Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
Long-time greens are painfully aware that the arguments of global warming skeptics are like zombies in a '70s B movie. They get shot, stabbed, and crushed, over and over again, but they just keep lurching to their feet and staggering forward. That's because -- news flash! -- climate skepticism is an ideological, not a scientific, position, and as such it bears only a tenuous relationship to scientific rules of evidence and inference.
One of the most resilient skeptic tropes is the notion that back in the '60s and '70s the scientific community predicted that the globe would cool in the coming century. "Those scientists ... first it's one trendy theory, then it's the opposite. You just can't trust 'em!"
(Incidentally, this is one of the many skeptic arguments debunked by Coby Beck in our definitive How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic guide. If you're looking for ammo when talking to your local skeptic, bookmark it.)
Now comes a new study showing, once and for all, that:
- there was no such consensus in the scientific community -- quite the opposite, and
- there was no such consensus in the popular press.
Forthcoming in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, the study "surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. [Study co-author Thomas] Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends." Added Peterson, "I was surprised that global warming was so dominant in the peer-reviewed literature of the time."
As for the popular press, says Peterson, "even cursory review of the news media coverage of the issue reveals that, just as there was no consensus at the time among scientists, so was there also no consensus among journalists."
So, that's that. The zombie's dead, right? [Ominous bumping, shuffling sound in background.]
(In addition to Peterson, who works at the National Climatic Data Center, the survey was co-authored by William Connolley, who blogs at Stoat and occasionally at RealClimate, and John Fleck, a science journalist who blogs at InkStain.)
If you care about the scientific issues involved, read on:
Insofar as there were scattered predictions of cooling in the '70s, they had to do with what's called "global dimming" -- the tendency of particulate pollution (soot) to block solar radiation a cool the earth's surface temperature. Since human beings have been pumping more and more pollution up into the atmosphere for centuries now, global dimming has become a significant and measurable phenomenon. It is, for example, largely responsible for the leveling off and even dropping of global temperatures in the '40s, '50s, and '60s. For a while, some scientists thought that the dimming effect would outweigh the greenhouse effect in the long run, leading to aggregate global cooling.
It didn't work out that way. A couple of papers in Science in 2005 showed that dimming had halted and reversed by 1990, mainly due to the reduction in particulate pollution in developed countries. (Ironically, that victory over pollution may now accelerate the effects of greenhouse warming. D'oh!)
For a while, a few (not most) scientists thought that one set of factors would outweigh another. We now know that they were badly wrong. This isn't some sort of embarrassing gotcha. It's progress. It's how human beings figure stuff out. It's how science works.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Hey Dave, guess what? I'm not giving up my car or my husband's SUV. We've worked too hard and too long and sacrificed too much to get were we are. We're not going to let you tree-hugging hippies try to hold us hostage with your rhetoric on global warming.
Posted by ACook at 02/24/2008 @ 8:23pm
Hey Dave, guess what? I'm not giving up my car or my husband's SUV. We've worked too hard and too long and sacrificed too much to get were we are. We're not going to let you tree-hugging hippies try to hold us hostage with your rhetoric on global warming.
Posted by ACOOK 02/24/2008 @ 8:23pm
perhaps you should listen to the scientists at nasa...........
even dumbflock bush is finally kinda sorta
(naw. he's just pandering)
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/24/2008 @ 9:02pm
Mr Roberts, it's one of the tough crosses the GW must bear.
I do remember some of that time, even a sci-fi disaster called "Ice" which ended with a GLACIER plowing down Broadway, crushing the climatologist who stayed behind, still dreaming of a grandiose plan to drop coal dust on the encroaching polar sheet...as the secondary characters move on to become "new Eskimos".
The psychology behind it too was based on the on-going energy crises. Fear of heating oil being $200 a barrel or being non-existant as winter stretched into April and May and fall came in August to Dixie.
"The New Ice Age" theory and scenario DID exist...we must admit that. But admit it and say but the data is solid now, after 30 years. CO2 raises the planet's temperature and it will continue.
And we must also avoid draconiam demands and eschew "Polar bears are drowning" idiocies. (How the heck does a polar bear drown when they can swim to the next-most-southern ice floe...and finally to Canada's mainland?!?!?)
Posted by Mask at 02/24/2008 @ 9:05pm
Hey Dave, guess what? I'm not giving up my car or my husband's SUV. We've worked too hard and too long and sacrificed too much to get were we are. We're not going to let you tree-hugging hippies try to hold us hostage with your rhetoric on global warming.
Posted by ACOOK 02/24/2008 @ 8:23pm
It's not rhetoric when every scientist not employed by an oil company agrees with the theory. I'm not sure where you've been lately, but mainstream society (even BUSH!) have acknowledged the significance of global warming, not just "tree-hugging hippies". Your selfish attitude in this matter is consistent with that of your party on virtually every issue.
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/24/2008 @ 9:06pm
AC
sadly science is more than rhetoric - simple fact, 12 of the past 20 years have been the warmest since we started using instrumentation to record such things. Heck, even old Dumbya has gotten on the GW bandwagon (albeit in limited fashion) Of course your choice of auto indeed reflects your concern for the environment. I see oh too many SUVs with a soccer mom inside and a couple bags from W-mart.
You see, AC, us "tree-hugging" hippies do what we can to counter the effects of those driving needless behemoths such as you and yours. Funny how the size of the car is viewed as an "inalienable right" and not a big-oil greed driven, status oriented artifice of the overblown egos of the buyers.
BTW to Dave Roberts - keep'm coming Dave. I love this blog...
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/24/2008 @ 9:06pm
Posted by MASK 02/24/2008 @ 9:05pm
It's funny; I have an old science book from the 70's that talks about the "global cooling theory". I got some big yucks over that one!
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/24/2008 @ 9:08pm
Mask
Polar bear drown by virtue of the fact that they hunt from the ice. Apparently they the go "ice-fishing" after a fashion. They sit atop a piece of ice and they sense (see, hear, smell .. a polar bear-ologist I'm not) the fish or seals below. They then pound a hole in the ice and "go fishin", and swim to shore (if need be) when done. Normally the ice is connected, or semi-connected and only short swims are needed. Long swims are even rough for a polar bear though, and the ice floes are fewer and further between.
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/24/2008 @ 9:10pm
It's how human beings figure stuff out. It's how science works.
yep. quasi-exponentially.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/24/2008 @ 9:14pm
And we must also avoid draconiam demands and eschew "Polar bears are drowning" idiocies. (How the heck does a polar bear drown when they can swim to the next-most-southern ice floe...and finally to Canada's mainland?!?!?)
Posted by MASK 02/24/2008 @ 9:05pm
oooh, frosty bait!
heheh
the wheels on the bus go round and round
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/24/2008 @ 9:44pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/24/2008 @ 9:10pm
naw, let 'em go down to churchill manitoba and have some trash for dinner.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/24/2008 @ 9:53pm
Is Global Warming Killing the Polar Bears?
By JIM CARLTON
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
December 14, 2005
It may be the latest evidence of global warming: Polar bears are drowning.
Scientists for the first time have documented multiple deaths of polar bears off Alaska, where they likely drowned after swimming long distances in the ocean amid the melting of the Arctic ice shelf. The bears spend most of their time hunting and raising their young on ice floes.
In a quarter-century of aerial surveys of the Alaskan coastline before 2004, researchers from the U.S. Minerals Management Service said they typically spotted a lone polar bear swimming in the ocean far from ice about once every two years. Polar-bear drownings were so rare that they have never been documented in the surveys.
But in September 2004, when the polar ice cap had retreated a record 160 miles north of the northern coast of Alaska, researchers counted 10 polar bears swimming as far as 60 miles offshore. Polar bears can swim long distances but have evolved to mainly swim between sheets of ice, scientists say.
The researchers returned to the vicinity a few days after a fierce storm and found four dead bears floating in the water. "Extrapolation of survey data suggests that on the order of 40 bears may have been swimming and that many of those probably drowned as a result of rough seas caused by high winds," the researchers say in a report set to be released today.
While the government researchers won't speculate on why a climate change is taking place in the Arctic, environmentalists unconnected to the survey say U.S. policies emphasizing oil and gas development are exacerbating global warming, which is accelerating the melting of the ice. "For anyone who has wondered how global warming and reduced sea ice will affect polar bears, the answer is simple -- they die," said Richard Steiner, a marine-biology professor at the University of Alaska.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/24/2008 @ 9:55pm
I see oh too many SUVs with a soccer mom inside and a couple bags from W-mart.
idling for an hour with the air-conditioner running.
Funny how the size of the car is viewed as an "inalienable right" and not a big-oil greed driven, status oriented artifice of the overblown egos of the buyers.
AMERICA HATER. ARTICLE 32 ACT 3 SCENE 7 OF THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THAT GOD DROVE A FORD EXPLOITER
BTW to Dave Roberts - keep'm coming Dave. I love this blog...
yep. he's smart and funny.
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/24/2008 @ 9:06pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/24/2008 @ 10:00pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/24/2008 @ 9:10pm
LOC, I'm not a GW denier....but please show me evidence that polar bears are so incredibly stupid (or more accurately, have such little innate instinct) that they are DROWNING from the massive distances between ice floes in the summer.
Posted by Mask at 02/24/2008 @ 10:07pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/24/2008 @ 9:55pm
Sorry, FROSTY, re-check that story. I think you'l find it imploded about a year later.
Posted by Mask at 02/24/2008 @ 10:08pm
Oh, and FZ and LOC....THAT kind of stuff, is the kind of stuff that HELPS the Oil Guys and the "God wouldn't allow global warming" types.
S'why I mentioned it. Hysteria and "GW urban legends" feed the "It's ALL a bunch of b.s., because THIS thing has been proven false!"
Like a Nader run (to go off-topic), it does more damage than good for the overly earnest folks who promote it.
Posted by Mask at 02/24/2008 @ 10:10pm
ROBERTS: We now know that they were badly wrong. This isn't some sort of embarrassing gotcha. It's progress. It's how human beings figure stuff out.
How true, and someday decades from now, we'll find out much of what Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truths", were but a bunch of "Convenient BS".
IF earth's 6+ billion year history is analyzed in 1 million year intervals, we're looking at >6,000 intervals.....anyone wants to guess how many were warming or cooling intervals? How many were exactly `right' like say, 500 years ago before mankind `mucked' the earth up?
Amazing how some people's capacity for `worry' is as big as the Universe! Watched too many "Day After Tomorrow"!
Posted by Happy at 02/24/2008 @ 10:16pm
The fact that the climate is changing is undeniable. The evidence that we are having some effect on this is more than probable.
This is where I branch off from established orthodoxy. It seems like those that want to fight global warming want the environment to stay static simply for the convenience of humans. As there has been ample evidence that the earth has changed many many times over the eons, and we've only been here for a tiny sliver of that, isn't it the height of arrogance to say that just because THIS environment is pretty darn good for us, that therefore we have to preserve it? Are we honestly that arrogant?
Posted by yutsano at 02/24/2008 @ 10:17pm
Posted by MASK 02/24/2008 @ 10:10pm
i know why you posted it.
i've already seen that it has been "disproven".
let's ask the inuit:
Anecdotal evidence indicates that polar bears may be leaving the sea ice to den on land in winter. In Russia, large numbers of bears have been stranded on land by long summers that prevent the advance of the permanent ice pack. Some Inuit hunters in Canada say they can no longer hunt polar bears in the spring because of early ice melts. In the Western Hudson Bay area, permafrost has declined, leaving polar-bear denning areas susceptible to destruction by forest fires in the summer. A warm spring might also lead to increased rainfall, which can cause dens to collapse.
Polar bears depend on a frozen platform from which to hunt seals, the mainstay of their diet. Without ice, the bears are unable to reach their prey. A shorter hunting season has already adversely affected the polar bears of Western Hudson Bay (the population near Churchill in the Province of Manitoba, Canada). Scientists have documented a 22% drop in the Western Hudson Bay polar bear population since the early 1980s. The decline directly correlates with a longer ice-free season on the bay.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/24/2008 @ 10:21pm
Mask
While it does appear some reports may have been overblown, the USGS Biology Div. report looks at the mid-long range projections as pretty grim. BTW: AK doesn't want the PBs on the Endangered Species list - harder to build new pipelines!
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hMlxURK285Yo1BohLmxxZJQ6xxWwD8UVI24G0
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1704808,00.html
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/24/2008 @ 10:21pm
Posted by ACOOK 02/24/2008 @ 8:23pm | ignore this person
don't see that happinin'. don't that suv suck up the money, though?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/24/2008 @ 10:36pm
"Your selfish attitude in this matter is consistent with that of your party on virtually every issue."
Posted by MATTMAN 02/24/2008 @ 9:06pm
MATT, I'm not selfish, I'm just keeping it real. I'm sick and tired of groups who feel they have right to take away everything that I've worked for.
Posted by ACook at 02/24/2008 @ 10:39pm
"don't see that happinin'. don't that suv suck up the money, though?"
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/24/2008 @ 10:36pm
Not really, unlike most folks, we have a budget that we stick to religously and we don't eat out a lot. I made sure my husband and I stayed on target with our financial goals.
Posted by ACook at 02/24/2008 @ 10:47pm
"You see, AC, us "tree-hugging" hippies do what we can to counter the effects of those driving needless behemoths such as you and yours. Funny how the size of the car is viewed as an "inalienable right" and not a big-oil greed driven, status oriented artifice of the overblown egos of the buyers."
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/24/2008 @ 9:06pm
LOC, my husband drives a GMC Envoy. Nice ride too.
Posted by ACook at 02/24/2008 @ 10:59pm
MATT, I'm not selfish, I'm just keeping it real. I'm sick and tired of groups who feel they have right to take away everything that I've worked for.
Posted by ACOOK 02/24/2008 @ 10:39pm
Don't worry. Our government only does that to brown people in other countries.....anymore.
Posted by Malcontent at 02/24/2008 @ 11:32pm
yeah - there probably will come a time when ACOOK will be more than happy to replace her gluttonmobile with something a bit more economical. but you are right - people dont know/want to be told the implications...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 01:26am
MATT, I'm not selfish, I'm just keeping it real. I'm sick and tired of groups who feel they have right to take away everything that I've worked for.
Posted by ACOOK 02/24/2008 @ 10:39pm
just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.
i'm sure you are familiar with the georgia water guy, mr. carlos?
http://www.wsbtv.com/drought/14545360/detail.html
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 08:42am
LOC, my husband drives a GMC Envoy. Nice ride too.
Posted by ACOOK 02/24/2008 @ 10:59pm
war for oil.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 08:43am
LOC, my husband drives a GMC Envoy. Nice ride too.
Posted by ACOOK 02/24/2008 @ 10:59pm
slave to canada.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 08:43am
Hey Dave, guess what? I'm not giving up my car or my husband's SUV. We've worked too hard and too long and sacrificed too much to get were we are. We're not going to let you tree-hugging hippies try to hold us hostage with your rhetoric on global warming.
Posted by ACOOK 02/24/2008 @ 8:23pm |
I had a look at a great many images of climatologists and climate scientists. They looked like solid citizens, no hippies there. Chased a few of their journal articles. Seems they're doing real, repeatable science. Seems they're substantially in agreement. Seems it's them who are telling us this stuff about climate change.
It is tough being stuck, like all humans, with a brain evolved in the stone age and hard-wired for short-term gain, but our neurology is uncommonly flexible and allows to reinvent ourselves and our motivations.
Posted by mikecope at 02/25/2008 @ 08:49am
The Climate Change struggle, if it is to be won at all, will be won by individuals. Individuals in governments, individuals in civic and religious organisations and so on.
ACOOK I presume you have no children, or you might be casting about to see what you could do to help their certain plight, even if by a fraction, rather than cleaving to the wasteful & destructive stuff that you have blown your life working for.
Posted by mikecope at 02/25/2008 @ 09:18am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/24/2008 @ 10:21pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/24/2008 @ 10:21pm
Both of which have to do with feeding and habitat...not "drowning".
Ya see, you guess made my point. If they had come out and said "GW reduces the ice floes and makes it harder for polar bears to go after their usual prey, the seals"....no problem.
But some IDIOTS took a picture of a polar bear on a tiny ice floe and posted the story that FZ quoted from 2005 saying that the polar bears were DROWNING. Like some cartoon, where the ice berg gets smaller and smaller as the Arctic heat wave hits and land is 1000 miles away to the south, and Petey the Polar Bear drowns like diCaprio after the Titanic goes under.
That kind of hyperbole and urban legend crap (and the legitimate promotion by some excitable types in the late 70s of "the new Ice Age") are a problem that REAL concern about global warming has got to come to terms with.
It's like when "The Day After Tomorrow" came out. Lotta guys probably thought, "Great! A disaster film about global warming will raise awareness". Then they saw it and say what a piece of crap Roland Emmerich "Poseidon Adventure" bit of silliness it was, and it did more harm than good. Especially since the science was not only BAD, but totally unbelievable and fantastic....
like Petey going "glub, glub" within eyesight of the Nunavut shoreline.
Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 09:24am
There are at least two reasons why the arguments of the skeptics keep on returning. First, there is not one scintella, not one single solitary jot of experimental evidence that connects the recent rise in average world temperatures with the recent rise in CO2 concentrations; AGW is, was, and always will be, merely a hypothesis with no experimental data to support it. Second, the data of world temerature anomalies shows that over the last 40 years or so, world temperatures rose, but have since stabilized and are now falling. The slope of the temperature/time graph in February 2008 is negative; this despite a continuing and unprecedented rise in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. In many ways, the climate skeptics are the true heirs of Robert Watson-Watt's Natural History of the Boffin Bird, written I believe in 1940. Unfortunatley I lost my copy many years ago, and have been unable to find another anywhere. Quoting from memory "The eggs (ideas) of the Boffin Bird are of a peculiar bi-conic construction, such that no matter how far or in which direction they are rolled, they always come back to be the center of attention. And they are absolutely indestructible, because they are made of good, solid meat".
Posted by Jim Criwpell at 02/25/2008 @ 09:26am
So the skeptics have been wrong about every notion regarding the scientist predictions, eh? All, DAVE, or just the ones that don't fit with the Global warming hysteria?
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 02/25/2008 @ 10:21am
So the skeptics have been wrong about every notion regarding the scientist predictions, eh? All, DAVE, or just the ones that don't fit with the Global warming hysteria?
STOP WHINING! START THE WALL NOW!
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 02/25/2008 @ 10:22am
www.msnbc.com 22 January 2008
'JERUSALEM - Israel's government on Monday endorsed the ambitious plan of a private entrepreneur to install the world's first electric car network here by 2011, with half a million recharging stations to crisscross the tiny nation. ...
The initiative is the brainchild of Shai Agassi, a 39-year-old Israeli-American entrepreneur and high-tech star, who raised $200 million to get the project off the ground. ...
Agassi's spokesman said his home country of Israel was the ideal laboratory to market his vision because of its high fuel prices (around $6.30 a gallon), dense population centers and supportive government. In Israel, 90 percent of car owners drive less than 45 miles per day and all major urban centers are less than 100 miles apart, making the use of battery operated cars more feasible than in countries with longer average commutes.
Green cars are also particularly attractive to Israel, which hopes to weaken the political clout of its oil-rich enemies.
"Today is a new age with new dangers and the greatest danger is that of oil," President Shimon Peres said. "It is the greatest polluter of our age and oil is the greatest financier of terror." ...
"There was a time when people said you couldn't stop smoking," Peres said. "Using gas is like smoking."...'
Posted by HonestLiberal at 02/25/2008 @ 10:28am
You can lead a horse to water...
And you can do even less with a jackass.
Posted by mtspence05 at 02/25/2008 @ 11:00am
David looks too young to remember the 1970s but I do and I am a scientist. There was talk of a new ice age. There was no talk of global dimming. There was no talk of global dimming in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. We had more to worry about then. Like how to survive one war after another. How was this global dimming measured back then? There was not the technology. Give us a reference to a learned paper of the time and we can chceck it. You will not do it because there are none. All of this is simply the usual nonsense which passes for logic amongst those trying to convince us we are all going to die. It is a common trait in humanity. We must have something to worry about. I don't mind changing to cope with diminishing resources but why this nonsense about devastating climate change. It has stopped getting warmer if you haven't noticed. I measure temperature using a thermometer not a polar bear.
Posted by Wotan1 at 02/25/2008 @ 11:05am
Posted by MASK 02/25/2008 @ 09:24am
I'll admit that I haven't followed every bit of science on this subject, but regardless of whether polar bears are drowning it follows logically that if their environment is changing significantly, that will most likely have a negative impact on the species native to that environment. Their natural order is being upset quicker than nature would otherwise allow, ruling out the argument that they could make necessary adaptations. So the caricature/symbol of a drowning polar bear is not necessarily to be construed literally; it signifies the peril that a dominant species of that region faces.
If you don't care about polar bears, climate change will have its effect on our species; our future generations of humans. If you don't want to accept that the toxins that humans have spewed into the atmosphere, that are known to destroy our protective ozone layer, have no effect on this process-- you're an apologist and only seek to rationalize irresponsible behavior.
There are micro-level changes that we as individuals can make that collectively yield results. Then there are macro-level changes that we as a society can and absolutely should implement to set standards in the world, and produce the most significant results.
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/25/2008 @ 11:06am
It has stopped getting warmer if you haven't noticed. I measure temperature using a thermometer not a polar bear.
Posted by WOTAN1 02/25/2008 @ 11:05am
Golly, that sure sounds scientific enough. Case closed!
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/25/2008 @ 11:37am
"...not one single solitary jot of experimental evidence that connects the recent rise in average world temperatures with the recent rise in CO2 concentrations..."
Posted by JIM CRIWPELL 02/25/2008 @ 09:26am
Well, aside from the entire science of atmospheric chemistry, eh?
FZ Love them "Yogi" Polar Bears
Mask Perhaps a more empathic appeal could have been made on the noted increase in Polar Bear cannibalism and infanticide:
Harry you're a beast!
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/25/2008 @ 12:12pm
ALL GW Cultists need to read this article via Drudge Report....
Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age
Lorne Gunter, National Post Published: Monday, February 25, 2008
Most snow cover in 4+ decades, Arctic ice thickness back to above average, coldest China in a century.....sunspot activity at low cycle alarming scientists who fear Little Ice Age may be forthcoming......Man's influence is "a drop in the bucket"......past modeling of Arctic warming way off due to not accounting for the northward wind movements circulating warm southern water towards the Arctic.....blah, blah, blah....
How right Mr. ROBERT is: "We know that they were badly wrong..."
Posted by Happy at 02/25/2008 @ 12:14pm
Posted by WOTAN1 02/25/2008 @ 11:05am
A scientist and no idea of the concept of "proxy measures"? Who do you work for, the "Creation Research Institute"?
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/25/2008 @ 12:14pm
Posted by HAPPY 02/25/2008 @ 12:14pm
One cherry from the article you forgot to put in the bowl "OK, so one winter does not a climate make..."
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/25/2008 @ 12:18pm
"OK, so one winter does not a climate make..."
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/25/2008 @ 12:18pm
OK, here's the full context:
OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades.
But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature.
And it's not just anecdotal evidence that is piling up against the climate-change dogma.
According to Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona -- two prominent climate modellers -- the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong.
"We missed what was right in front of our eyes," says Prof. Russell. It's not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.
But when Profs. Toggweiler and Russell rejigged their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the current Arctic warming.
Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as "a drop in the bucket." Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to "stock up on fur coats."
He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon.
The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased.
It's way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it's way too early for the hysteria of the global warmers, too.
lgunter@shaw.ca
Posted by Happy at 02/25/2008 @ 12:27pm
"LOC is also a true believer and swears that there is no conflicting science."
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 12:22pm
Sorry to disappoint you LL, but I never made that claim. As I told you previously, I will own what's mine, but not what is not.
That being said oh "bearer of false witness", please send us some of this conflicting science refuting climate change....
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/25/2008 @ 12:28pm
"LOC is also a true believer and swears that there is no conflicting science."
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 12:22pm
Sorry, LVLIB...what is your current occupation, again???
Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 12:29pm
Posted by MATTMAN 02/25/2008 @ 11:06am
Again, the point was the silly stuff hurts the serious stuff. Polar bears were NOT "drowning", unless they were so incredibly stupid that evolution would be weeding them out with or without GW.
Not distancing themselves from that stuff or guys like Paul Ehrlich, have done more to hurt the environmental cause than all the right-wingers or "Americans for Energy Independence" front-groups supported by Exxon-Mobil.
Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 12:34pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 12:46pm
I would posit LL, that when you living your life impinges on my liberty (via pollution, climate change, fossil fuel depletion, or whatever appropriate environmental ill we are discussing)then limits are the only way for all of us to "happily get along" unless you have another idea that isn't "we'll do it my way and I don't give a shit what you think."
And just to point to the obvious - and while I do respect your right to believe in whatever faith you like - that the fact that your religion sentences all "non-believers" to hell, or purgatory, or whatever other downscale afterlife neighborhood, indicates to me that such a belief structure is inherently "wrong" by virtue of the idea that no god of "benevolence" could be that anal-retentive.
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/25/2008 @ 12:59pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 12:46pm
Really? So your view that abortion should be outlawed is NOT based on any religious aspects whatsoever?
Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 1:05pm
Posted by ACOOK 02/24/2008 @ 8:23pm
Climate and politics aside, you have been brainwashed by those who would take your money that you have some God-given right to purchase their products, and that everyone who's concerned about the fate of the planet is conspiring to abridge that right.
After all those years of working "too hard and too long", is this what's important to you?
Posted by drhammer at 02/25/2008 @ 1:08pm
I consider myself to be open-minded about the subject of climate change, but skeptical of climate change solutions. I question how we could have an efficient response to a phenomenon that we don't seem to fully understand. When it comes to temperature data, what sort of data is best when it comes to understanding climate change? Given that climate changes occur naturally, what is the relation between carbon emissions and the natural climate cycles of the earth?
While there certainly seems to be a growing scientific consensus that global warming is occurring, there seems to be no where near a consensus as to exactly how much the earth is warming. It all makes me wonder how large scale policy responses to global warming could be crafted in the first place.
A recent study by the Cato institute [cato.org] indicates that even given the more dire global warming scenarios, it would be more economically efficient to modernize the developing world and continue to develop technology than it would be to attempt to halt the tide of global warming.
Many global warming skeptics are in the same position- it's not the science we're skeptical of, but the overall narrative- the idea that yes global warming is occurring, yes it's bad, and yes we have to stop it now.
Posted by Garrett J at 02/25/2008 @ 1:21pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 12:22pm
I searched out information on Mitchell Taylor the first time I saw him cited in a posting here two years ago.
Five minutes of search engine work would expose Mitchell Taylor's conflicts of interest vis-a-vis the hunting industry, and the fact that, while he does have scientific credentials, his opinion on the degrading polar bear habitat is simply that. Since he first ventured his esteemed opinion years ago, he has not had the confidence to submit it for peer review.
Bullshit is bullshit. It does not gain credibility when recycled.
Posted by drhammer at 02/25/2008 @ 1:27pm
"I consider myself to be open-minded about the subject of climate change, but skeptical of climate change solutions."
Posted by GARRETT J 02/25/2008 @ 1:21pm
That's a reasonable position.
But if you really are open-minded, why not cite from scientific sources, instead of a libertarian think-tank?
Posted by drhammer at 02/25/2008 @ 1:45pm
That said, it doesn't mean I would be unhappy if our government made that decision.---Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 1:44pm
Yeah, knew that...but had to draw out the ABOVE statement to get to my point....
"However, my acceptance of this doctrine does not make any imposition on your ability to live out your life, or your liberty."----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 12:46pm
You contradict yourself.
To stay true to the post of 12:46pm (right above) you would have to OPPOSE any attempt of the Government to outlaw abortion...
but that contradicts the post of 1:44pm, where you say you would "not be unhappy" to see that done.
So, you're giving your tacit consent to the "imposition of your doctrine upon the life or liberty" of others...just as you claim LOC would for his "faith" in global warming and measures he'd see fit to impose to slow or stop it.
Can't LOC now say "I wouldn't be unhappy to see all SUVs banned"?...and you MUST concede no problem with that, or else risk contradicting yourself again?
Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 2:03pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/25/2008 @ 12:59pm | ignore this person
i would say such spiritual exclusivity says something telling about the psychology and personality of those who hold such views.
furthermore the ability to accept unprovable assertions and cosmologies sullies one's ability to appresiate what "science" is and is not. its like an inpenetrable cocoon of massive cognitive dissonance.
if he didn't so consistantly support evil and bassackward notions (to the detriment of rational science) i'd be more tolerant of his intelerance and that of his fellows.
but "everything gonna be alright" feels so good...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 2:03pm
Posted by MASK 02/25/2008 @ 2:03pm | ignore this person
whenever i see a house with two or three of those glutton/vanitymobiles i admit to having the desire to shove a dead possum up their tailpipes...but with the price of gas going up, a little pacience is all thats needed.
funny how defensive the contard mindset gets and how quickly...you ain't taking MY SUV!!!! just try!!!
well..gee...i WAS planning on comin' on by there with the greenie socialist ministry of taking your hard earned gluttonous crap, but guess your fiery defense of your stuff made me change my mind...
sigh...settle down - there is not now, nor will there be, such an organ of government...unless its so bad you're precious suv is the last thing you are worried about...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 2:09pm
TO: J GARRETT
If I'm reading you right, I agree totally that we should be concentrating on progressive, improved technological solutions to live with the problem then, eliminate those sources that caused the problem, rather than "drop back and punt" and keep on punting untill it goes away, which by GW crowd's own admission could be 100 years. By that time the Gore types will have turned us back into a third world agricultural experiment again. We need a "move forward" mentality to combat this: We don't have that right now.
TO: DR HAMMER Cato is not just a "Libertarian Think Tank". A copy of the Study MELTDOWN, a copy of which I hold in my hand right now (we printed it) contains 6 full pages or references, from experts, meteorologists, scientists and climatologists. They are not just political hardheads: Their only flaw, if it is one, is that they refuse to jump on a bandwagon whose passengers can't even correctly predict the number of hurricanes over a 2 year period, let alone tell me whats happening on and above the planet for the next 100 years.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 02/25/2008 @ 2:17pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 02/25/2008 @ 2:17pm | ignore this person
cato is a privately owned rightwing propaganda factory which expouses economic satanism.
once the propagandists realized they had to compete with peer reviewed academia they quickly figured out how to lace their pseudoscientific propaganda tracts with plenty of footnotes and references...
a blizzard of such and "look - see all the references??? that makes it legit!!! go ahead, take a weekend or two and check them all! i dare ya!!! their all good - trust me...you don't wanta go check them ALL do you? nah...
like claiming your research is supported by "over 20,000 scientists, many with advanced degrees". really? over 20,000..."many" (10 - 9,999????) with "advanced degrees" (like...a ba with a fellowship at CATO? or a masters in...business admin???)...
"oh look martha! see! these guys tell me what i want to hear and got lots of footnotes and experts!!!! now i feel a lot better. stupid liberals!"
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 2:27pm
"After all those years of working "too hard and too long", is this what's important to you?"
Posted by DRHAMMER 02/25/2008 @ 1:08pm
Yes! I'll be retired in 15 years, shouldn't I be able to spend (or save) my money as I see fit?
Posted by ACook at 02/25/2008 @ 2:42pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 02/25/2008 @ 2:17pm
Not just a libertarian think-tank? I guess there's more nuance here than I can process.
So in other words, if you're looking for real, peer-reviewed science, the stuff upon which you base your decisions about the planet and your place on it, you're gonna turn to policy wonks?
Posted by drhammer at 02/25/2008 @ 2:45pm
"ACOOK I presume you have no children, or you might be casting about to see what you could do to help their certain plight, even if by a fraction, rather than cleaving to the wasteful & destructive stuff that you have blown your life working for.
Posted by MIKECOPE 02/25/2008 @ 09:18am
Mike, I have 3 sons. My eldest is a marine just like his father. My middle son is a junior in college and my youngest son will be a senior in high school come September. How many children do you have?
Posted by ACook at 02/25/2008 @ 2:52pm
IBBLE, what does "privatly owned" have to do with it? And where did you get all these 20,000 numbers. Not from me. Are you so engrossed with the leftwing agenda and truths that you accept nothing but Govt sponsored "policy" truths, (to use DR's word-and make no mistake-this IS politics-)The amount of power to be gained over the American people by legislating some of the solutions out there now-we have no idea what we are about to do to ourselves taking all this, and the solutions now on the table, as gospel
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 02/25/2008 @ 2:53pm
Economic Satanism?? Ibble you sound like a Taliban Fighter.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 02/25/2008 @ 2:55pm
Fine, take out the one sentence of comment by Mitchell. It has zero to do with the article other than his one comment. He had nothing to do with the research I cited and was not the author of the article."
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 1:45pm
So in other words, you're just gonna throw shit at the wall and see what sticks? Maybe you should look a little deeper in your sources, instead of achieving climax when you see someone agree with you in print, and rushing to post it on your favorite troll target.
"So if I quote an article about Obama's views that is republished in a conservative magazine, would that then make Obama's views suspect in your mind? Just curious."
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 1:48pm
Close.
(I'm suspicious of anything you post.)
Posted by drhammer at 02/25/2008 @ 3:00pm
If you don't care about polar bears, climate change will have its effect on our species; our future generations of humans. If you don't want to accept that the toxins that humans have spewed into the atmosphere, that are known to destroy our protective ozone layer, have no effect on this process-- you're an apologist and only seek to rationalize irresponsible behavior.
There are micro-level changes that we as individuals can make that collectively yield results. Then there are macro-level changes that we as a society can and absolutely should implement to set standards in the world, and produce the most significant results.
Posted by MATTMAN 02/25/2008 @ 11:06am
Toxins Accumulate in Arctic Peoples, Animals, Study Says
Sharon Guynup
National Geographic Channel
August 27, 2004
For many, the Arctic is synonymous with a pristine, albeit harsh, environment. So it is an unwelcome irony, perhaps, that the region's indigenous peoples and animal predators are reportedly among the most chemically contaminated on Earth.
Various studies in recent decades have found that animals from polar bears to killer whales, not to mention native peoples like the Eskimos, or Inuit, carry unusually high levels of human-made chemicals in their bodies.
Arctic Life Threatened by Toxic Chemicals, Groups Say
These toxins include industrial pollutants like dioxin and PCBs, which gained notoriety during the 1970s, and newer compounds like those now used as flame retardants and stain guards.
The chemicals reach the Arctic borne north by wind and ocean currents. "The chemicals that accumulate in Arctic wildlife and people are coming from us," said Susan Sang, a senior manager and Arctic specialist for the Toronto-based environmental group WWF Canada
Adults Group Results
A cocktail of harmful toxic chemicals has been detected in every person tested in a cross-Canada study of pollution in people.
Environmental Defence tested 11 people from across the country for the presence of 88 chemicals in their blood and urine.
Test Results
60 of 88 chemicals tested for were detected, including 18 heavy metals, five PBDEs, 14 PCBs, one perfluorinated chemical, 10 organochlorine pesticides, five organophosphate insecticide metabolites, and seven VOCs.
Of the 60 chemicals detected:
41 are suspected cancer-causing substances,
53 are chemicals that can cause reproductive disorders and harm the development of children,
27 are chemicals that can disrupt the hormone system, and
21 are chemicals associated with respiratory illnesses.
For more details read our Toxic Nation Report.
Summary:
http://www.toxicnation.ca/toxicnation-studies/pollution-in-adults/ Group-Results
I AM IRONCADMIUMNICKELCOBALTLEADMERCURY MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 3:02pm
ike Petey going "glub, glub" within eyesight of the Nunavut shoreline.
Posted by MASK 02/25/2008 @ 09:24am
dude,
whatever.
most people still think that the ozone hole and global warming are the same thing.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 3:04pm
FZ's myopia.
by CAPTAIN CLUSTER BOMB.
i sure hope so.
war for oil.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 3:06pm
However, my acceptance of this doctrine does not make any imposition on your ability to live out your life, or your liberty.
But those like LOC do want to impose restrictions and other changes on my life and liberty, whether I agree with them or not.
That is a profound distinction.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 12:46pm
that's nonsense.
war for oil.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 3:06pm
Posted by GARRETT J 02/25/2008 @ 1:21pm
I've got ninety thousand pounds in my pajamas I've got forty thousand French francs in my fridge I've got lots and lots of lira Now the deutschmark's getting dearer, And my dollar bill could buy the Brooklyn Bridge. There is...
...nothing quite as wonderful as money! There is nothing quite as beautiful as cash! Some people say it's folly, but I'd rather have the lolly, With money you can make a splash!
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 3:09pm
Yes! I'll be retired in 15 years, shouldn't I be able to spend (or save) my money as I see fit?
Posted by ACOOK 02/25/2008 @ 2:42pm
yep. buy the new FORDBUILTTOUGH UNDERGROUNDER V-19.
war for oil.
btw i wouldn't bother saving any money.
it will only be worth 20’ on the dollar when you retire.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 3:12pm
DR Hammer
I linked to the Cato Institute Study [cato.org] to showcase alternatives in addressing the issue of climate change. The study takes the more dire global warning scenarios as fact and takes an economic look at the best means of dealing with that climate change. It's not climate science, it's economics. If we have truly reached a consensus about climate change science, than economics and policy are just as important- if not more so- in the climate change debate.
Posted by Garrett J at 02/25/2008 @ 3:15pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 02/25/2008 @ 2:53pm
the 20,000 number thing came from a site pointed out to me by a skeptic a couple years ago. on the surface it looked pretty legit, even featuring the photo of a real academic who doubts...the 20,000 quote was prominently used on the site. after some checking i found the site was financed by the petroleum industry, most specifically exxon. i am looking for it, but cannot find it yet.
but that sort of halftruthiness is exactly how liars dupe the unwary.
i refer to aynrandist objectivism as a satanic economic philosophy because thats what it is. i use the term satanic...
1. because in fact most satanists, especially the atheistic version as expounded by levay, are largely openly inddebted to ms. rand for their philosophy and rightly so.
randian objectivism, a logical american free market adaptation of nihilism, i would argue, is nothing but another slick, a-moral excuse for powerful wealthy people to act without a consiensce. it is not evil in itself, but enables evil by over exhalting self absorbed moral relativism.
such is not inherently evil, but is all to often adopted by wannabe sociopaths who use it as intellectual scaffolding to excuse wickedness.
"privately owned" has to do this...with...it...
american fascism, or "obverse democratic fascism" is business friendly from the get go - no pretensions at national socialism. those who wish to dominate through satanic philosophical fascism of ms. rand, do so by creating extra-governmental, privately funded institutions such as the CATO institute, in order to propagandize a media they at least half own, in order to subvert democracy - because if democracy means the will of the majority, and such interferes with the hard core randian's satanic urge to become nihilist demigods - fuck democracy!
funny though...with all these self styled randian ubermensch spend on trying to bamboozle everyone...they'd probably get off cheaper by paying some extra taxes...
like the kid who spends hours trying to figure out how to cheat rather than studying for the test...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 3:27pm
oops...no number two...lol
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 3:28pm
I thought Ayn Rand had a lot to say when I read ATLAS SHRUGGED, although I did consider her atheism her biggest problem. After all, despite their efforts to keep the Church from having any thing to do with policy, even the Founding Fathers understood that it was OK to engage in a free market society yet have a baseline, related to secular law but not dominating, to which everyone subscribed. Rand didn't seem to think this was necessary, but she was corrupt. She also could not forsee some of the issues of today which do require govt help (A LITTLE.. govt help,) although one gets the impression she would have had an answer for anything-intelligent but unswerving type to the nth degree.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 02/25/2008 @ 3:44pm
Hey, LVLIB...any answer to my question...
you have any problem with LOC saying "I wouldn't be unhappy if they banned SUVs" and maintain he's still not "imposing his doctrine" on our lives and liberty?!?!?!
Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 4:09pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 02/25/2008 @ 3:44pm |
i respect her intellect. i have not read as much rand as i have nietschze (did i spell it right? wow...) but unfortunately i think that many more follow it out of a desire to be elites and unwillingness to address morality without dismissing such notions outright.
she came from the worst of soviet maternalist socialism and was feted by the most powerful american capitalists and seemed to miss out on the other side of capitalism. i just see hard core modern randians often parroting her ideology as a modern version of ricardo's "iron law of wages" - regardless of its legitimacy its an awfully popular non sequiter.
but in fact very few people have actually delved into objectivism beyond an infatuation with her fiction.
look...i'm not poor, but i'm not rich either. i like the money but its not my primary goal in life.
that said, money is indeed much much more than simply money. money is power. if i were a caveman, and had a sharpe, well made spear and a fat auroch carcass, i'd be rich. despite the many layers between cave man and me, ultimately the randian represents to me the moral equivelent of that other caveman who comes along with a few of his well armed buddies and wants to take my auroch carcass...because he can and has the power to do so.
i have seen interviews of the woman and find no hint of compassion. powerful people with no compassion are scary. ultimately if they wrap themselves tightly enough in their self deifying delusions they threaten to take my auroch carcass and all other auroch carcasses and let me starve to death cause they can and i cant stop them.
so i band together with others to oppose them, which they denigrate as "socialism" and get all huffy because i just envy them and want to take "their" toys...
but nobody deserves everything they get and the most selfish and powerful are a menace to all others and randian objectivism just seems to me a highly intellectual justification for oppression.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 4:20pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 4:27pm
But the belief that it's "killing innocent children" is PART of your doctrine, LVLIB. Unless you're willing to separate your belief in "pro-life" entirely from your religion....if so, then it's simply a matter of scientifically proving it false (a risk I doubt you want to take).
See, you wrote yourself into a corner. You called LOC's "faith" in global warming a "faith" and said he wanted to "impose it"....then when confronted with the fact that YOU TOO have a faith, denied that you "didn't want to impose it" BUT slipped up and said you "wouldn't be unhappy with it BEING imposed".
NOW, you try "Well, his is about the ECONOMY while MINE is about 'innocent children'!"
Problem is...it's still doctrine and faith (your definitions), you simply are saying "Mine's right, his is wrong!" and offer no distinction otherwise.
This is a killer of a debate for you. Right-wing dogma wants the idea of global warming to be "a religion among those lefty tree-huggers" and easily dismissed and feared for authoritarian restriction....
but most of you are also Religious Righties, who ALSO have a religion and though you deny it "wouldn't be unhappy" with IT restricting freedoms JUST AS MUCH as those you are attacking!
So, let's add that LOC can say "I wouldn't be unhappy if they banned SUVs ....because global warming will kill INNOCENT CHILDREN...and I'll take any hits for a less than perfect view if it errs on the side of giving life to innocent children"?????
Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 4:38pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/25/2008 @ 4:30pm
the actual percentage of real, phd in relevant discipline style scientists, who think global warming is at least partially a result of man's activities is really 90 - 95%...
really. its accepted by real scientists much in the way that evolution and relativity are. really.
sorry thats a bummer...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 4:38pm
But to those who have pointed out how environmentism functions as a religon for athiest Liberals, it sounds like the kind of conspiracy theory the scientologist gripe about.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/25/2008 @ 4:30pm
Whom are you referring to, Darin....specifically?
Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 4:38pm
Posted by ACOOK 02/25/2008 @ 2:42pm | ignore
i got a couple cannisters of sarin gas. interested?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 4:43pm
shouldn't I be able to spend (or save) my money as I see fit?
Posted by ACOOK 02/25/2008 @ 2:42pm | ignore this person
not necesarily...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 4:46pm
Whom are you referring to, Darin....specifically?
Posted by MASK 02/25/2008 @ 4:38pm |
darin has samantha there to take care of reality. dinkle dinkle dinkle and - poof! comforting solipsist reality!
lucky bastard! lol...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 4:49pm
"i got a couple cannisters of sarin gas. interested?"
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/25/2008 @ 4:43pm
Sure, but you have to promise not to ask what I'll use them for, ok?!.... ;-0
Posted by ACook at 02/25/2008 @ 5:08pm
"not necesarily..."
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/25/2008 @ 4:46pm
But why?
Posted by ACook at 02/25/2008 @ 5:08pm
Posted by ACOOK 02/25/2008 @ 5:08pm
why? same reason there are restrictions on purchasing anything deemed a danger to public welfare.
again - nobody coming to take your gluttonmobile - til you call them to...
but oil is getting more scarce everyday and the scientific consensus is that man made emmisions are partly to largely responsible for global rise in temps that will have plenty of bad consequences.
perhaps with the development of fuel cell tech, etc, we will soon be able to buy gigantic vanity stoking semi trucks that use little gas and don't pollute. fine.
but the demand on a limitted supply of petrol exacerbated by huge numbers of those obnoxoius, gluttonous rollin king kongmobiles is indeed a matter of legitimate consern for others, beyond the pollution angle, even.
i hear the "but i need it to transport my whole extended family to my family reunion" arguments but i SEE one suv after another whizzin by with...one lonely soccer mom...far more often than a load of soccer playing kids...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 5:24pm
Bjorn Lumborg, PhD. Google him.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/25/2008 @ 5:02pm |
he's not a climate scientist. he's a statistician...
you know, its like the ostrich people (the rightwing satano-aynrandos who don't want to see things as they are or have a vested financial interest in not doing so) are always finding some halfway coherent doubter out of the thousands of real scientists and shoving him out there to prop up their arguments.
so...if ya are into some real science (statistics? hmmm...) and want to make some real money...and don't care about the hellish future of those who will come after you...
debunk all the rest of the scientists and find yerself with a nice bundle of petrol stock, fame, and a speakin tour that makes every rightwing apologist and ostrich happy and reassured!!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 5:30pm
But your blind rage level of hatred against anything connected with oil removes your ability to even make intelligent considerations of the evidence.
As I said Frosty, you are becoming more like Unibomber Ted every day. I worry for the good people of Canada.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 4:01pm
just baiting YOU.
YOU have become my beast.
However Simon thought of the beast, there rose before his inward sight the picture of a human at once heroic and sick.
i have a car, beast.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 5:41pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 4:16pm
oil is poison.
we must find a better way.
or, do you like being held by the sensitives by CANADA?!?!?!?!?!?
heheh
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 5:45pm
I worry for the good people of Canada.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 4:01pm
don't worry.
most are christians.
they will be saved.
not the inuit, though..................
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 5:46pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/25/2008 @ 5:34pm |
stats can get pretty nutty too. easy to fall into fallacious, sometimes solipsist thinking patterns with statistics.
he does seem to be one of the more lucid debunkers i've heard. still not trumping the vast majority of phd's in relevant scientific areas that say we are a major factor in the equation.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 5:49pm
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 5:19pm
CanadaFreePress Endorses Ignatieff.
'nuff said.
do your parishioners know your are THE BEAST?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 5:49pm
Lefty tree huggers. Listen to Gore
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/25/2008 @ 5:20pm
a clichι followed by a reference to a phoney.
next please.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 5:51pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/25/2008 @ 5:34pm
stats are lots of fun.
lets see...is there extraterrestrial life in the universe? either there is or there is not.
50 50 eh? lol...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 5:52pm
far more often than a load of soccer playing kids...
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/25/2008 @ 5:24pm
we used to play in the alley.............
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 5:53pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/25/2008 @ 5:53pm
so if one soccer mom in ten had a gigantomobile...ok - that makes sense...actually efficient...
but we all know what a pile of bullshit that is! i can go all day on the road and not see one single suv with more than one or two pwople in it. in fact, its hard to see otherwise - unless the suv is hauling construction workers or something.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 6:00pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/25/2008 @ 5:34pm
there's just too much crap in the sky. maybe we aren't causing global climate mess.
who cares?
there's just to much crap in the air, water and soil.
Age: 75 Sex: Male Occupation: Artist and naturalist Place of residence: Saltspring Island , BC ; spent 55 years in southern Ontario Exposure to chemicals on the job: Exposure to various chemicals through oil paints, acrylics, and printmaking, as well as exposure to asbestos as a teacher in the 1960s and to arsenic in museum work in the 1950s and 60s Height: 5'10" Weight: 160 lb, stable Diet: Omnivore Proportion of diet that is organic: 80% Hours spent in front of computer/day: 0 Purchase of products likely to contain brominated flame retardants: 7 years ago Visited malarial area: Yes, yearly since 1953 Use of air fresheners: None Pesticide use: Occasional use of wasp nest spray Consumption of cigarettes: None
"Participating in this testing program was very important to me. Not only am I curious about my own chemical contamination, but is even more vital that the public as a whole pays attention. In learning about my own situation, I would hope to be able to take steps to improve things or at least change my ways to limit further insults to my physiology. Far more urgent, however, is the necessity to have a groundswell of public opinion which should give government more backbone to stand up to industry lobbies and pass strong protective legislation and ensure generous budgets to police the polluters."--Robert Bateman
Number of chemicals detected in Robert that are linked to a listed chemical health effect, and the study average
Chemicals' Effect on Health
Number of Chemicals Detected that are Linked to a Listed Health Effect
In Robert
Carcinogen
32
Hormone disruptor
19
Respiratory toxicant
16
Reproductive/ developmental toxicant
42
Number and concentration of chemicals detected in Robert.
Chemical Group
Robert's Results
Number of Compounds Detected
Heavy metals (umol/L in whole blood): Beryllium, copper, lithium, lead, zinc, selenium
5 of 6
2.5
< 0.05 to 120
2.7
Heavy metals (nmol/L in whole blood): Arsenic, bismuth, cadmium, cobalt, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, silver, tellurium, tin, thallium, uranium, mercury
12 of 13
5.5
< 10 to 190
7
PBDEs (ug/L in plasma)
2 of 5
< 0.02
< 0.01 to 0.031
0.011
PCBs (ug/L in plasma)
12 of 16
0.042
< 0.01 to 2.3
0.018
PFOS (ug/L in plasma)
1 of 1
6.9
n/a
10
Organochlorine pesticides (ug/L in plasma)
10 of 13
0.015
< 0.005 to 2.5
0.0098
Organophosphate insecticide metabolites (ug/g cre in urine)
5 of 6
1.2
< 0.67 to 5.3
1.9
VOCs (ng/mL in whole blood)
1 of 28
< 0.5
< 0.5 to trace
< 0.5
Total number of chemicals found in Robert: 48 of 88
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 6:01pm
mmmmmmmmmm
ready for your blood test, darin?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 6:01pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/25/2008 @ 6:01pm
age - 75....?
sorry...lol...couldn't help but notice that!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 6:05pm
one or two pwople in it.
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/25/2008 @ 6:00pm
the suvs actually drive the pwople.
i see pwople lined up 10 suvs deep in the drive thru (i used amerkin spellin).
it's funny how they name all these monsterfordbuilttough metalmachinations:
TUNDRA [that's especially rude], Xterra {perfect!, AVALANCHE [oh yeah], TYPHOON [these people are pendejos...]
why are people so insecure?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 6:10pm
sorry...lol...couldn't help but notice that!
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/25/2008 @ 6:05pm
oops,
that's robert bateman, a famous canadian artist.
i'm 41.7
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 6:11pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/25/2008 @ 6:46pm | ignore this person
lol - indeed!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 7:11pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/25/2008 @ 6:10pm | ignore this person
its the households i drive by in suburbia that have three of those monsters parked around that get me. maybe a dead possum on the engine block...hmmm...turn that baby on, get a few miles down the road and...whew!!!!
i remember catching that stinky possum in my storage room a couple years back. guess i should of wacked him with my katana (and wouulda if i were starving) but wussed out...there the little primitive monster was, mouth open, quietly hissing at me, and all i could think was, "is that it? is that the best ya got? thats pathetic..." so i lured him into a cat carrying case with some cat food, stood there and watched the dumbass walk right into it, cosed the door, put him in my car and rode around til i found the first three suv house in the neigborhood and let him go near their garbage cans...
the nasty little monster was back within a couple of months...
sad when you find out your native american totem animal is a freakin possum...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 7:20pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/25/2008 @ 6:48pm |
source?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 7:53pm
How many generations get to save humanity from extinction. To the extent that religion gives meaning to one's life, what could be more meaningful than saving the world. If you were going to design a fake crisis to lure disaffected losers into worshiping you, what could possible be a better hook than telling them they have the opportunity to save the world?
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/25/2008 @ 5:20pm
Sort of like Tim LaHaye and the "Left Behind" stuff?
Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 8:58pm
Mankind will face serious economic, social, and demographic consequences of the coming Ice Age because it will directly affect more than 80% of the earth's population, the scientist concluded. ----Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/25/2008 @ 6:48pm
Well, gee, RIO...if so, you aren't going to mind if we NATIONALIZE THE OIL COMPANIES, to more equally distribute the heating oil for those long winters from September to April....uh....are you?
Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 9:00pm
Yes! I'll be retired in 15 years, shouldn't I be able to spend (or save) my money as I see fit?
Posted by ACOOK 02/25/2008 @ 2:42pm
Yea! I agree.
...course I'm spending my money on hookers and heroin.
Posted by Malcontent at 02/25/2008 @ 9:17pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/25/2008 @ 5:10pm
A bit of a canard dontcha think LL? After all, science is by definition always falsifiable and never offers 100% proof to anything....
...although I must admit, I kinda like my moniker "LOC" being used as a categorical noun.
Ibble Rio's source: Russkies Apparently Abdusmatov is a solar physicist, but other than this article and a Wiki entry, I know little of him. I note though that his premise (as posted on the Wiki page) has a pretty large flaw in that it requires vertical migration of gases that are known not to perform amazing tricks like that ...
So a fringe theory - surprise, surprise
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/25/2008 @ 9:18pm
"the nasty little monster was back within a couple of months..."
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/25/2008 @ 7:20pm
lol...IBBLE, you're too funny!!!
You sure the same possum didn't hitch a ride with the 3-SUV family?
Posted by ACook at 02/25/2008 @ 9:18pm
Posted by ACOOK 02/25/2008 @ 9:18pm
heehee...some folks are mountain lions...some are bears or hawks or swans...
possum? shit!
i caught it again a couple of months later when one of my loser freinds was hanging out. he got all freaked out and i demonstrated my daniel boone skills, pulled out the cat carry case, threw some cat food in and stood 2 feet away as ol stink and hiss waddled right in...
my wuss friend took him down to the river and let it go...
guess them 3 suv'ers had crappy garbage...lol...
yes...i live a dangerous and eventful life...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 9:36pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/25/2008 @ 9:18pm
well...there is some legit doubt. politics and science, though - not a good mix...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 9:39pm
Here again is a list of acclaimed scientists who have converted from alarmist to skeptic...for those of you brave enought to read it.
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idarticle=9469
My favorite part is when David Evans explains his conversion to skeptic by quoting Keynes...When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?'"
Posted by usc1 at 02/25/2008 @ 9:43pm
Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.
To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.
And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.
Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, is among those looking at the sun for evidence of an increase in sunspot activity.
Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.
Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.
This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.
Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.
Tapping oversees the operation of a 60-year-old radio telescope that he calls a "stethoscope for the sun." But he and his colleagues need better equipment.
In Canada, where radio-telescopic monitoring of the sun has been conducted since the end of World War II, a new instrument, the next-generation solar flux monitor, could measure the sun's emissions more rapidly and accurately.
As we have noted many times, perhaps the biggest impact on the Earth's climate over time has been the sun.
For instance, researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over the last 100 years.
R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University, says that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."
Rather, he says, "I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet."
Patterson, sharing Tapping's concern, says: "Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth."
"Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before, and it most likely will again," Patterson says. "If we were to have even a medium-sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than 'global warming' would have had."
In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov made some waves -- and not a few enemies in the global warming "community" -- by predicting that the sun would reach a peak of activity about three years from now, to be accompanied by "dramatic changes" in temperatures.
A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion.
"The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.
The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."
The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on temperatures."
But if the sun shuts down, we've got a problem. It is the sun, not the Earth, that's hanging in the balance.
Posted by usc1 at 02/25/2008 @ 9:50pm
And then there's this
http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/
He seems pretty convinced.
Posted by usc1 at 02/25/2008 @ 9:54pm
Posted by USC1 02/25/2008 @ 9:50pm | ignore this person
i'm with mr. keynes in so many ways.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 9:55pm
Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 02/25/2008 @ 9:30pm
Okay I'll bite. What is "SPGWR" and how much do you have invested in it?
Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 10:00pm
Posted by USC1 02/25/2008 @ 9:50pm
What was the source for this?
Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 10:01pm
K. Tapping: "As we have noted many times, perhaps the biggest impact on the Earth's climate over time has been the sun.
Posted by USC1 02/25/2008 @ 9:50pm
While Mr. Tapping is certainly correct "over time".....that began w/earth's creation, he dared not dispute the GW Religionists' faith that the biggest impact on the Earth's climate since the dawn of man has been man. :~)
Posted by Happy at 02/25/2008 @ 10:26pm
Okay I'll bite. What is "SPGWR" and how much do you have invested in it?
Posted by MASK 02/25/2008 @ 10:00pm
single payer global warming remedy.
just nonsense from an ostrich.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 10:31pm
All that crap in my blood and I'm still going to outlive 95% of all people alive in 1900.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/25/2008 @ 6:52pm
yes, but will you be healthy?
and wouldn't you live longer and better without it?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 10:32pm
sad when you find out your native american totem animal is a freakin possum...
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/25/2008 @ 7:20pm
careful,
they bite by latching on and biting repeatedly very quickly.
Other researchers have documented concrete indications of global warming's effects. Plants worldwide are blooming an average 5.2 days earlier per decade, according to Stanford University senior fellow Terry Root; and the opossum, an animal that confined its range to the South as recently as the Civil War, can now be found as far north as Ontario.
the first time i saw a possum was in royal oak michigan about 20 years ago. i was like, "what the??"
now, they are everywhere.
from qwiki:
Its range has been expanding steadily northwards, thanks in part to more plentiful, man-made sources of fresh water, increased shelter due to urban encroachment, and milder winters. Its range has extended into Ontario, Canada, and it has been found farther north than Toronto.
The checkerspot butterfly is disappearing from the southern U.S. and making it's home on Canada's west coast, beavers have been seen as far north as Labrador and Nunavut, and the Virginia opossum has shown up in Georgian Bay in Ontario. Last year for the first time, some hummingbirds remained in Victoria for the winter rather than fly south as they usually do.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 10:43pm
What was the source for this?
Posted by MASK 02/25/2008 @ 10:01pm
Sorry. It came from Investor's Business Daily. I posted it before, but I chopped off the headline this time.
Posted by usc1 at 02/25/2008 @ 10:43pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/25/2008 @ 10:48pm
Ironic, isn't it? Seems they would cheer conflicts where lots of people gets killed while their hands stay `clean'....Better to have hundreds of thousands of Iraqis & children die under Saddam but blissfully out of ear/camera shot of the NYT and al Jazeera. Bet they wish all countries, especially us WalMamericans, adopt China's 1-child policy.
Posted by Happy at 02/25/2008 @ 11:04pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/25/2008 @ 10:43pm | ignore this person
well...they are survivors...lol...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 11:19pm
crockfull of ignorance.
Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/25/2008 @ 10:48pm
once again,
the irony is staggering.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/26/2008 @ 12:33am
Posted by HAPPY 02/25/2008 @ 11:04pm
obviously,
the years of saddam's (often u.s. abetted) rule were pretty shitty for iraqis.
but they pale in comparison to the chaos currently unleashed. i don't know how many quotes i've read from iraqis saying things were better with saddam.............
plus, why him?
there are many despots around the world, just as, if not more, evil than saddam was.
and most of them would have been much easier targets.
why?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/26/2008 @ 12:37am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/26/2008 @ 12:37am
Secret Energy Task Force?
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/26/2008 @ 07:04am
From sourcewatch.org:
Professor Robert (Bob) Carter, is "a researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University", Australia [1]. In a byline with an op-ed published in the Sydney Morning Herald in September 2005 he was described as an "experienced environmental scientist" [2], but a March 2007 article in the Sydney Morning Herald noted that "Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community." [3] He is a well known climate change skeptic.
Carter could well be described as 'a prominent research geologist with a personal interest in the issue of climate change', from his list of research papers. He has extensive experience of paleoclimatic research, including participation in Ocean Drilling Program Leg 181 in the southwest Pacific which described the benchmark 4 million year-long, mid-latitude climate record from Site 1119 [4]. In 2005 Carter was appointed by the Australian Minister for Environment, Ian Campbell, as a judge for the Australian Government Peter Hunt Eureka Prize for Environmental Journalism. [5]
In January 2006 Carter told the Australian newspaper that "atmospheric CO2 is not a primary forcing agent for temperature change," arguing instead that "any cumulative human signal is so far undetectable at a global level and, if present, is buried deeply in the noise of natural variation". [6]
In March 2007 the Sydney Morning Herald reported that "Professor Carter told the Herald yesterday [March 14th 2007] the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had uncovered no evidence the warming of the planet was caused by human activity. He said the role of peer review in scientific literature was overstressed, and whether or not a scientist had been funded by the fossil fuel industry was irrelevant to the validity of research. "I don't think it is the point whether or not you are paid by the coal or petroleum industry," said Professor Carter. "I will address the evidence." [7]
Carter is a member of the right-wing think tank the Institute of Public Affairs [8], and a founding member of the Australian Environment Foundation, a front group set up by the Institute of Public Affairs."
"The Institute of Public Affairs is a right-wing, corporate funded think tank based in Melbourne. It has close links to the Liberal Party, with it's Executive Director John Roskam having run for Liberal preselection for a number of elections. Its key policy positions include advocacy for privatisation, deregulation, reduction in the power of unions and denial of most significant environmental problems, including climate change."
Posted by drhammer at 02/26/2008 @ 08:17am
Whether you're looking for the "gotcha" moments, or simply to deepen your perspective on your sources of information, sourcewatch.org can provide valuable insights into the backgrounds of the professionals that issues advocates like to cite.
Five or ten minutes on the site can also help give you a feel on where Tim Patterson's coming from.
When your "expert" or "scientist" or "non-partisan" or "non-profit" alarms start to ding, this is a good place to go.
Posted by drhammer at 02/26/2008 @ 08:36am
Some Googling of Russian researcher Khabibullo Abdusamatov would reveal that he asserts that "even the natural greenhouse effect does not function as previously thought, stating "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated.""
Oh boy...
Posted by drhammer at 02/26/2008 @ 08:55am
(That was a Wiki citation, by the way.)
Posted by drhammer at 02/26/2008 @ 08:58am
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/26/2008 @ 08:13am
So, Darin, essentially like "the religion of environmentalism"....you're saying the fundamentalist Christian eschatology ("End Times") stuff is just as bogus?
Posted by Mask at 02/26/2008 @ 09:12am
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/26/2008 @ 09:03am
I think you're still trafficking in some conflation, but it's going to take a while for me to absorb your post completely.
I do believe one thing very strongly, though.
Once you prove your faith to be true, it ceases to be a faith.
Posted by drhammer at 02/26/2008 @ 09:18am
Rio Loco
One of the "be fruitful and multiply crowd" I see. As we approach the carrying capacity of our planet (and I'm much too bust to make the simple thermodynamic argument that the majority of environmental scientists agree with)then whats wrong with a little "Population and Economic Control" (and is the idea necessary totalitarian?) As to assisted suicide - sure, good enough for Socrates, good enough for me. Who knows, there may come a day when I'm feeble, in pain and drooling in my oatmeal wishing for that Hemlock martini.
As to the article by Asbdumatov (or however it was spelled - I'm not scrolling back up righ not) I dismissed his theory not JUST because its considered a fringe idea, but more so because it is based on a false assumption regarding the movement of GHGs - something known and quantified. If he is able to support that assumption - fine, but until that time I (as most scientists do) go with the majority view.
Now excuse me, gotta get ready for Meteorology and Environmental Conservation - my afternoon classes on T/R
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/26/2008 @ 10:01am
ooops "busy" (not "bust)
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/26/2008 @ 10:04am
When it comes to my own life, I'm more concerned with quality than quantity.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/26/2008 @ 08:20am
so you killed yourself when you were 20?
i hope (knock on wooden head) to be happy and healthy for quite a while.
life is fun. i don't particularly want to turn back into dirt anytime soon.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/26/2008 @ 10:34am
That's why they don't embrace environmentalism as a faith
I don't want you writing energy policy based on your faith either.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/26/2008 @ 09:03am
common sense is not faith.
tell me how current energy policy is working.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/26/2008 @ 10:42am
Now excuse me, gotta get ready for Meteorology and Environmental Conservation - my afternoon classes on T/R
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/26/2008 @ 10:01am
you hate america.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/26/2008 @ 10:43am
Mask, you're full of shit about polar bears, you know that, don't you?
Posted by brantl at 02/26/2008 @ 1:04pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/26/2008 @ 10:43am
Ha - that's me. All fulla hate - gonna go have a Polar Bear burger now, and maybe a side of spotted owl!
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/26/2008 @ 1:56pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/26/2008 @ 1:56pm
better get your black-footed ferret cheesecake for dessert.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/26/2008 @ 2:01pm