There can’t be a solution until there is a problem.
It’s time to do your civic duty. Al Gore says that man-made global warming is real, and his analysis has been validated by the folks over there in Sweden who award Nobel Prizes for good thinking like this.
Never mind that John Christy,1 co-winner of the 2007 Al Gore Peace Prize, said that, “I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never ‘proof’) and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.” Al believes it. The great minds of Hollywood have reinforced that belief. And now the guys in Sweden have validated it. So, it must be true.
All this presents a problem, though. As bright a mind as Angelina Jolie possesses, and as deep thinking as the guys in Sweden are (the same guys, incidentally, who gave the same Nobel Peace Prize to a Middle eastern terrorist a few years back), what if it’s not true? What if the people who actually study these things, and form scientific opinions on the basis of facts — not “consensus” — doubt that man, and man alone, is contributing to global warming?
So as not to cause Al Gore the embarrassment that is certain to come when history looks back on his less-than-visionary pronouncements, we have a civic duty to try our best and increase the so-called carbon footprint to help prove Al right. Never mind that this will be akin to exhaling forcibly as a hurricane approaches in the hope of diverting its path. We all need to do whatever we can to add to the earth’s natural climatic cycle so a .000001% increase in temperature might one day be perceived as a result of human activity, and Al Gore’s theory can be validated in spirit — though not necessarily fact.
Since conservatives have no problem using the earth’s resources for the betterment of mankind, what I’m about to propose will appeal more to those who identify themselves with the Liberal camp. We can’t use a market-driven cost-benefit analysis to appeal to the liberal mind, so we’ve got to think outside the box a little to help our liberal friends engage in more theoretical global-warming activity while simultaneously feeling good about themselves for reducing their own personal carbon footprint. Normally, such a dichotomy would drive a normal person insane. Fortunately, however, the Liberal mind can compartmentalize opposite points of view, so that where others see conflict they only see harmony. How else can one explain a commitment to free speech that allows for only politically correct conversation; a support for a woman’s right to choose — as long as the choice is limited to abortion not life; or a belief in the inviolability of the Constitution while only supporting 9 of the first 10 Amendments?
The trick when appealing to the liberal mind is to craft a proposal that (a) makes them feel good about themselves regardless of whether or not the proposal makes practical sense; (b) allows them to project their moral superiority over others who do not march in lock-step with their proposal, and thus be perceived by others as caring more deeply about things than you do; and most important of all (c) make sure the proposal will collapse of its own weight before the liberal him/herself is made to suffer any real consequences for pursuing such a foolish course of action.
In one sense, the very logic of a liberal proposal will insure that outcome (c) is achieved. Human nature being what it is, the people who want to save the earth will follow the advice of their eco-spiritual leaders and do their bit to curtail their carbon footprint. That is, until they discover that it’s not just the “rich guys” who will have to pay higher taxes and/or dramatically curtail their lifestyle. At this point even the best-of-intentions liberal will resist paying a $10/gallon fossil fuel surtax, use more than one square of toilet paper per wipe, and drive a car instead of bicycling 20 miles through a rainstorm to get to work. The human-induced carbon footprint will thus continue to grow, just as it has through the last 10,000 years of naturally occurring global warming and global cooling, and just like it has over the past 10 million years when no people were around to influence the earth’s climate.
Achieving outcome (c) naturally may take dozens of years, however. So what I propose is a way to speed up the inevitable collapse of the latest liberal save-the-earth policy while still preserving the liberals’ need to be seen as caring more about our children’s future than you do. I can’t promise that the earth will actually get any warmer than its natural cycle would produce anyway. But, I can guarantee that following the 5 carbon footprint-reducing prescriptions I propose below will actually have the opposite effect. Since success or failure is not the measurement of liberal policy, we only need to look at “good intentions.” In this case, the intention to reduce our individual carbon footprint — supposedly to reduce global warming, but in reality just to give government another reason to tax us at a higher rate and further micromanage our lives — will be offset by the real-world impact of each action, which will actually increase carbon output.
Dump enough new carbon into the atmosphere and Al Gore can create another phony correlation showing that the polar ice is melting when in fact it’s actually thickening. It won’t be real science, but since real science has been replaced by consensus science, the higher carbon output will do just fine. As long as there’s more carbon in the atmosphere this year than last year, Al Gore can point to any weather pattern (hot, cold, wet, dry) and claim new evidence of man-made global climate catastrophe.
In short, to help Al validate the pseudo-scientific basis for receiving his Nobel Peace Prize, I offer 5 ways for everyone to increase the planet’s overall carbon footprint while simultaneously professing that they, personally, have reduced the impact of “man-made” global warming.
1. Hold a “Save the Earth” concert. This will make you feel as if you are really doing something important. Never mind that the people you want to reach with your message will be tuning in to reruns of Barney Miller or Everybody Loves Raymond. Even though you’ll be talking to yourselves, you can still take credit for raising global consciousness about the impending climactic disasters that you’re sure are on the way. Of course, as you go through these mental calculations, not only must you ignore the fact that nature isn’t exactly cooperating with your predictions (remember the massive global warming-induced hurricanes that were supposed to follow Katrina in 2006 and 2007?) you can put out of your mind the incredible waste of energy it took to bring all the performers and participants to the concert, broadcast it worldwide, return the people to their homes once the concert ended, and clean up the mess created by holding the concert itself. Just plant a few trees that in 20-30 years might reduce the naturally-occurring methane from a dozen cows flatulating, and you’ll offset any mythical carbon units you created that are still floating around the stratosphere.
2. Adopt a child. Not any child though. You need to travel to Africa or Asia and find a genuine, certified, third-world child. Think of all the extra man-made global warming energy you’ll expend on behalf of this noble cause. Of course, if you really want to help a child in a foreign country, you could give money to a responsible organization like the Christian Children’s Fund which has resources already there in place on the ground. $25 a month will do a lot of good for that child and their family. Unfortunately, going this route will deprive you of the opportunity to get a lot of great international press. That is, unless you’re Madonna and forget to ask the parents of your newly adopted child if you can take him with you, at which point you just look like a sleazy kidnapper.
3. Contribute to a political candidate. No, we’re not talking about a $50 Internet contribution. To do it right, you need to run around the country bundling contributions from dubious sources for your favorite liberal candidate — who will deny knowing anything about you once you’re caught despite the photographs of you together, and the numerous strategy meetings you’ve held. And when you’re exposed, you can use even more global warming resources to race around the country trying to escape from the law, as well as turn on the TV set to hear your former candidate friend simultaneously denounce you, and invite those contributing illegally to her campaign to let you keep the money anyway.
4. Take a long hike in the mountains. Get rid of those modern energy-sucking devices that complicate your life and harm the environment. Get back in touch with nature. Get lost. Mobilize the local authorities and National Guard to search for you. Attract CNN, FOX, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and ABC to the search area for redundant live remote broadcasts. Learn nothing from your stupidity, and continue leading an eco-friendly life — until you get your butt in trouble another time, and all those dastardly devices you’ve ranted and railed against come to your rescue again.
5. Insist on smaller, lighter cars. Drive responsibly, saving fuel and the environment as you do so. Plaster your bumper with “I care and You Don’t” stickers and feel very good about yourself, until the tin can you’re driving doesn’t quite negotiate a turn and you end up in a Care Flight helicopter being airlifted to a trauma center 100 miles away. If you are still conscious and able to focus out of at least one eye, look down as you travel and see the magnificent planet on which we live, and ask yourself a simple question. Short of exploding the entire arsenal of the earth’s nuclear weapons at the same moment in time, do you really believe that man can permanently and inexorably affect the earth’s climate by his actions, and his actions alone?
Or is it best to follow the advice of Nobel Prize Winner John Christy, who said in the same article I quoted above: “Mother Nature simply operates at a level of complexity that is, at this point, beyond the mastery of mere mortals (such as scientists) and the tools available to us. As my high-school physics teacher admonished us in those we-shall-conquer-the-world-with-a-slide-rule days, 'Begin all of your scientific pronouncements with ‘At our present level of ignorance, we think we know . . .'"
Endnote
1. November 1, 2007; Page A19 Wall Street Journal. John Christy is director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and a participant in the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
Phil:
How many carbon offsets would one be awarded by following your 5-point plan?
Increasing one’s carbon footprint is a great idea! All we would be doing is following the lead of the prominent global warming alarmists who are flying all over the world spewing jet exhaust.
I remember reading that one prominent actor/environmentalist bought a Prius to show how much he cared. Of course, he parked it in the honored spot right next to the Ferrari in his 22 stall garage.
So why not “do as I do?” If that’s what it takes to be an environmentalist, I’m on board!
Sedona: purchasing carbon offsets are like buying Indulgences from the Middle Ages Church. They can assume any significance you assign to them, because in the end they are completely subjective, and therefore completely worthless. But they do make you feel better about continuing to commit your “sins”! Take care, Phil
why do you brainless [deleted by moderator] quote al gore? the science is there but your ego won’t let the information in. but i’m sure you same idiots go telling everyone that evolution is a myth. fill that empty space between your ears and get out and see the world for yourself, not from that rotting trailer.
Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
obviously not.
it’s stuff like this that makes america dumber and dumber.
Dave The Patriot: Assuming that you really care about the issue (which I highly doubt) instead of just smearing the messenger, read my essay in the IC archives “An Even More Inconvenient Truth: The Myth of Man-Made Global Warming”. I quote actual scientists instead of simply relying on highly politicized interest groups like the NRDC and your favorite Hollywood celebrities to address the same things that Nobel Prize winner John Christy cited.
Only true Patriots like Dave object to hearing other points of view because they are contrary to his, rather than take the time to challenge the points that are actually made.
By the way, does anyone else notice the irony in Dave The Patriot’s admonition that I shouldn’t write opinion pieces that go against consensus science, and a passage from my article above — “Fortunately, however, the Liberal mind can compartmentalize opposite points of view, so that where others see conflict they only see harmony. How else can one explain a commitment to free speech that allows for only politically correct conversation …”.
Phil,
You are making a fundamental error. Only conservatives can be hypocrites. Only leftists can be caring and compassionate. Since leftists are always caring and compassionate, everything they say or do is caring and compassionate.
Everything that conservatives say or do is eeevil, hateful, and bigoted. Their opinions and policies always affect women, children, and minorities the worst.
well in actuallity, i can ask all the scientists on the payroll of exon-mobil or shell or bp and i will get the same data as you. incorrect, flawed, mis-leading information. the facts are the planet does have a tremendous amount of cyclicity. the higher levels of greenhouse gasses cannot be disputed. what is also fact, is greenhouse gasses and mean global temp have a postive relationship, the go up together. clearcutting, coral reef poisoning, fossil fuel burning, cattle production all contribute to higher levels of gasses that warm the plaent. what will happen?
computer model postulate many scenarios. NONE of which can be dealt with in a ‘wait and see’ attitude. we can disagree on opinions of results of global warming, but there aren’t many intelligent folks who truly deny the existence of a warming planet aided by human activity.
the arguments you make sound like the tabacco companies lies about the harmfulness of cigarettes. just keep it real man, we live on the same planet and must preserve it the best we can.
Phil:
Re: “consensus science”
“Dave The Patriot” makes the same error as the AAUP’s recent report, “Freedom in the Classroom,” which includes the following statement:
“It is not indoctrination for professors to expect students to comprehend ideas and apply knowledge that is accepted as true within a relevant discipline. For example, it is not indoctrination for professors of biology to require students to understand principles of evolution; indeed, it would be a dereliction of professional responsibility to fail to do so.”
http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/comm/rep/A/class.htm
The National Association of Scholars responded to the AAUP with this observation: “Whether ‘accepted as true within a relevant discipline’ should count for a great deal or not very much depends on the discipline. ‘Accepted as true within a relevant discipline’ is not the same as true, and some disciplines have much stronger epistemological warrant than others. What is ‘accepted as true’ within chemistry, for example, has a much stronger claim on validity than what may be ‘accepted as true’ in women’s studies. The AAUP in this passage blurs this widely recognized difference.” [Emphasis added] http://www.nas.org/nas-initiatives/aaup_acfree_initiative/answer_aaup_01.htm
I would expect man-made global warming’s claim on validity to fall in a similar category as women’s studies.
Keep up the good work.
sedonaman
P.S. I recommend “Dave The Patriot” read your series “The Looney Liberal Chronicles”
see, this is where we should recite your right-wacky cliches. divided we fall. so why all the diviciveness. why the attempt to alter written history in the view of a few morons? we are all in this boat together, and all this left right talk is so infintile. i was smack in the middle in regards to political viewpoints, but the hi-jacked right has pushed me farther away from the right. united we stand? what must be done to the REAL republican right, not this chrisitna evangelical bunch of loony-bin, and to the REAL non-blame happy left so we can get stuff done for the country? we’re a sinking ship and we need plug the holes, not make new ones.
dave the patriot: i’m writing you without using capital letters to show my solidarity with the cause of adopting only apolitical completely neutral positions on an issue. like most self-professed moderates, you’d rather avoid conflict and debate than stick your neck out and say that something is right or wrong — and then defend the position you took. i realize that this may be a difficult concept to grasp, but some things in this world are worth defending, even if it upsets the tender sensibilities of those who just want us all to get along regardless of the merits of an issue.
i find it more than a little ironic that the only position you can assert with any degree of passion is that we shouldn’t assert positions that cause disagreement or conflict.
Sedona: DTP would actually be better off reading my article on the myth of man made global warming. He speaks in broad generalities about all opposition being industry funded (I’m still waiting for my check from Exxon), and won’t address the fact that the Natural Resource Defense Council has used the issue as a political football — as I detailed in that paper.
But for DPT, the issue is too important to let the fact get in the way. We have to act now to save the planet. Okay. I suggest building a really big hose to spray the sun to cool it down, since recent studies show that we’re in a heightened phase of solar output that’s not only affecting the earth, but melting the Martian icecaps too.
Phil:
Re: “But for DPT, the issue is too important to let the fact get in the way. We have to act now to save the planet.”
Actually, saving the planet is not liberals’ concern. It’s been some time since I quoted what SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) used to say: “The issue is not the issue; the revolution is the issue.”
That’s why arguing facts with the likes of DTP lead nowhere. Liberals despise hierarchy and must therefore constantly work to tear down the existing establishment (as they call it). If you read between his lines, that’s exactly what DTP is debating when he refers to “scientists on the payroll of exon-mobil [sic] or shell [sic] or bp [sic] and their “incorrect, flawed, mis-leading information.” (Hint, hint: Conspiracy theory. Hint, hint.)
Keeping the debate about global warming being a liberal fraud “supposedly to reduce global warming, but in reality just to give government another reason to tax us at a higher rate and further micromanage our lives” will do more to expose them for what they are than arguing a bunch of data that leads off to some tangent and that no one has the inclination to verify anyway.
If Dave Patriot available, I’d like him to take a quick survey. All questions are yes/no.
1) Are CBS, NBC, and ABC generally too conservative?
2) Is dailykos mainstream?
3) Is Bush destroying civil liberties to the point where he should be impeached?
4) Are Christians trying to impose theocracy on our country?
5) Are you in favor of a government single payor healthcare?
6) Is the Iraq war an illegal war?
7) Are the rich getting away with paying not enough taxes?
8) Does Dennis Kucinich make a lot of sense?
9) Was Ronald Reagan an empty suit?
10) Did the Supreme Court hand the election to Bush in 2000?
Ok, let’s total up the scores. Count your “yes” answers.
1-2: you’re kind of conservative
3-4: pretty much middle of the road
5-6: liberal
7-8: hard left
9-10: flaming socialist
Dave the Patriot,
When one removes all the liberal catchphrases from your assertions, there’s little left.
It IS an insanely important issue. That said, it’s ridiculous to demand that with such an important issue that we understand soooo little that we just let non-scientists like Gore decide the answer. It’s funny how on all issues of science, liberals ignore any and all evidence and call those who disagree with them flat earthers.
If GWers are right, the Earth will warm 3-5 degrees over the next century or two, and the ocean levels will rise by about a foot over the same period of time. If the anti-GWers are right, then there’s no real problem, and “fighting it” will kill our economy. With such consequences, we better make sure we’re 100% right before capping gas use.
Gee. Between ibbleblibble, gnarlyeric, and dave_patriot, the mean IQ of this site has dropped at least 30 points in the last 2 weeks, but I guess that’s what happens when you add single digits to the mix.
Is November “spread the ignorance” month or something?
Phil,
Great stuff. I would like to add some items that would help save carbon output. The first of these is to move all of the people in Phoenix to the south pole so they would not need airconditioning anymore. All of those empty houses in Phoenix will be used to move the people of Alaska to Arizona. That way they would not need to heat their houses anymore. An added byproduct is we would have an exchange in culture. One more idea, we could place suncatching sats in space. We could beam the electricity to earth and block the sun so we could cool the earth. A two fer.
Since ‘scientists’ per se are characteristically a conservative lot, and since 95% of scientific opinion is that Global Warming is a seriously dangerous issue, and that mankind is a strong contributing factor – why is it that dogmatics such as are found on this site so insistent that it’s a myth? The real myth is the one they serve up themselves that there’s nothing to it.
Wake up! Open the windows! Look outside!
Compare the global warming ‘argument’ to a bus full of people – all your friends and family included – speeding down a twisting mountain road too fast and gaining speed every second. Almost everyone is urging the driver to apply the brakes to keep from plunging off the cliff. Those voices include most all the experienced drivers, plus several mechanics on board – a general consensus in fact.
But some on the bus may stand to lose if the brakes are applied. One may be the driver who might earn a bonus if he brings the bus to the terminal early. Others may have some selfish financial interest related to the cost of replacing the brake linings. Whatever, these few are noisy and vociferous, and insist the danger is way overblown and altogether a myth. They stubbornly hang on to their doctrine it’s all a myth because it’s ‘possible’ the experts are wrong.
The trouble is, they sentence the bus and everyone onboard the bus to potential destruction – including themselves and their families – because they are concerned with their own pecuniary interests. Alternately, they are convinced by the cynical propaganda of those with selfish pecuniary interests who have no concern for the welfare of the bus or its passengers.
In their role as enablers, they are a clear and present danger to the bus and everyone on it.
gnarlyerik is back, this time with a bad analogy. Before I start, gnarlyerik, let me say I don’t think your stellar military service innoculates you from criticism or entitles you to some sort of special consideration.
Now that that’s out of the way, here we go. No one on the bus really knows where the bus is going or how fast, or why. The bus is an extremely complicated piece of equipment, and only a small percentage of it has even been studied, let alone understood.
A 90% majority of a small group of passengers decide that the bus is going too fast. But they don’t seem to realize that the driver is mother nature, and mother nature does pretty much what she wants, and there is nothing anyone on the bus can do to control her.
Some in that small group of passengers who think the bus is going too fast are honest people who are not inclined to give up their window seats on the bus by disagreeing with the others. They have seen what has happened to others when they disagree.
Others in the small group of passengers who think the bus is going too fast are well-connected to the slow-the-bus people who hand out lots of money in endowments and government grants. They see they have a sweet deal by trying to slow the bus, because they get even more funding when they study slow-bus theory.
Still others in the small group of passengers who think the bus is going too fast actually think the bus is going too fast, but also recognize that it is hardly an exact science, and are open to the possibility that they are wrong.
The real problem is mother nature has been speeding up and slowing down the bus ever since it left the station. Many times. She likes the variety.
“Since ’scientists’ per se are characteristically a conservative lot … ”
This is an absolute load. When scientific “fact” has been replaced by “scientific consensus”, we’re not dealing with objective analysis driven by the scientific method. As I explained at length in my segment on the NRDC in my original global warming essay, for present day scientists to do their “science”, they need funding. To get funding, not only must they get approval from their peers — who hold left-leaning agendas as the NRDC typifies — the problem has to be solvable by man. If a rise in temperature is due largely (or entirely) to natural climatic changes, then man can’t “solve” the problem. Thus, they start with the premise that GW is man-made, because to posit otherwise would be to cut off their own funding before it starts.
To suggest that all we really need to do is “look out the window” to see climate change is the epitome of human hubris. Climate changes over hundreds, if not thousands of years. To measure change in a month, a year, a decade, or the span of a human life is pure ignorance. Just look at all the silly “Katrina” predictions in 2006 and 2007 based on the 2005 hurricane season.
I don’t know who gnarlyerik is, but based on the comments made about him, if his previous observations are any where near as shallow as his above comments, no wonder you’re all frustrated. This is supposed to be a forum to debate issues, not serve up fifth grade platitudes as if they are self-obvious pearls of wisdom.
By the way, a little something on the science of “consensus” from THE AMERICAN THINKER.
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/04/galileo_denied_consensus.html
April 18, 2007
Galileo Denied Consensus
By Jerome J. Schmitt
In 1632 Galileo Galilei was accused of heresy for questioning the Aristotelian “consensus model” of the universe which held that the sun and all other heavenly bodies revolve around the earth. He was threatened by the Inquisition with torture for holding these views, despite the fact that he – and anyone who troubled to do so – could see through a telescope that moons orbit the planet Jupiter.
An old man, Galileo was forced to recant and confess his error; he thereby escaped being burnt at the stake and was instead sentenced to house-arrest for the rest of his life. Science and history have of course proven him right. Ever since, the notion of enforced “consensus” has been anathema to scientists.
Until now.
The dawn of the 21st century sees relentless strident attempts to enforce consensus about global warming theory. These modern inquisitors, replete with Supreme Court rulings, brand “deniers” of impending apocalyptic global warming as heretics who lack blind faith in the theology of infallible computer models. Today’s Galileos are being threatened with loss of their positions, credentials and titles. Foisting theories upon scientists and the public by means of verbal persuasion, elections, court orders, or intimidation is the opposite of the scientific method of determining the truth.
Science is accomplished by prediction, observation and measurement. The experimental results must be convincing – not the words of the theory’s proponents.
Negative results are valued, reported and recorded since these disprove what might otherwise be a compelling theory, thus saving future scientists the trouble of repeating the error. Science requires experiments as with Galileo’s observations through his novel hand-made ten-power telescope.
Conversely, absence of experiments means there is no science yet.
And just for good measure, a note I recieved from a friend of mine in the UK a couple of months ago that speaks to this “95% of all scientists agree” BS —
I’ve just finished watching a programme on Channel 4 which you would have enjoyed. It was called “The Great Global Warming Swindle” and made by Wag TV Productions. Very well put together and de-bunking the whole concept. I made some rough notes as I watched …
- IPCC NOT made up of 2500 of the World’s Top Scientists. You’d have to include reviewers and the like.
- 14th century saw ‘Little Ice Age’. Thames froze over. Ice fairs. Depicted in paintings etc.
- ‘Mediaeval Warm Period” warmer than today. Cathedrals, vineyards in Britain. Rich and wealthy time.
- ‘Holocene Maximum’. 8,000 years ago. Lasted for 3,000 years. MUCH warmer than today.
- change in temp of + 0.5 degrees from mid 19th century till today. Most of this prior to 1940.
- Post war boom temp FELL for 4 decades NOT a rise as would be expected if CO2
- 1970s recession for 3 decades and temps INCREASED.
- CO2 is 0.054% of the air. Of all greenhouse gases WATER VAPOUR is most important.
- Increase should be seen in Troposphere 10-12km above the earth. Highest rate should be here. Weather balloon data shows surface temps are HIGHER.
- Al Gore and Ice core temps relating to CO2. Correct BUT link is wrong way round. The curves match but CO2 is 800 YEARS BEHIND temp. Temp therefore CAUSED CO2 to rise.
- Volcanoes, animals, decaying veg all produce more CO2 than man. Greatest contribution is from the OCEANS.
- Oceans warm more CO2 given out. Oceans cooler more CO2 taken in. HUGE LAG TIME.
- Sunspot activity relates to temp change.
- Sun effects cosmic rays which effects cloud formations which effects climate.
- In 1975 a Swedish scientist said that the earth was heading for an ice age and that perhaps burning coal to produce CO2 may increase the temperature of the planet.
- Politicians became aware. Margaret Thatcher not trusting of Middle East for oil or Miners for coal so pushed for Nuclear power and gave money to scientists investigating CO2 global temp effect.
- Became political and influenced funding for scientists. Increase in environmental movement and anti-capitalists helped to fuel debate and studies.
- Climate models very inaccurate. use 1% increase per year for CO2 but it’s actually 0.49%. Bias towards results rather than accuracy. Media interested in sensationalising.
- Ice changes in Antartica and Greenland are NORMAL annual changes.
- Risk from Malaria disputed. Maleria NOT tropical desease. Greatest epidemic in Russia in 1920s as far north as Arctic circle. IPCC wrong when stated that you need temps higher than 16-18 degrees C.
It was a good programme because it didn’t just try to slag off the pro CO2 Global Warming advocates without any evidence or reasoning.
It simple stated the facts, corrected the mistakes and then went on to explain why CO2 has taken over as the so called reason for Global Warming. It was clear that climate change is normal. It’s what the planet does. CO2 was not the culprit. The sun’s influence on cloud formation is the real reason. Also finished by saying that the 1st World’s active desire to stop the 3rd World developing other than with wind and solar power is condemning the 2 billion people without electricity for no good reason.
Very thought provoking. They have a web page at http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/
great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
Better to go there sooner than later if you’re interested as Channel 4 seem to remove pages pretty quickly after they have aired!
Allow me to make several educated guesses regarding gnarlyeric. I’m willing to bet that at least 5 out of 6 are correct.
1. gnarlyeric is less than 30 years of age
I don’t despise youth, because at 46 I still consider myself young. But I also recognize the bravado that can only come from someone who is foolish enough to think that they know it all when it is so clear from their postings that they have only strongly held opinions – not facts – to support their most strident assertions. gnarlyeric hasn’t matured enough yet to understand the difference, something you typically see in those under 30. I also don’t know anyone over the age of 30 who would think “gnarly” made for a clever username.
2. gnarlyeric isn’t a science major
Obviously we’re dealing with someone here who is too clueless to understand that science is highly politicized and has been since at least the time of Copernicus and Galileo. We are also dealing with someone who doesn’t fundamentally understand science or the scientific method. gnarlyeric, take good notes: the scientific method is about making a hypothesis THAT CAN BE PROVEN FALSE and then collecting data in an attempt to disprove (not prove) your hypothesis. If the model still stands after repeated assaults of impartially collected data, then you can begin to talk about something being a valid scientific theory. Consensus has nothing – I repeat – NOTHING to do with science. It is not a democracy. One person can, and often has, turned prevailing “consensus” on its head when it comes to science. The germ theory, relativity of time/space/gravity, and planetary motion all come to mind. One of the big problems with the current global warming model is that it really can’t be proven false because its proponents are making predictions that won’t be fully recognized in our lifetimes and can’t currently be measured. We’re asked to accept, primarily on faith and emotion, that “the end is near” unless we change our ways. Problem is, the data simply doesn’t support that so the only thing left to the AGW crowd is to amp up the bullhorns, scream louder, and attempt to win in the court of public opinion rather than the court of genuine scientific investigation. Think about what happened over the last year when an enterprising blogger found an error in NASA data from just one data collection station. All of a sudden, the last few decades didn’t look so dire after all. This doesn’t exactly build confidence and credibility, now does it? If your model is so un-robust as to start crumbling when a single blogger finds a bug, do we really think we are ready to go out and solve a problem over which we may actually have no control – or a problem that is simply a cyclic variation?
3. gnarlyeric isn’t a conservative
This is a fellow who entered the discussions with both guns blazing, telling us he’s a genuine conservative, but that he’s ashamed to use that “label” because he’ll be associated with people that are “all hat and no cattle.” Yet, when you look at the actual viewpoints he espouses, they seem to consist primarily of “you guys are idiots.” Is it just me, or did I miss the rational and reasoned explanation of his ideology and the devastating logic to support it? About the only thing he’s shown us he’s actually adept at so far is turning up the volume. He reminds me of clueless American tourists who hop into the foreign taxi and start yelling directions progressively louder in English, thinking that if they just raise the volume enough, they’ll bridge the communication gap. Newsflash: unintelligible is unintelligible at any volume level. You want to come in with both guns blazing? Kindly get some real bullets first – these are also commonly known as facts, and should not be mistaken for rather lame analogies.
4. gnarlyeric wasn’t in the debate club in high school
I think I’m on pretty safe ground with this one. Either that, or he was on a debate club that didn’t win any ribbons. As I said in point 3, gnarlyeric subscribes to the notion that volume is king. He’s reminiscent of Ambrose Bierce’s definition of “positive” – to be mistaken at the top of one’s voice.
5. gnarlyeric’s primary information sources are internet blogs
Again, I think I’m on pretty safe ground here. I don’t think we are dealing with a particularly well-read individual. We’re dealing with someone whose idea of an airtight Q.E.D. is to provide a URL.
6. gnarlyeric does not work in a profession in which he must persuade others through force of reason or logic
Once again – I think I’m on pretty safe ground here.
Wow! This is an example of ‘intellect’? Steve Sabin can tell so much about me through my posts? Whoo boy! This is the same knee-jerk jumping to conclusions that typifies ‘Intellectual Conservative’? (both words in that term being in grievous error – there’s that oxymoron again!). No wonder you guys are considered so fringe and out of touch. You are bent so far that everyone else is a ‘leftist’!
Since you are so interested, here are a few facts about me. I am obviously touching some sore nerves by daring to disagree with your nonsense – which gratifies me no end:
I am in my ‘sixties; My education is in architecture; I WAS on the debate team in school, and we DID win prizes; I get my information wherever I can, the internet, newspapers, periodicals – but not from Rush Limbaugh or propaganda. I read every ‘right-wing’ thing I can just to keep up with the thought? processes (my personal motto is ‘Pay attention all the time’); I have voted in every election since 1964 and voted for Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan, Ford and Bush I (big mistake!); I DID NOT vote for Clinton; My profession is high-end sales of big ticket items.
I AM a conservative, in the truest meaning of the word – not in the hackneyed current connotation which is anything but.
I’ve also noticed that the Intellectual Conservative either delays, or does not post my comments – which doesn’t matter, since your opinion is already fixed in granite and neither reality nor facts affect it in the least.
“You are bent so far that everyone else is a ‘leftist’!”
No, it’s simply that you offer nothing but your opinions (which is a hallmark of those I write about in my Looney Liberal Chronicles), and when presented with facts that contradict your opinions, you ignore what is said and simply give us more of your opinions again.
Nothing you’ve said in this post rises beyond what you believe is true based on looking out your kitchen window and observing the world. This is what you’ve been challenged on, and this is why no one seems to take anything you say seriously. I’ve given you substantive evidence in this comment section that contradicts your opinions, and pointed you to a much longer piece I wrote on this subject. You have offered nothing even approaching an analysis of the issue, other than to restate what you personally believe without bothering to substantiate it with anything other than your own esoteric opinions on the matter.
No one cares who you voted for. Our only interest is in having a discussion with someone who actually has something substantive to say. Steve Sabin is absolutely correct in his assessment of you as an empty suit.
So gnarlyeric, how did it feel to be on the other side of broad generalizations based on mere conjecture?
I should think I made my point quite clearly with my shoot from the hip, tongue-in-cheek post.
I would welcome the opportunity in this venue for a serious discussion of AGW based on science. However, I get the impression you are far more at home posting essays in venues where you are likely to get mostly atta-boys and have little if any logical or scientific rigor demanded of your assertions. One look at the sites where do your blogging and get your articles published is testament to that. If “Bong hits for Jayzus” isn’t indicative of classical conservative viewpoints, I don’t know what is.
In closing, I would be careful about throwing phrases such as “all hat and no cattle” around without first inspecting your own barn. Let’s start with a vigorous, fact-based, scientifically sound defense of AGW and then we can move on from there.
We await with bated breath.
gnarlyeric,
There is a delay on posts that affects many of us, not just you. Rest assured you are not being singled out because of your views.
I think that posts longer than a few sentences go into a holding bucket for the moderator to review. I have noticed that my short posts appear immediately, but my longer ones can take anywhere from 2-12 hours.
gnarlyerik,
What is “touching our nerves” is your absolute refusal to engage in the issues, other than the tossing out of a few bombs and running away.
You have yet to say a single thing of substance. You have yet to respond to any issue brought before you. You have simply called people names and told them how stupid you think they are.
Really, if you don’t start engaging in a dialogue and back up your “opinions” with some sort substance, people are going to start ignoring you for the kook you are more and more seeming to be. At this point, we’re begging you. Say something that sounds like you actually thought about it!
Here’s one more opportunity for you. Answer the questions in post 14, and respond point-by-point in an adult way to post 22. Then will will have something to talk about. If you cannot do this, please go away.
Phil
1Well written article as always. I have always lurked in the background until now, but I feel as if I have to add my two cents worth at this point.
I am a meteorologist for Environment Canada of able mind and liberal body (sorry to say), however I have to say that I agree with Phil on GW. What Phil has to say about models is right on point. If numerical models can’t predict accurately when the fog is going to clear out of an airport I am forecasting for today, how accuratly would you expect it to predict a minute temperature chage over 10 years or so? Everybody who has been bashing Phil on here . . ask yourself that question. I won’t bore you with the complexities of numerical modeling. Safe to say it is a very complex process. Also, how do you verify these climate models. For a short range weather model, I:
a). Make a forecast.
b). Wait 24 hours for the weather to play itself out.
c). Compare my model-based forecast with what actually happened and note the differences, statistically, or simply, I (with the help of the model) forecast 1 inch of rain and there really was 3 inches of rain. Bad model aided forecast. Bottom line, the model verified poorly.
This is not possible in a climate model. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Personally, do I think that GW is happening? Probably. Does anybody know how much man is contributing to GW. Sure. God knows.
Paul — I appreciate your comments. The sad fact is that science today is used as a political weapon, and failing to appreciate that scientists have personal (i.e. a desire for funding) and political agendas only further obfuscates the issue.
The one question I always have for anyone who claims that there is scientific proof that man-made global warming is real is this: “What is the normal temperature of the planet?” If you can tell me what the temperature should be, then you can convince me that it is hotter or cooler than normal. If you can’t, then all you have are imperfect computer models coupled with politically-inspired rounding errors to conjure up a ‘normal temperature’, and then extrapolate from that.
If the people who did this were up front about both their methodology and their motives, we could then have a real discussion. But those who use GW as a political club aren’t interested in validating their findings. Their focus is as it always has been — to use their assertions and assumptions to make social policy.
This is why every piece I’ve done on GW contains a public policy element to it. Science isn’t the foundation for GW conclusions; it’s the rhetorical fog used to mask the real purpose of the GW proponents’ actions.
‘Looney Liberal Chronicles’ – now there’s a really substantive ‘intellectual’ definition! That’s worthy of Rush Limbaugh himself. Way to go! That’ll get you lot’s of points in debates. Well – for sure it labels your mindset; i.e., ‘closed’ to anything different from your views.
I’m not a scientist, nor do I pretend to be one – and I suspect few of you are either. However, and since I am not a scientist, my only choice is to heed the VAST MAJORITY of scientific opinion to form my own. I don’t ‘cherry pick’ opinions that conform with my own opinion, political or otherwise – it would be obtuse to do so. Sure, some small minority of ‘scientific opinion’ resists a global warming ‘caused by mankind’ theory – and some do so for a variety of very suspect reasons – and some for sincere ones as well I am sure.
But, the only rational choice for any layman like me is to go with the VAST MAJORITY, of prevailing scientific opinions. To do otherwise is to stick one’s head in the sand – and to label anyone as a ‘looney liberal’ who disagrees is pure doctrinal, close-minded silliness. Actually, that’s quite stupid.
I can pick any ‘opinion’ you care to name out of a hat, and given a little time and money, find some ‘scientific expert’ to contest it with ‘facts’ and ‘figures’ – not that those would be necessarily recognized by other, rational experts. Lawyers are famous for doing just this thing. But, if you base your opinion and argument on such experts, you will likely have sand running in your ears.
But, keep pumping each other and yourself these circular arguments, and watch while the rest of the world marginalizes you and passes you by.
Phil:
“What is the normal temperature of the planet?”
For what it’s worth, in flight school they taught us the average global temperature at the surface of the earth is 59 degrees F, and the pressure is 29.92 inches Hg. These are “standard temperature and pressure”; not sure they qualify as “normal”.
Mr. Bovis,
Thank you for your comments. It is nice to have somebody from within the climate discipline itself weigh in on this subject.
I do not dispute that the planet is currently warming. Although I think there are some grave errors in the way some temperature data is collected and normalized, and the blogger who spotted the errors in NASA temperature data is testament to that, there are enough data points and diversity of indicators to suggest that the planet is indeed currently warming up, albeit ever so slightly. However, this is in no way a concession that the warming is caused by man, that the warming is not part of a natural rhythm that we have yet to discover (or may not be periodic at all), or that the warming will necessarily be catastrophic and should be stopped at all costs.
How do we really know at this point that if we unleashed everything at our disposal and spent trillions, it would only collectively amount to a fart in a hurricane anyway? Answer: we don’t.
I am an electrical engineer and spent a good deal of my schooling studying and applying numerical models. I now work in industries where numerical models are employed extensively and the company where I am employed builds and sells numerical modeling software for selected industrial applications. It obviously does not make me a climate expert, or a modeling expert, but it has exposed me to some of the obvious questions one must ask when evaluating the efficacy of a model.
Some questions I have about climate modeling that perhaps you can address:
1. How many variables are used in today’s most advanced climate models? 5? 10? 20? more?
2. How sensitive and non-linear are these models? For example, in some of the models used by my company, there are squared relationships with some variables. This means that if a variable has an uncertainty of +/-100, the result will have an uncertainty of +/- 10,000. I am suspicious of not only the uncertainty in the raw values of some of the variables used in climate models, but also the cumulative uncertainty that is introduced by the non-linearities of the model itself (I am assuming it is highly non-linear). To have an accuracy of +/- 20% in some of our models, we often require sensors that are capable of 0.1% accuracy. I suspect that climate models are even less forgiving.
3. Initial conditions: How sensitive are these models to initial conditions? For instance, if we change any single variable’s initial value by 30%, how does this affect the model outcomes? What if we change all the model variables by 30% in various directions? How does this affect the model output? We never see error bands around much of the input/output data presented and this bothers me considerably.
4. How much variability is there between models and how many competing models are there? We are led to believe that there is some “master” model out there like E=mc^2 to which all scientists subscribe and the only problem is that we have to measure the variables suitably accurately to get a precise result. I’m not convinced this is the case. It is interesting to me that the models themselves are rarely published, only the results. It smacks a bit too much of “ignore the man behind the curtain.”
5. Model sensitivity. Most of us have heard about the so-called butterfly effect. How sensitive are these climate models to initial conditions? Boundary condition assumptions? Accuracy of variables?
6. Feedback. Most models and algorithms benefit from feedback so they can be tuned. In the hydrocarbon processing industries, one of the ways that you model the gasoline refining process is to take a bunch of known data and then build a model that fits all the existing data adequately. Then, you begin using it to make short-term predicitions. Then, as you have built confidence in the model’s predictive capabilities in the short term, you start making longer term extrapolations OR you qualify that the model is not capable of providing predictions past a certain point. I.e., a model may only be able to provide accuracy of results extrapolated out 10 minutes – not 10 hours. To this point, how are climate models calibrated and tuned? Are they even suitably robust for modeling historic data, yet alone future data?
7. Do we really even understand the relationship between any two variables, let alone half a dozen or more and the complex ways they might interact?
8. Is there really “consensus” among climate scientists? And are they even legitimately able to operate in an environment free of bias, or is there so much political pressure to give the “correct” answer that the dissenters largely remain silent for fear of career suicide?
Basically, I remain profoundly skeptical of the models themselves. I understand that what can often not be modeled at the micro level, can be modeled at the macro level through averaging. But it seems to me that the whole discipline of climate modeling is so young that it is ridiculously premature to claim any kind of precision or predictive capability.
omygod, I think gnarlydude has made his first point, inelegant and sophomorish as it might be.
His philosophy of life can be summed up with a singular idea: Go along with the majority. The minority opinion is “pure doctrinal, close-minded silliness.” Irony is often lost on the ironic, isn’t it?
So let’s see. By majority vote, the experts in law that comprised the Supreme Court deemed slavery constitutional 150 years ago. By majority vote, the experts in biology on the Supreme Court decided when life began, and the right to choose was created. By majority vote, Hitler was installed. The majority is always perfect, always just, always wise.
By all means gnarly-man, bow your knee to the majority. Wherever the winds may blow, you who have no convictions, no core, no set of core principles that cannot be compromised, yes, you will be part of the sheep who follow blindly the “experts.”
The intelligensia depends on you to follow their whim as they craft together the perfect society, a utopia where they have all the answers, they are infallible, they are loving, benificent, and wise. Because they are smarter than you and me. We could not hope to understand.
We should not dare even to express an opinion, for we are the great unwashed, the fools, the low ones. We cannot even care for ourselves without the help of the learned, the wise. Give them the reigns of power, let them rule us in their wisdom!
Turn over the fruits of our labor to them, for they can spend our money more wisely than you. If only they had enough money, and enough sheep like gnarly-girl to fleece, they could do wonders.
But it’s those darned conservatives, they are the evil ones who are preventing progress and thwarting oneness with the cosmos. Yes, those conservatives, they ask too many questions, they want to see proof, they think that their money is actually there’s. They want to oppress the poor, throw the elderly out into the streets, enslave women, and starve the government out of needed revenue.
Those conservatives, those throwbacks, those neanderthals. Yes, it is their fault! Who gave them the right to speak, the right to disagree, the right to question the status quo and suspect an agenda disguised as compassion and caring? Yes, it’s those conservatives, gnarly-whatever, those conservatives!
In case you’re not sure, gnarl, the above was satire. It may have seemed like I was agreeing with you, but it was really a rhetorical device used to illustrate the idiocy of your position. Thought I’d help you understand.
‘Looney Liberal Chronicles’ – now there’s a really substantive ‘intellectual’ definition! That’s worthy of Rush Limbaugh himself. Way to go! That’ll get you lot’s of points in debates. Well – for sure it labels your mindset; i.e., ‘closed’ to anything different from your views.
** Does this clown ever read anything before he criticizes it? Does he even know what the LLC consists of? Why am I wasting my time responding to a guy who thinks global climate change can be measured by looking out his window, and who won’t respond substantively to the funding/philosophy issue I raised?
I’m not a scientist, nor do I pretend to be one – and I suspect few of you are either. However, and since I am not a scientist, my only choice is to heed the VAST MAJORITY of scientific opinion to form my own.
*** What an incredibly vapid comment in light of the detailed review I presented in my “Myth of man made global warming essay”, and the comments of the one scientist who has joined the discussion.
I don’t ‘cherry pick’ opinions that conform with my own opinion, political or otherwise – it would be obtuse to do so.
** Of course you do, which is why we’re all laughing at you! You have yet to do anything other than state your opinions and pull “95%” figures out of the air, and tell us all that ‘every’ scientists believes what you do. You don’t even have the ability to support your position by offering evidence as I’ve done to support my claims. This is the classic definition of an empty suit.
But, the only rational choice for any layman like me is to go with the VAST MAJORITY, of prevailing scientific opinions. To do otherwise is to stick one’s head in the sand – and to label anyone as a ‘looney liberal’ who disagrees is pure doctrinal, close-minded silliness. Actually, that’s quite stupid.
** You haven’t done anything of the sort. You don’t even recognize that the so-called “majority opinion” has been formed by non-scientists in control of things like the NRDC! You just keep repeating your opinions. And you know what they say about opinions …
I can pick any ‘opinion’ you care to name out of a hat, and given a little time and money, find some ‘scientific expert’ to contest it with ‘facts’ and ‘figures’ – not that those would be necessarily recognized by other, rational experts. Lawyers are famous for doing just this thing. But, if you base your opinion and argument on such experts, you will likely have sand running in your ears.
** This is possibly the stupidest line of reasoning I’ve ever come across to support the fact that you have no objective basis for believing the things you do, other than you’ve been told that a lot of other people believe the same things.
But, keep pumping each other and yourself these circular arguments, and watch while the rest of the world marginalizes you and passes you by.
** Is this a joke? Is someone pulling our leg and writing this stuff to see how inane they can sound while pretending to offer an argument?
>the average global temperature at the surface of the earth is 59 degrees F, and the pressure is 29.92 inches Hg. These are “standard temperature and pressure”; not sure they qualify as “normal”.
Sedona: This may be the average temperature for a given point in time. But it doesn’t necessarily mean that this condition is the “normal” temperature. Normal implies that the figures you cited — which reflect present conditions — are neither hotter nor cooler than they “should be”.
The fact is, there is no “normal” temperature for the earth, since the earth is in a constant state of climactic change that plays out over hundreds and thousands of years. The only one with the ability to know what the normal temperature of the earth is is gnarlyerik, who can look out his magic kitchen window and understand intuitively how much man has affected the “normal” conditions (vs. volcanoes, increased solar activity, methane from bovine flatulence, and the gazillions of other factors that actually influence climate change).
Mountain Man — Great points! And to top if off, the belief that blacks were genetically inferior was not just a political judgment, but a scientific belief held at that time (see Steven J. Gould’s “Mismeasure of Man”).
But I’m sure gnarlyguy will say that science has advanced so much in the last 200 years that science couldn’t possibly make a similar mistake today. This is why I’m firmly convinced — by scientific consensus of course — that we’re headed for a new ice age. That consensus was offered first in the 1980s, so it has to come true before the GW consensus can be realized.
Note to Paul — I will give gnarlyguy a slight tip of the hat in that you don’t necessarily have to be “liberal” to be looney. Gnarly is a self professed conservative, and you can see that we don’t give his stupidity a pass any more than we do the comments of the Lunatic Left.
Thoughtful comments by someone with an opposing opinion — liberal or conservative — are always welcome, and I hope you’ll comment on other essays in the future. Steve Sabin, Mountain Man, Katzen and others and I have some very strong disagreements concerning things like Biblical literalism and the definition of human life, but since I/they always attempt to justify our positions instead of simply stating our opinions, we treat each other with respect.
We do reserve the right to call a fool a fool, though often it’s just to reinforce an impression that the individual himself took great care to build through his own silly commentary.
I have occasionally mentioned in my posts that Michael Crichton has some very thought-provoking essays on the politicization of science, global warming, science policymaking, and environmental issues. I’m providing a few links here that I hope some of you (and some more than others) will take the time to follow and read.
You may or may not agree with them, but they are well-written and thoughtful. Also, though I don’t know much about Crichton’s politics, he strikes me as his own man – one who isn’t afraid to speak his mind regardless of the Hollywood elites with whom he works.
I wish we had 10 Michael Crichtons for every Alec Baldwin or Richard Gere. Heck, I’d be satisfied with even a 1:1 ratio.
The Case for Skepticism on Global Warming
Environmentalism as Religion
Why Politicized Science is Dangerous
Science Policy in the 21st Century
Aliens Cause Global Warming
Hmmm. Let’s see how far gnarlyeric’s “scientific consensus” method would have gotten him historically:
500 BC: The earth is flat. A majority of scientists said so.
1500: Our solar system is geocentric, not heliocentric. A majority of scientists said so.
1800: Bloodletting is an effective treatment for disease. A majority of scientists said so.
1820: Electricity and magnetism are unrelated. You cannot generate an electrical current with a coil of wire and a magnet. A majority of scientists said so.
1830: Doctors can freely dissect rotting cadavers with their bare hands and then perform pelvic examinations of pregnant women with those same unwashed hands. Hygiene is strictly unnecessary and bears no relationship whatsoever to disease transmission and childbed fever. A majority of scientists said so.
1880: Atoms are the smallest particles of matter and cannot be further subdivided. A majority of scientists said so.
1900: Electromagnetic waves propagate through space on an invisible ether. It cannot be detected, but nonetheless exists. A majority of scientists said so.
1902: Heavier-than-air flight is impossible. A majority of scientists said so (and Scientific American proudly proclaimed it).
1905: Time, space, and gravity are absolute, not relative. A majority of scientists said so.
1920: Eugenics is sound science. A majority of scientists said so.
1970: We are headed for a new ice age. A majority of scientists said so (and Newsweek proudly proclaimed it).
1995: “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced…No study to date has positively attributed all or part of observed climate changes to anthropogenic causes.” Oops. That was merely the draft report on climate change from IPCC in 1995. Those statements were subsequently removed, and in their place in the final version appeared these words instead: “The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on climate.” Apparently that “balance of evidence” was overlooked in the draft report. Who can blame them. It’s a rather small detail. “NONE!” No wait. “THE BALANCE OF EVIDENCE!” No wait. “NONE!” No wait. “THE BALANCE OF EVIDENCE!” How do I know? Why, because a majority of scientists said so.
2007: Global warming is real. Algore said so.
T = f($),
where T=truth and $ = funding supplied. I witnessed this myself in my employ in the government. Also, Dr. Jackson is right: given a few numbers, you can make them say anything; I know because I got very good at it.
Sedona, MM, Steve Sabin etc. —
My prediction is that if gnarlyeric does in fact respond again, it will be to repeat his “look out the window” conclusions about climate change because “everybody” knows that man is responsible for global warming. None of the substance that you, or Paul, offered will be addressed.
Gnarley is in his sixties, which makes him part of my generation (I’m 55). Sadly, this Woodstock-View-of-Reality is all too common among the aging boomers who think that caring deeping about an issue is the same thing as truly understanding that issue. You can’t teach an old dog new tricks, so don’t expect him to start thinking now instead of simply emoting.
Kinda missing Dave Patriot, too. Where did his thoughtful, well-expressed commentary go?
I’m not too sure why the embedded links in post #38 don’t work, but the articles aren’t too difficult to find on his website. Just look under “essays” and “speeches.”
The article Aliens Cause Global Warming is particularly interesting reading as it methodically examines the precursors during the last 50 years that paved the way for “consensus science” to become part of the national lexicon. Indeed, I’m willing to bet that most adults today would flunk a T/F test that asked whether consensus was part of the scientific method.
Frankly, I am to the point that whenever I see the words “a consensus of scientists…” I generally look in precisely the opposite direction for truth because very little rigor is demanded of those joining the majority. Scientists pride themselves in not being “trendy” yet the history of science really proves just the opposite. Scientists are very lemming-like for the most part and it has historically only been the contrarians who were responsible for breakthroughs. Take a look at my list in post #39.
Crichton makes the very good point that you will never see the words “consensus” used on things that are truly universally accepted anyway. We never hear discussions of a “consensus of scientists” regarding the atomic structure of matter, general relativity, planetary motions, or the quantum mechanics of semiconductors. “Consensus” is only really applied to those topics where the matter is far from settled and one side is trying to shout the other one down.
Phi-i-i-i-l!
Where did you get this crack-brained idea: “How else can one explain . . . a support for a woman’s right to choose — as long as the choice is limited to abortion not life” ?????
Why did you feel the need to add this to an otherwise very sensible article?
I am not aware of any institution or any agency of the United Stated Federal or individual State govenments, that currently forces women to have abortions.
If you are aware of such, please explain.
I am so tired of people defining Conservatism so narrowly as to require that espousing conservative Christian religious beliefs in order to join the Conservative camp!
I am a social & fiscal conservative, but I refuse to drink the Kool-Aid of organized religion.
gz9-9-9-9-9-gjgg-g-g-g!
What does my comment about liberal advocacy of abortion have to do with “an institution or agency of the United States Government?”
If you read anything I’ve written on the subject, you’d see that my opposition to abortion is not based on religious beliefs or teachings.
Why did you feel the need to attack religion in an otherwise very sensible support for my comments about global warming?
If I may speculate, Phil, the random letter and number man gg99 (…) is reading into your comments the obvious conclusion that plagues pro-choice advocates: There is only one acceptable choicefor them, and that’s abortion. Otherwise, a truly pro-choice position would embrace all valid choices. You’d find pro-family representatives inside planned parenthood clinics. Randall Terry and Kate Michalman (sp?) would be best friends.
One thing always seems to trouble me about people like gi9. Why do seemingly sensible people get all jiggy when someone treads on their sacred ground? Why is abortion so sacrosanct to them? And why are they so quick to paint pro-life people as religious flat-liners? There are a lot of secular people who find abortion obscene.
It must just be easier to toss around labels than it is to offer substantive commentary on the issues.
“Why do seemingly sensible people get all jiggy when someone treads on their sacred ground? Why is abortion so sacrosanct to them? And why are they so quick to paint pro-life people as religious flat-liners?”
** Because this is a ‘religious issue’ to them, albeit a secular-religion — but it’s held with the same religious fervor nevertheless.
Anyway, if gz9 (or anyone else) wants to debate abortion, I’ll simply refer them to the voluminous stuff I’ve already written on the morality of abortion. There’s not much more I can add to that, and I’m limiting any further comments here to the actual subject of this essay.
“Choice” is not a code word for “abortion”.
An unadorned denial only requires an unadorned response: “Is too.”
‘Majority’ opinions have many times been wrong in the past – but that does not make any particular minority theory correct today. In fact, statistically the odds are heavily against that being the case. For a minority to go around insisting they are right is downright silly.
I’ve noted that the folks who call themselves ‘conservative’ today generally seem to share several characteristics:
‘Today’s conservatives are deathly afraid of any change from the status quo. (according to William F. Buckley when he launched his publication “National Review” he accurately defined it as ‘standing athwart history yelling ‘stop! ’http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/buckley200406290949.asp) NOTE: Wm. F. Buckley is a true, ‘intellectual conservative’;
Today’s conservatives typically fear anything they can’t, don’t or won’t comprehend – and quickly dismiss it, and usually by attacking it as ‘wrong’;
Today’s conservatives have a paranoidal fear about their own ‘security’ above everything else;
Today’s conservatives are profoundly uncomfortable with any culture that differs from their own;
Today’s conservatives prefer to live in the past;
Today’s conservatives have an implacable need to tell others how to think;
Today’s conservatives have an implacable need to dictate the actions – and morality – of others.
And, as a result of the general nuttiness of their overzealous ‘conservatism’, today’s conservatives are marginalizing themselves and becoming inconsequential. A more rational approach is illustrated by a quote from George H.W. Bush: “I’m today’s conservative, but I’m not a nut about it.”
And, to close, here’s another quote from William F. Buckley:
“I would like to take you seriously, but to do so would affront your intelligence!”