presented have been discussed and addressed and found to be wrong on many occasions by many people. My posts have highlighted some of the tactics, deceptions and outright lies, but many others have also shown how denialists have falsified quotes, manipulated data, and simply provided nothing but cut-and-pastings from blogger articles. One of the tricks of the denialists is to simply ignore all the previous discussions and debunkings, move on to another of their handful of points, and after that is debunked just circle back around to the original point and make believe no discussion has ever occurred. The new tactic, of course, is to claim that no facts have ever been posted in rebuttal. The truth is that after rebutting it several times we all just get tired of repeating the same thing over and over, only to have the denialists move on and then circle back to the same exacted rebutted points as if nothing had ever been said about them. In doing this they are lying to any newcomers who haven't seen the entire history of rebuttal by people grown weary of the denialists lies. Of course, even this post includes plenty of proof of denialists lies and tactics, but they will simply deny that as well.
The lie: But because I do not adhere to the ideals of the global warmists, meaning that I don't believe that man is or can be responsible for global warming, because I provide information that effectively challenges his position I am categorized by David as a terrorist!
The truth: The commenter was characterized as a terrorist (once) due to his use of tactics that deny the rights of others by intimidation. By saturating any and all threads (even those not related to the topic) with the same handful of points over and over again, he effectively destroys any legitimate discussions that might be attempted. If given the chance the commenter, along with similar denialists alerted to the post, will saturate the thread with so many comments that the page simply won't load in the time period most people are willing to wait. [You can read the summary article here if you don't want to wait for the commented one to load.] The denialists will also ensure that they keep returning to place their own comments after any explanatory comments in an effort to "hide" the explanatory comment (knowing that many readers will not read the entire comment string, especially when it gets very long). Finally, the very sight of the commenter's icon is enough to cause some readers to avoid the post because they don't want to be caught up in the pollution left behind by the commenter. It can be very intimidating. Intimidation, terrorism, you decide.
The lie: I will not do as David does call you stupid, or any other derogatory names like he does, if you end up disagreeing with the skeptics.
The truth: I have never called anyone stupid. Ever. I have called this particular commenter a liar because, well, he was lying. And does so often. Here's another example of the kinds of lies denialists tell.
The lie: I do not believe like David does, that most people are not smart enough to understand the science.
The truth: I have never suggested that people are not smart enough to understand the science. I have, however, pointed out the particular commenter's propensity for misinterpreting and misunderstanding the science, that is, when he doesn't outright lie about it. I do believe most people are smart enough to understand the science when denialists aren't lying to them about what the science says.
The lie: There are many reputable scientists who question the theory of man made global warming.
The truth: Every major scientific organization in the world concurs with the scientific consensus that is built on the sum total of all of the relevant science. The commenter would prefer that all of the tens of thousands of peer-reviewed studies be ignored in favor of the views of the handful of most cited skeptic scientists (all associated with free market lobbying groups whose mission it is to deny the science).
The lie: The science that led to the idea that man is responsible for global warming, is the science of models, models are elaborate guesses and most scientists realize this.
The truth:Climate science is predicting future events, which of course requires modeling (at least until we invent time travel). And models obviously are mathematical approximations of the future based on inputs that we know and can estimate. Which is why there are many models that are used and combined to get the best data. And why each model is run probabilistically, i.e., over and over again (e.g., a million times) with slightly different points in the possible range so that the end result gives us a probability of certain events occurring. [Kind of like predicting the probability of getting hit by lightning. The chances of you getting hit are very small, but the chances of someone getting hit are quite accurately modeled.] The point here is that the commenter's suggestions that models are mere guesses is a lie. That would be like saying that it would be a mere guess that you would be hit by a car if you stood in the middle of a highway.
The lie: The IPCC and those who promote man made caused global warming proclaimed it absolute that the earth's temperature would rise with the addition of man made C02, as you can see the earth's temperature has not risen even though "man" continues to add billions of tons of C02 to the atmosphere every year.
The truth: Neither the IPCC, nor any other scientist, have "proclaimed absolute" anything. Especially not that in the short term the exact levels of CO2 and average world temperatures could be predicted. The atmosphere, can climate change, is a complex and variable phenomenon. Temperatures vary. Just like Monday might be warmer and Tuesday might be cooler. But also just like summer will usually be hotter than winter in temperate climates. Variability happens, and only the long term trends are predictable. Which is why temperature "moderations" or up and down variability is expected and incorporated into the models. And despite these short term variations, the long term trends are clear. The sum total of all of the data have led to the overwhelming conclusion that is the consensus.
I thank everyone who has made it this far. Just one more lie to go (for now).
The lie: What we should NOT do is shackle our society with a economy busting carbon tax or cap and trade scheme!
The truth: Actually, this one reveals the real truth motivating the denialists. They don't like the possibility that there will be some policy distasteful to free market groups, so they try to deflect the point to deny that the science is real. The medicine tastes bad, so they deny that they have the disease. Which is why the free market lobbying groups and their stable of front groups and paid bloggers (and the lackeys who cut-and-paste from the paid bloggers) spend so much time and effort trying to deny the scientific consensus. AlGorians!, they cry (forgetting that Al Gore came on the scene long after the scientific consensus was reached). Many independent scientists!, they claim (forgetting that all of the skeptic scientists they so often cite are associated with free market groups) [or aren't even scientists, or aren't scientists that have ever done climate research]. Dismiss and demean!, they whine (forgetting that one of their lies had just been proven to be a lie). You never provide facts, they lie (forgetting that the same tired points have been debunked so many times that the debunkers have stopped bothering to repeat it again). But so and so says the science is wrong, they beg (forgetting that so and so isn't a scientist, or had to look up basic terms on Google, or hasn't ever done climate research, or is associated with free market lobbying groups whose mission it is to deny the very science the scientists claim to be informing).
The truth is that denialists use the very same tricks (and some of the same people and organizations) as the "smoking doesn't cause cancer" denialists. They use the infamous API tactics (acquired through a Free of Information Act request), they cling religiously to the ploys from the Skeptics Comic Book (written by a performance artist with no climate science experience), and they lie. They lie a lot.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 197
I'm sorry but I'm not buying into Global Warming
And you know what I think
No matter what is going on God has it in control!
I think the return of Jesus will happen before weather has any serious effect on us as a population as a whole!
Mooch
I think the return of Jesus will happen before weather has any serious effect on us as a population as a whole!"
You keep on waiting, Mooch, and let the rest of us deal with the reality of saving our planet. Thanks so much.
-R.
It is hard to forge ahead when we have to jump over the idiots in the path with their heads stuck up their butts.
I am so for more science taught in our public schools
I find very little of these peoples arguements actually mired in facts but they are entertaining.
I think that's the entire problem with them; it's not going to affect them (that much) during their lifetimes, so they don't see it as a problem. Hey, they'll be in heaven already by the time things become severe, who cares about future generations.
There is a scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and that man-made CO2 emissions are creating and accelerating the problem to the point where we need to take action.
Consensus means a like-mindedness among experts based on the facts - not an across-the-board agreement that can be hijacked by anyone, regardless of their expertise or motives.
Marilyn may be right that there are dissenting voices, but they aren't voices that matter, because they aren't honest and informed voices.
The reality is I don't know enough yet and will have more homework to do. Meanwhile, cleaner air and water sounds good to me!
That's the point. If the denialists would just be honest we could all focus on coming up with a rational and workable solution. But their goal is to stand in the way of ANY solution.
I don't want to see the US economy crippled, but do believe we can find ways to be cleaner and more efficient. I also don't want to see the world chasing after "solutions" that can ultimately make things worse. (ie: What are we going to to with the Prius batteries and does it REALLY take more energy to build one than it saves over time?).
I think the goal of a cleaner world is worth pursuing - for everyone. Whether the WHOLE of the global warming issue is SPOT on or not, it really doesn't matter because we are pursuing a goal that will benefit everyone.
But, as more and more regulatory solutions are proposed and debated, I think it is critically important that we proceed correctly rather than just quickly.
China actually is starting to take some action. They have realized that they will define what happens to this planet even more than the US (eventually).
The bottom line is that if we put our collective efforts into finding solutions for the future rather than denying the problem, we will find solutions that are good both for the planet and for our economy.
Basically, we're shooting ourselves in the foot with a bazooka.
You are correct! What the current administration is suggesting, a cap and trade scheme will add substantially to the cost of just about everything sold in our country and will not effect the planet one iota! It will have the effect of slowing our progress towards a cleaner society.
China is producing energy from an all energy sources stand point. they are building solar and wind faster than most countries on the planet but also building nuclear and coal fired power plant at a rate of about one a week.
China is concerned with energy production period!
I agree with you, we need to promote alternative energy aggressively but reasonably. keep our economy as strong as we can which will allow citizens to have more disposable income to purchase hybrids and solar power generation systems.
The world shows us that the most affluent societies are the cleanest and as Buckminster fuller suggested some 50+ years ago or so, more energy is the key to a cleaner society not less.
Agreed, but keep in mind that we have done nothing for 30 years even though we knew there was a problem. We can't focus so much on "correct" as to lose sight of "some" action. I'm not saying we should jump into some big program without thinking it through, but we need to be thinking it through now so we can act soon.
Which means honestly addressing the options and not dishonestly trying to deny there is a need for them. Let's argue cap-and-trade on its merits. And carbon tax. And innovation incentives. And renewable resources. And every viable combination. Focus on finding solutions to a problem that has a clear scientific consensus, not deny there is a consensus by telling lies and pushing the views of non-scientific bloggers and skeptic scientists fronting for free market lobbying groups.
It's time to be honest, and put American ingenuity to its fullest potential.
AT THE MOMENT - from my current perspective - I think the cap and trade idea will only hurt the economy and move money into the hands of people who will not REALLY address the problem.
We need a way to cut pollution and make money doing it.
The lie is that there are no reputable scientists rejecting the "concensus".
The fact is, none of the models used to back man caused global climate change were able to accurately predict the climate patterns over the last 5 years.
The fact is, to believe man caused global climate change models, we'd have to believe the a 1C rise in global temperature is significant, but a 0.70C decrease in global temperature in 1 year is meaningless.
For the rest, please read the relevant sections of the post above or the linked posts. Everything you raise is old news and has already been answered.
The fact is, the debate is far from over and anyone saying it is is merely stateing an opinion... not based on any form of science.
As I said, everything you mention has already been raised and answered. Making blanket protestations without any specific rebuttal doesn't advance the discussion.
On what evidence to you support this conclusion that "science is based on popularity contests?"
The scientific consensus is based on tens of thousands of peer-reviewed studies by thousands of scientists who have for more than three decades been investigating various aspects of the climate.
Just exactly what "popularity contest" could you possibly be talking about? You think telling the world that there is a huge problem that will take some serious policy-making action is "popular?" Clearly it isn't.
The fact is, the debate is far from over and anyone saying it is is merely stateing an opinion... not based on any form of science.
And on what do you base this contention? Because you don't know the science or the scientific process that combines the sum total of all those tens of thousands of studies? Because you don't understand how science works?
And who do you think is doing this debating you say is still raging? Bloggers? Free market lobbying group-supported skeptics (some who aren't even scientists). People like yourself who make statements like it is "not based on any form of science?," when it is based on the sum total of all the science by all the scientists from every type of scientific organization, including skeptics, governments, advocacy groups, academics, etc. The scientific consensus is by definition based on the sum total of ALL the science.
You complained that people dismiss anything that doesn't back "our side," but that has no basis in the truth. It is only silly, mindless bumper sticker type statements that are dismissed. ALL valid and relevant scientific data are considered in the assessment. All of it, whether it appears to support or not support whatever the current consensus believes.
The point is that a scientific consensus is the result of the sum total of all the peer-reviewed scientific data available. A scientific consensus is only reached after the data overwhelmingly support a particular interpretation.
It's also SO convenient. Weather patterns can be used as evidence for man caused global climate change, but they can't be used as evidence against it. For decades we heard of the coming Ice age, then all of the sudden it was "global warming"... oh no, but wait, the earth reversed itself and started coolling.. better change the term to fit the new "reality"... yeah, ok, we'll call it "global climate change" then no matter what happens, it's evidence!
Sorry, but if the same set of "evidence" was presented to you for something you didn't agree, you would dismiss it without argument... much like you do anything else that doesn't fit your paradigms.
In the 70s the UN was warning the same thing they are today, but the 80s came and went... the 90s came and went, and now the 00s have come and they are about to be history... yet none of the doomsday "warnings" have happened.
The difference between your lords and masters Al Gore or Michael Moore and Nostradamus is he got it right once or twice per century.
In what way? Can you explain your logic here?
The very idea that "the debate is over" because "there is a concensus". First of all, since when is "concensus" used to draw scientific conclusions? How can there be a "concensus" when there are scientists who don't agree? I know, I know, in your myopic world view, as soon as a scientist doesn't pray at the same altar as you, they negate their reputation.
I've tried to explain this several ways, Ted, but apparently it still isn't clear to you how science works and how scientific conensus works.
First, you're stuck on some dictionary definition of consensus that isn't particularly accurate when applied to science. Scientific consensus is not the result of some opinion poll.
Second, consensus doesn't require 100% agreement. Not in science and not in any other context. It is impossible to get everyone to agree exactly on anything, and even when there is agreement on the overall conclusions there is bound to be some who quibble with certain details. [The sky is blue, but sometimes it is red]
Thrid, consensus isn't "used to draw scientific conclusions" per se. Scientific consensus is the result of scientific conclusions being drawn. In other words, when the sum total of all of the science point overwhelmingly to a certain conclusion, a scientific consensus can then be reached.
Fourth, your last line of this section is patently false. Science is all about people questioning each other and questioning the data. We go out of our way to document and quantify any uncertainty. Contrary views are the mainstay of science, which is focused on finding the truth. But that doesn't mean that anybody's opinion is always valid. The science has to stand the tests of scrutiny, i.e., the methods have to make sense, the results have to be definitive, the conclusions drawn have to be supported by the data, etc.
What you see as "negating their reputation" has nothing to do with the science...the science either stands on its own or its doesn't, and it doesn't matter whether the author is world-renowned or someone of whom no one has ever heard. Clearly someone who has a long history of doing well documented and supportable work is likely to continue to do so. While someone who has no background in the discipline he is critiquing obviously has less credibility. Would you take a plumber's word that you don't have a tumor, especially if he hasn't even looked at your CAT scan? And especially if it's been proven he's lying about even being a plumber?
It's also SO convenient. Weather patterns can be used as evidence for man caused global climate change, but they can't be used as evidence against it.
While there unfortunately have been some non-scientists who have misapplied the scientific consensus to short-term weather patterns, no climate scientist would say that a particular Hurricane is "caused" by global warming. What is likely is that the incidences of more damaging hurricanes will probably increase due to the changes in the earth's balance. Way too many non-scientists seem to be trying to overinterpret the specific of climate change, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a scientific consensus.
For decades we heard of the coming Ice age,
That's not true at all. There were a few articles in the 1970s that suggested a cooling, but these were quickly found to be unsupportable. But it a common ploy by denialists to misrepresent a few papers as a "consensus," which is simply false.
Sorry, but if the same set of "evidence" was presented to you for something you didn't agree, you would dismiss it without argument... much like you do anything else that doesn't fit your paradigms.
I think you'll find that what I do is point out obvious misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and sometimes outright lies. I don't have to agree or disagree with any particular viewpoint, as my viewpoint, yours, and everyone else on Gather is pretty much irrelevant (unless some of us are secretly studying climate science and not telling anyone). As I said, my concern is the disinformation being spewed out there, and since much of what your comment espouses as "truth" is actually not true, it's clear that disinformation campaigns do influence the opinions of those who don't understand how science works. Which is the vast majority of the populace.
In the 70s the UN was warning the same thing they are today, but the 80s came and went... the 90s came and went, and now the 00s have come and they are about to be history... yet none of the doomsday "warnings" have happened.
This doesn't make any sense. The warnings given are still being given, and the things being warned about are happening, and in fact, happening even faster than had been expected. We're talking about long term trends here, not some Kreskin-like prediction that the temperature on November 17, 2008 was going to be exactly 27.4 degrees Celsius in Buffalo, New York, USA. You really have to stay focused on reality and not hyperbole.
The difference between your lords and masters Al Gore or Michael Moore and Nostradamus is he got it right once or twice per century.
Here's a perfect example of hyperbole. Not to mention bumper sticker statements with no basis in fact or evidence.
For the record, I'm not a big fan of Michael Moore. In fact, I'm not a fan at all. Sorry if that ruins your straw man argument. Regarding Al Gore, as I discussed in a post a while back, I think Gore is incredibly bright but a bit of a mixed bag when it comes to climate change issues. You raising his name as some sort of "lord and master" straw man is exactly the reason why. But frankly, it really is a sign of a weak argument when hyperbole blinds people to an honest discussion.
I've never met Nostradamus.
Actually, I threw in Gore and Moore for fun. I hoped the "lord and master" part would be the giveaway, but sarcasm doesn't always translate well in print. The fact is, I don't know very many people on your side of the argument who give them much credence. Most wish they would shut up because they actually hurt their stated cause (as apposed to their real cause...make a boatload of money while acting like they care).
My main point was that we've had UN and other orgs warn, and warn, and warn, and warn... and yet none of the doomsday soothsayers are any more accurate than any other doomsday propheteers.
What I wish is that we could get passed the whole "man caused" thing and the powers that be use their knowledge and experience to help us learn to adapt to whatever changes are coming.
My background is in disaster management and EMS. I wish our scientists would think a little more like my fields. Mitigation, Preparation, Response and Recovery. Yes, there are things we can (and should) do in the way of mitigation. There are a lot of "Green" programs that do make sense and are cost effective. However, there are a lot that are useless at best and counterproductive at worst.
In my training, Preparation is for all the things that can't realistically be mitigated against. Are there scientists working on helping to prepare us with the tools and knowledge we'll need if their worst case scenarios do happen? (That is a question, not an accusation, I'd really like to know the answer to that).
Response and Recovery are what happen after the disaster has hit. A disaster being an emergency situation that overwhelms the infrastructure. Hopefully we'll never have to respond or react to the kind of things we're warned about... but then again, that is always the hope for any disaster is it not?
But I didn't sit through all those hours in classes, or spill sweat and blood in training because I didn't think it would be useful. What would have been a waste is if we sat around demanding that the city be destroyed to minimize the damage brought on by the hurricane.
That's what all these things like "Kyoto" and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change seem to be doing.
I'll be back (said with my best Austrian muscleman accent)
Note to others - I ask your indulgence to not add your own comment in this substring until I've had a chance to respond to Ted. Feel free to comment on other substrings (or start a new one), and all are welcome to return to follow and/or participate in the conversation. Thanks.
Deadlines are the bane of man, and the spice of life.
Yes, the warnings given are still being given, but the time table changes with the underwear of the Secretary General. In the 70s the UN warned of the calamities that would hit us in the 90s... but guess what... we are still free of the calamities predicted.
To what "calamities of the 90s" are you referring? Then we can examine them specifically rather than as some vague concept.
Actually, I threw in Gore and Moore for fun. I hoped the "lord and master" part would be the giveaway, but sarcasm doesn't always translate well in print.
I'll take your word that it was merely sarcasm, but the fact is that raising Al Gore's name is a common tactic used by denialists (i.e., active liars) and their followers (like-minded ideologues but honest about it). And it's kind of like a lawyer who raises a point in trial that had already been disallowed in the pre-trial hearings - he can apologize for the "slip" but knows full well that the jury can't forget something they've heard. Especially if there is an air of controversy surrounding it.
The fact is, I don't know very many people on your side of the argument who give them much credence. Most wish they would shut up because they actually hurt their stated cause (as apposed to their real cause...make a boatload of money while acting like they care).
I'm not aware of Moore being involved with climate issues, though I suppose he could be (as I said, I'm not a fan of his). Gore obviously is. But the issue of "giving them credence" is a false issue. They are not the science. They may talk about it and even hope to profit from it (as do the innovative companies who are advancing cleaner technologies), but they are merely supporters of what is a scientific consensus. The science is still the science, whether you like the people who support or don't support it. Nor can you suggest credibly that they are merely "acting like they care" just to make money. While certainly they stand to gain financially (like many innovative companies), clearly they are passionate about their beliefs.
My main point was that we've had UN and other orgs warn, and warn, and warn, and warn... and yet none of the doomsday soothsayers are any more accurate than any other doomsday propheteers.
Again,you have to be specific about exactly what warnings to which you are referring. I've heard many people spout off claims of false warnings and then they say things like "scientists claimed CFCs damaged the ozone" (well, they were right, and we made policy decisions that have made the ozone hole diminish), or "scientists claimed that acid rain was killing our fish in lakes" (well, they were right, and we made policy changes that helped reduce the problem to manageable levels), and the list goes on. So give us a specific warning that you think has been wrong and we can try to see what happened.
What I wish is that we could get passed the whole "man caused" thing and the powers that be use their knowledge and experience to help us learn to adapt to whatever changes are coming.
I agree that we need to put our efforts into helping us do something, but you sound like your suggestion for dealing with a house filling up with water from a leaking pipe is to buy scuba equipment. Wouldn't it make more sense to identify the leaking pipe and fix it before the water level reaches the roofline? You suggest that it is inevitable that the planet will warm up, but there are things we can do now to keep that from happening, or more likely since we've been in denial for so long, slow it down to give us time to adapt. Keep in mind also that effects are not even, so those on the coast and those who don't have resources are going to be disproportionately effected.
My background is in disaster management and EMS. I wish our scientists would think a little more like my fields. Mitigation, Preparation, Response and Recovery. Yes, there are things we can (and should) do in the way of mitigation. There are a lot of "Green" programs that do make sense and are cost effective. However, there are a lot that are useless at best and counterproductive at worst.
I congratulate you on a profession that is very worthwhile and needed. I've let my own HazMat and first aid training lapse (too much skipping from place to place to keep up the refreshers), so can appreciate all the work it involves. And I wholeheartedly agree with you that there are some "green" programs that are very productive and others that are more greenwashing than effective. So we need to focus our efforts on determining which are which rather than wasting time and money making believe there isn't a problem that requires these programs.
In my training, Preparation is for all the things that can't realistically be mitigated against. Are there scientists working on helping to prepare us with the tools and knowledge we'll need if their worst case scenarios do happen? (That is a question, not an accusation, I'd really like to know the answer to that).
That's a tough question, not because it isn't being done, but because of the way it is phrased. In this age of specialization you have scientists who study climate and engineers that study how to deal with change of climate and policy-makers who study how to set appropriate policies that will encourage engineers to deal with the changes climate scientists have identified. Coordination of all of these elements (and many many more) is not where it should be. Consider the last administration and how there was outright denial of a problem until near the very end when suddenly they seem to get it. Then the new administration comes in and seems to have a good handle on the need, but also had a worldwide economic meltdown, health care reform, climate change reform, and a million other things on the table to do. And like all new administrations it takes a year to get all the appointees selected and confirmed by the Senate. Toss in a minority party that seems intent on blocking any kind of legislation (which is pretty much what all minority parties seem to do these days), and you get some policy changes moving faster than others.
Response and Recovery are what happen after the disaster has hit. A disaster being an emergency situation that overwhelms the infrastructure. Hopefully we'll never have to respond or react to the kind of things we're warned about... but then again, that is always the hope for any disaster is it not?
Again, you're focusing on the cleanup, not the avoidance, of disasters. That's understandable given your training, and we sure do need your expertise because no matter how well we try to plan there are going to be disasters to deal with - some purely natural and some "instigated" by human activity. It seems prudent when we recognize our impact that we mitigate our own activity before we have to mitigate the result of continuing that activity. We need the after, but we also need to do the before to limit how much "after" from which we need to recover.
But I didn't sit through all those hours in classes, or spill sweat and blood in training because I didn't think it would be useful. What would have been a waste is if we sat around demanding that the city be destroyed to minimize the damage brought on by the hurricane.
I agree. And it is very useful training. We need it now and will continue to need it in the future. But the second part of this section doesn't make sense. No one is suggesting we destroy anything so as to minimize its damage. [As an aside, perhaps we should at least consider not rebuilding after a disaster in an area below sea level right in the middle of Hurricane alley.]
That's what all these things like "Kyoto" and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change seem to be doing.
How so? All Kyoto and IPCC are doing is identifying problems and setting targets. They aren't saying we should dismantle the world. It's up to policy-makers to come up with policies that help us meet those goals. And consider that innovative companies are already seeing, and experiencing, the financial benefits of sustainable business practices. Less waste, less cost hazardous waste disposal costs, greater efficiency and productivity, greater societal acceptance (which means more people buying your products), etc.
The smart companies, and there are many, are moving forward and helping to set the standards for new policies. The not-so-smart companies (and those profiting the most off of old, dirty technologies) are holding out as long as they can keep raking in the nearly pure profit (not much R&D cost to doing the same thing you've been doing for decades).
It's dishonest, but easier and they don't have to take responsibility for their actions.
This one has always given me a chuckle. Arsenic is a natural substance, too. Doesn't mean I want to sprinkle it on my food and disperse it through my ventilation systems.
Ah, David. We'll just have to stick to it and hope that reason will prevail before things get to be irreversable.
This is what gets to me the most. Half the time the arguments don't even make sense logically. The two-dimensionality of the thinking is really scary.
They really must think we are very inferior to Europeans, who seem to be able to survive having reduced their carbon outputs and regulated their industries. Poor stupid Americans....just can't seem to figure their way out of their little boxes of oil and coal.
Maybe we should invite some Europeans over to the US to show us how to be innovative. :)
-R.
That remark reminds me of the car industry spokeperson on Who Killed the Electric Car. He was saying that Americans did not want their car market to in any way, shape or form resemble the Europeans. It reminded me of some kind of 19th American novel satirizing the anti-European feelings of the day. Since when did "European" become a 4-letter word in this country? Since when did smart people refuse to learn the best from anybody they could?
You would be correct, Roger. :-)
That would be swell (or is it swill).
The anti flu vaccine people are more like anti-flouridationists. It's all a plot by pharmaceutical companies and furthermore there are natural remedies that will cure everything. Or so many claim. It's funny how many people died of infections before antibiotics and synthetic drugs. :)
"The good men do is oft interred with their bones." :)
I purposely stayed off this thread just to see what kind of traffic you would garner without my attendance.
44 views and 27 posts!
Lets see if we can boost that a bit!
What a buffoon.
27 to 76 posts in less than 12 hours.
David when I post on your threads your fellow science deniers come out of the woodwork!
1st page post totals (20 posts each; numbers as of the time of this comment):
Total views
David K: 7308
Dan E: 715
Total comments:
David K: 2574
Dan E: 147
Average views:
David K: 365 views per post
Dan E: 36 views per post
Average comments:
David K: 136 comments per post
Dan E: 7 comments per post (3 posts with 0 comments)
What a buffoon!
So!
Your post languished at 20 some posts until I came! After that your fellow science deniers arrived in droves back slapping their favorite skeptic killer, showing their support.
Thing about your fellow science deniers is that they believe that symbolism is more important then substance! They enjoy reading your attacks, get giddy in watching you do your work.
It doesn't matter that your attacks won't make the planet begin warming again, or validate their beliefs, they feel pleasure in seeing some one who offers proof that their beliefs are and have been a fraud being lambasted by an accomplished wordsmith such as you!
They believe in the theory of man made global warming but just like you can't stand that our planet isn't co-operating with the IPCC's predictions.
LOL!
What an absolute buffoon you have become (or perhaps always were).
For example, this absolutely self-congratulatory piece of fantasy:
Your post languished at 20 some posts until I came! After that your fellow science deniers arrived in droves back slapping their favorite skeptic killer, showing their support.
My post didn't "languish," it got 27 comments on 44 views within just over an 1 hour (as demonstrated by the time stamps on your silly comment above and that of the post itself). It's at 276 comments now, still less than a day after being posted.
You got pretty much every other "fact" in your follow up tripe wrong too (are you lying, lazy, or incapable of basic comprehension?). But then, you never did seem to be able to say anything accurate, or even remotely logical.
Would you like some more numbers that give some insight into your "influence?" Try these, again related to the 1st page posts I collected earlier today (20 posts each):
Maximum views
David K: 800 views
Dan E: 94 views
Seems your presence doesn't inspire too many people to view posts. In fact, the 800 views of mine was from an article about Honduras on which you didn't even comment. I even had 240 views for an article on which I didn't allow commenting at all.
In fact, it seems it's pretty common for people to ignore your posts altogether.
Minimum views
David K: 207 views
Dan E: 13
Wow, Dan. Your influence is so impressive that nearly nobody cares. Not surprising since all you do is copy verbatim other people's work and add no actual analysis, commentary, or discussion of your own.
I repeat, what a buffoon.
By the way, I really enjoy the way you demolish their lies. It's quite entertaining.
The thing that is so amazing is that Fox is so obviously biased and yet some people seem to think it is the only "unbiased" station around. How can people be so clueless (or intellectually dishonest) as to think that? I'm not saying they don't have a right to be biased (though that would suggest a lack of journalistic ethics), but come on, how can people not notice? Keep in mind that these are the same people who see MSNBC as have a severe left tilt, but don't see Fox's severe right tilt?
Selective perception.
Odd, I never heard that phrase used when GWB was presenting the case to invade Iraq. "God helps those who help themselves". Try that one, true believers.
Oh please. How much of our tax money has gone to make up for tax breaks handed to Exxon. Name a single battle in the political arena that the denialists have lost, other than the CAFE standards for auto fuel economy that are 20 years late.
Meanwhile the Copenhagen climate summit scheduled for December is looking like a joke, a circular firing squad, a "you first" party. And part of the reason is the PR effort of the lying liars of the denial squad.
The Copenhagen (COP) meeting in December is kind of an artificial deadline, but deadlines are really the only way to get any action (Congress is good at procrastination, especially for anything important that might impact reelections).
As far as the "you first" thinking, that is probably pretty accurate. During the Bush years Europe, China, Russia, Iran, and others flooded the leadership void and became world players. I believe they expected Obama to walk in and change the way things work in Washington overnight (it reminds me of Hillary's campaign event with the "the skies will open up and angels will harken" or whatever she said). Needless to say, anyone who believed it wouldn't be a tough road was kidding themselves. So while Obama is stepping up the world leadership, the fact that change didn't happen overnight is making people impatient (we're a bizarre lot...expecting a worldwide financial meltdown to suddenly disappear before the end of an American Idol episode).
From what I've read, the Obama administration has been fairly quietly rewiring our entire international presence, all of which will take a while but will have long-lasting positive effects. I saw an article (I think in the Washington Post) about the work Hillary has been doing as Sec. State.
with enough research you can find information that will support your own pious belief, and reinforce your obtuse need to be right.
Using a tidbit of information like "such and such happens over long periods of time vs short" is one tidbit of information... however other theories (unexplained) suggest extremely fast changes.
who's right?
Who cares?
fewer people than you think. take the Cash for Clunkers issue... how is taking less than 1% of cars that have an exponential amount of emmissions off the road going to improve anything?
these debates are actually tiring to me... i'm going to take a breather (adding my own bit of CO to the atmosphere) and start running low grade gas just to spite y'all...
well... not really... i prefer to have my engine in running condition for as long as possible... but this BS is solving nothing... if anything it's giving lesser intelligent people an excuse to sit on their ass even longer... and hopefully some darwinian disaster will remove you from my gene pool and thus reduce the CO in my atmosphere...
blah blah blah...
The good will suffer with the evil, the smart with the stupid, the religious with the atheists, the rich with the poor... no, strike that last one, the rich will go somewhere else, the poor will die.
as far as the religious bit... i have a tendancy to look at the subject as more of a discipline than anything. if YOU are DISCIPLINED in the religion of your choice then that should be all you have to worry about.
we all live... we all die... I find it hard to worry about anything else... but that doesn't mean i ridicule others for being more worried about their afterlife.
Actually the only problem i have with any organized religion is that too many undisciplined sorry too much about everyone else's salvation. Seems to me like such people should be worried about them selves and let everyone else find happiness where they can... rather than improving their station by defeating everyone else's
Just chanting, God save us will not change chemistry, and Nature will not self-adjust. So these "Christian" folk obviously, not of any other religious affiliation know exactly and precisely how and when God will save the planet. Negating deforestation, draining and dumping filth into waterways, polluting the oceans and melting the icecaps are illusions of folly--Not. Science is tangible and what God will or will not do is a non-issue. If you do not clean your home God will not clean it either, wake up!
I honestly cannot figure out how these folks think denial has never cured anything. Then there is the CO2 argument-- can they say “Lung disease” trees are the lungs of the planet and without sufficient foliage the trees and greenery cannot cleanse the air we breath. That leaves us with repercussions like acid rain and dieing coral reefs, sea creatures dieing for no other health reason, save the PH of the water and the consequences that produces for the plankton which live and thrive at tight PH levels.
Pertinacious are the self absorbed as they are holding firmly to some purpose, belief, or action, often stubbornly or obstinately without regard for facts and truth. Good luck to Our Government who NOW appears to understand that no one is promised tomorrow including our “Living Planet”.
Needless to say I don't lose too much sleep over points, though this one will do as well as all the others I'm sure. And I do understand that some people will never learn - who actively seek ignorance because they don't want to have to make the tough decisions that reality foists upon us.
Your points are all very well taken and I encourage everyone who is reading this comment to pop up one to Johnice's and read what is written.
And thanks for the new word! :)
There is no serendipity in the "self adjustment theory" in the past Nature was able to re-adjust yet, there were no Manufacturing, Jet planes, automobiles, deforestation plastics in landfills newspapers, magazines, locomotives diesel, oil refineries, etc. I hope that you are not being smug or a disbeliever of the fact that 3.6 Billion humans and the lifestyle many demand have contributed to the pollution of this Planet Earth.
It's always easier to just punt.
1. Ecobridge Org
http://ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm
2. Institute for Creation Research
P. O. Box 59029
Dallas, Texas 75229
http://www.icr.org/article/3233/
3. Gary Braasch, Photographer
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/
4. Center for a New American Security
http://www.cnas.org/naturalsecurity?gclid=CJm1jt3XvpwCFUdM5QodMi29nQ
5. Our Ocean Planet
Oceanography in the 21st Century
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/evidenceforwarming.htm
6. America's Climate Choices
The National Academies
500 5th St. NW, W603
Washington, DC 20001
americasclimatechoices@nas.edu
http://www.dels.nas.edu/basc/climate-change/?gclid=CL6ux6zXvpwCFado5Qod4XP0Kg
"As discussed in our paper, tropospheric and stratospheric observations, as well as the cotemporaneous nature of the two phenomena, are consistent with this interpretation. Nevertheless, there are numerous caveats. The observations are somewhat suspect, with the introduction of satellites having changed observing techniques. Various other factors likely influence the NAM, as discussed in the opening paragraph. Our own experiments show that the magnitude of the effect may very well vary with model physics. The concurrent trends may therefore still be coincidental." David Rind — May 2009
"Suspect" really describes much of the research if not the assessments.
The Center for a New American Security doesn't need too much scrutiny on this topic especially when what I would consider to be one of the most interesting discussions is not available. Only the last page is legible and it is about the author, who like the IPCC and the majority of other authors are not scientists who deal with climate or physics. The military has tried to "weaponize" the weather since the 40's and have made claims of successes in that goal on a few occasions and this document seems to indicate an ignorance of such previous activities. An assumption on my part but the document is not available and indicates it discusses "an international climate change war-game". Such humanitarians. If you're aware of the US and SU's HANE's test you would also understand why I'd be interested in the "new interpretation" of the ozone. The sites you posted are much of what proponents of catastrophic warming claim irrelevant. If you look a specific study it has no relevance to the whole and if you look at the whole it has no relevance to the details of the specific studies. I'm still curious how that works. It's kind of like the global warming pancake theory.
I am still at a loss how the only "scientific" solution seems to be to taxing the entire population with the prime beneficiaries of that tax being those corporations and individuals who are allegedly the biggest opponents. Contrary to popular misconceptions big oil, big energy, big biochems and manufacturing are all going to profit greatly from the proposed "solutions".
Blind, you'll find a good summary of the science here. Be sure to read all the technical parts.
I am still at a loss how the only "scientific" solution seems to be to taxing the entire population with the prime beneficiaries of that tax being those corporations and individuals who are allegedly the biggest opponents.
Taxing, or cap-and-trade, or doing nothing, or doing something else are not scientific solutions, they are policy solutions.
Don't confuse science with policy.
There is a clear scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and that man-made CO2 emissions are a major contributor. This consensus is based on tens of thousands of peer-reviewed studies published by thousands of researchers over more than thirty years. The scientific consensus is the result of the sum total of all of the data leading to an overwhelming conclusion.
Separate from this science is what we choose to do about it. That is the policy discussion, and cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and all the other options are related to finding a policy that will deal with the facts of the science.
Think of the example of drunk drivers. The science says blood alcohol content above certain levels causes a certain level of impairment, which is variable based on a person's body weight, history of drinking, and tolerance. The problem to be dealt with is that drunk drivers are a danger to themselves and others because of this impairment. The policy options are the police checkpoints on Saturday nights and the DWI laws that put people in jail for drinking too much before driving.
The denialists don't like the policy options so their strategy to keep any policy from being implemented is to deny the science.
Nicely and succinctly put.
One thing that occurs to me from time to time is that a very tiny number of people deny that the climate trend is toward warmer. It seems to me that if there are things we can do to mitigate it we ought to try them. I'm old enough so I probably won't see places I used to live under water but my granddaughter is only 18 months.
I agree that we should be thinking just a bit more about what kind of planet we will be leaving to our children and grandchildren.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977786573
It will help explain the liberal fixation with controlling how all the rest of us live.
Dr. Lyle Rossiter titled, "The Liberal Mind" The problem with this book is that it is and was written for the money not professional recognition. At least once per year or, once every 4-5 years PhD’s must write and publish material for peer review and this is no such book. This book has been penned for income at a time when Liberals are in the majority they again make an easy target for conservatives who are in every profession. Mental health will suffer from this publication in the same manor as the witch hunts of Salem MA and the hunt for communists in the days of Black listing Hollywood artists and movie makers. Sad, Nihilistic, Narcissistic, Pertinacious, Gasconade pages of self bluster
Have a nice day.
Have a nice day.
So clearly that is "calling them names," "no facts," and "speculation." Not to mention illogical and unsupportable.
So are you saying that your standards only apply to those with whom you disagree with ideologically, whereas they are just peachy to employ when they are in agreement with your view of the world?
Have a nice day.
"Johnice, nice speculation. No facts"
~~~~~~~
The history of a man obsessed with his own voice and not backed up by any peer. You asked for proof---here it is straight from his website errors and all. Note he does not even like Hillary so add misogynist to psycho, wacko, quack! Go feed the pigeons Randy.
THE LIBERAL MIND:
The Psychological Causes of
Political Madness
By Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D.
Published Works
Competence & Freedom
Images of Barak & Hillary
Modern Liberalism's Second Childhood
Modern Liberalism's Sales Pitch
Subprime Immaturity
The Company Obama Keeps
Following The Rules
Heck, I always thought it was the people who disagreed with me who are nuts. :)
Calling a spade a spade is one of those crazy liberal habits the right wing will never get because it requires honesty.
"Calling a spade a spade is one of those crazy liberal habits the right wing will never get because it requires honesty."
Honesty is the LAST thing the right have to offer, if they actually knew how to reach it--truth that is! Sarah please understand that saying that someone is lying is calling names and just saying it does not make it true you must prove it Sarah.
Then you two validate his findings by making up "facts" about him (Johnice), calling names (Sarah), and accusing me of lying (both of you).
The inability to just dicuss a difference of opinion without demonizing the other party is the liberal trait that disturbs me the most and makes me believe that Dr. Rossiter is on to something.
I'm guessing that Dr Rossiter is in it for the money and maybe to meet chicks.
You've edited you post quiet a bit haven't you! LOL! Just to try to counter little ole me!
Sorry but it's late! I'll be back tomorrow!