« Anyone else get this joke? | Main | Murtha's Slow Bleed Plan Could Send Lieberman to Republicans »

Global Warming Debate Just Gets Funny

It's either sad or funny the lengths the global warming husters will go to... I can't decide which this is. This report from the Herald Sun is so bad I had to check the URL and make sure I was not at a satire site. Scott Ott couldn't have done this any better. Only they expect us to believe this...

Watch the bolding it really gets funny...

Fever claim on global warming

GLOBAL warming will take a toll on children's health, according to a new report showing hospital admissions for fever soar as days get hotter.

The new study found that temperature rises had a significant impact on the number of pre-schoolers presenting to emergency departments for fever and gastroenteritis.

The two-year study at a major children's hospital showed that for every five-degree rise in temperature two more children under six years old were admitted with fever to that hospital.

OK... Let go thru it again, this time with our brains engaged.

A SINGLE STUDY lasting only TWO YEARS limited to a SINGLE HOSPITAL has shown that TWO EXTRA children will be admitted with the rise of temperature. AND the study was limited to children 3-5 years old so they had to cherry pick the data to get these results. AND (as if we needed more) it was only limited to 2 reasons for admission, fever and gastroenteritis. Overall admissions where not cited.

So they base the whole story on what??? 4 Children being admitted to a single hospital in over 2 years? That the "admissions soaring" and the "significant impact" quoted above?

BUT WAIT... The story continues...

The University of Sydney research is the first to make a solid link between climate changes and childhood illness.

I spit out my milk when I read that. That's when I checked to see if this story was for real.

A single 2 year study at a single hospital using cherry picked data shows an increase in admission probably less than one SD from the norm and they call it a "solid link between climate changes and childhood illness."

Its comedy and tragedy all rolled up in one.

Comedy because these people say something so preposterous and expect the public to believe them and tragic because so many do.

This is what passes for news today....

BUT let's play their silly little game. When is flu season? When do children get flu shots to prevent them from influenza, phenomena and death? That would be when it gets cold.

If there really is such a thing a global warming, children won't get as sick as they do during the winter. Global warming will save children's lives if only we give it the chance.


Comments (91)

"The new study found that t... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

"The new study found that temperature rises had a significant impact on the number of pre-schoolers presenting to emergency departments for fever and gastroenteritis."

Might these temperature rises have anything to do with...SUMMER?!

JFNK-It's like my ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

JFNK-

It's like my first stats proff said:

* More people drink Coke in New York during the Summer

* Murder rates go up in New York during the Summer.

Therefore, Coke a Cola must make people into killers.

That's why I only drink Pep... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

That's why I only drink Pepsi!

I totally agree a 2-year st... (Below threshold)
Diane:

I totally agree a 2-year study for anything "scientific" is pretty much a joke.

However, Paul, years ago my infant became ill with meningitis in late June...The pediatricians in Indianapolis's largest hospital told me the early summer is when hospitals are filled with children ill with viral/bacterial diseases. This (late-May thru mid-July) is when viruses, etc. are most prevalent. I believe they added being cooped up in the winter at schools, etc., is what makes the numbers of illnesses higher at that time...reason being the close contact to spread illnesses, not the amount of germs.

It appears that the authors... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

It appears that the authors of the study agree with you:

"It really demonstrates the urgent need for a more thorough investigation into how exactly climate change will affect health in childhood."

Why did you leave this part out?

This is what passe... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
This is what passes for news today....

That's bad enough, but the real problem is that's what passes for science nowadays.

Diane,I don't thin... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Diane,

I don't think you meant to do it but you proved my point....

Other environmental factors certainly could have caused the (minimal) increase in these two reasons for admissions.

In New Orleans it is very common for people to get sick after Mardi Gras. It has nothing to do with the plastic beads coming off the float.

BarneyG2000, that's B.S.</p... (Below threshold)
Paul:

BarneyG2000, that's B.S.

The story was not worth the time it took to print it out the laser printer.

They throw that line in to ask for more funding. They deserve none.

Mac you are ABSOLUTELY correct. I'm planning on graphically illustrating that point soon. I was going to do it on this post but I got bored. ;-)

Does this mean that fewer p... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

Does this mean that fewer people got sick during the Ice Age? It took over 30 years to allow DDT use again in malaria-infested places, thanks to people more concerned about the environment than humans. Germs will be passed in enclosed environments much more easily than outdoors. The only ailments dependent on outdoor temperatures are frostbite and heat stroke. And malaria, which we are finally fighting again.

"It really demonst... (Below threshold)
J.R.:
"It really demonstrates the urgent need for a more thorough investigation into how exactly climate change will affect health in childhood."

Why did you leave this part out?

That's simple Barney. It's because this study is proof of absolutely nothing, let alone any sort of link between Global Warming and a child's health. Of course by child I mean someone between 3 and 5 yrs. old.

You ignore that this study proves absolutely nothing, as shown by Paul, and instead try to catch him with some "gotch" quote he left out. Just shows how much you are willing to ignore so as not to speak badly of your global warming religion.

And the quote that Barney c... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

And the quote that Barney chose to include does point out the real reason for the "global warming" hysteria being pushed by the "scientific" community. It's all about money. They want it.

There is one thing the stud... (Below threshold)
Faith+1:

There is one thing the study conclusively proves beyond a shadow of a doubt in correlating to global warming. It's obvious from this study there is a direct link between the amount of funding asked for and provided and the claim that is something is impacted by global warming are directly related.

"It really demonstrates the... (Below threshold)
yo:

"It really demonstrates the urgent need for a more thorough investigation into how exactly climate change will affect health in childhood."

Why did you leave this part out?
Posted by: BarneyG200


Actually, the real question is: Why isn't that point the main thrust of the article?

This is what passe... (Below threshold)
This is what passes for news today....

This is what has passed for news for over a hundred years. The first time the New York Times started with this climate change scaremongering was 1895. That's not a typo. Eighteen ninety-five. They've been alternating between warming and cooling.

When will people catch on?

Barney, lol!... (Below threshold)

Barney, lol!

This <a href="http://www.ms... (Below threshold)

This story about how the Colorado River is drying up won't be as easy to ridicule.

Lake Mead is disappearing as well as you can see here. It's amazing to see how far the water level has fallen. I used to ski Lake Mead as a kid.

All of this is really disturbing. If you live in the Southwest this will have a serious impact on your quality of life in the not-too-distant future.

Great link Laura. Whether ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Great link Laura. Whether it's global warming or cooling the media reports it as a coming disaster. It's nice to know that after 100 years of mechanized forestry, mining, farming, and large scale oil production we have now achieved the optimal climate.

Larkin, the story you link ... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Larkin, the story you link to does not need to be explained away. The story lists 2 factors responsible for the lowering of the river, one of which is the growing population in the area (more than 40%) and in one area a doubling of the water usage. Gee you think maybe that is more of an issue, especially when you are in such an arid area to begin with? Not sure if you've been to Arizona or Nevada, but they are not exactly overflowing with vegetation.

And of course, this report does not link the growing temps with man-made global warming, which is what the IPCC and alarmists are all claiming. Using this story just continues the use of scare tactics with nothing to back it up when it comes to GW.

Of course, you could be bringing this up for other reasons, but I assumed you are using it to trump the story Paul posted about.

Rather than ridicule the ar... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Rather than ridicule the articles you link to, Larkin, (which I believe would be pointless as they have nothing to do with "global warming") I'd just like to point out that by linking to articles about a drought (which are normal occurances for the last, oh I don't know, maybe 3 billion years) in a thread about "global warming" you actually ridicle yourself.

And yes, I know it's blasphemy to talk this way about your far leftist religious beliefs...

Larkin,What's your... (Below threshold)
Sheik Yur Bouty:

Larkin,

What's your point?

If you read all of what's on the NASA link, you will see that there have been two far worse declines in the level of Lake Mead, one in the 1950's and one in the 1960's.

Lake Mead recovered from both.

BarneyG2000, Paul is absolu... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

BarneyG2000, Paul is absolutely correct. Working in science myself, the life science field is becoming littered with poorly designed and completely useless studies like this by authors whose ONLY impotent justification for the paucity of data is "a more thorough investigation is needed." Is there any reason THEY themselves could have not conducted a more rigorous study? Yep, there probably is and it's called intellectual laziness.

I see...Lake Mead is drying... (Below threshold)
the wolf:

I see...Lake Mead is drying up, so therefore increased temperatures causes more fevers.

Larkin, It's my understandi... (Below threshold)

Larkin, It's my understanding that Lake Mead wasn't there before the Hoover Dam. Perhaps nature is just correcting man's meddling. Lake Mead has a long geologic history (millions and millions of years) of wet and dry. And it's thought that the Colorado River has dried up before over 700 years ago and will again. But it just seems right to ring the global warming alarm, doesn't it?

Paul, I wasn't trying to pr... (Below threshold)
Diane:

Paul, I wasn't trying to prove/disprove anything...I personally think all the global warming alarm is ridiculous, especially all of these "connections/proof" as of late--in other words I agree with you.

However, from your post I inferred you believed kids are more likely to get sick in cold weather as opposed to in the summer (due to weather conditions)...as I once believed, as well.

Great point P. Bunyan!... (Below threshold)
914:

Great point P. Bunyan!

The lowest common denominator for all these kooks in the scientific community and the profiteers like Alagore is the amount of money they can pilfer out of it.

>This story about how the C... (Below threshold)
Paul:

>This story about how the Colorado River is drying up won't be as easy to ridicule.

Oh how you underestimate me.

What's happening to Lake Me... (Below threshold)

What's happening to Lake Mead and the Colorado River is just one symptom. Like the decrease in the ice caps, increasing temperatures, disappearing glaciers, etc.

It could be just a mere coincidence that all these things are occurring at the same time. I don't believe in coincidences however, and I feel that there is likely a correlation with the rapid increase in the burning of fossil fuels in the last few decades.

I'm not a climatologist and don't claim to be an expert on this stuff. It just seems like too many strange things happening at the same time.

Actually 914, I think Algor... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Actually 914, I think Algore is more interested in power than money-- he's already got plenty of money.

But the leftist theologians, euphemistically referred to a "climatologists", do know that if the scare dies down or if the data refutes the current human induced global warming dogma their funding will dry up like Lake Mead during a drought.

They'd rather lie to us and play on our fears then see that happen.

So Larkin, of what are the ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

So Larkin, of what are the thickening ice caps, growing glaciers, decreasing temperatures, and expanding rivers and lakes (which are also occuring at this time) symptomatic?

I'm not a climatol... (Below threshold)
I'm not a climatologist and don't claim to be an expert on this stuff. It just seems like too many strange things happening at the same time.

People have been trying to explain and control the weather since time immemorial. We've had more than a century of this scaremongering - this is the SECOND global warming scare this century. After the last one (when none of these dire predictions came true) things settled down for a while and then we had the global cooling scare of the 70s. Which was the SECOND global cooling scare of the century.

It's all a load of crap. Face it, you're caught in the Matrix. It's time to look at history, and accept that you have been fooled.

Like the decrease in the... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Like the decrease in the ice caps

I think you mean ice cap. Considering that Antartica is not losing but gaining ice.

DaveD:Is... (Below threshold)

DaveD:

Is there any reason THEY themselves could have not conducted a more rigorous study? Yep, there probably is and it's called intellectual laziness.

Good points in your post, but I'll take a different tack than intellectual laziness. "Publish or Perish" exists in medicine as much as it does on the university campus. A study like this, and its subsequent pick up in the news media means the MD's can coast on this study for quite a while.

More important that intellectual laziness, a true study, one that would yield useful and verifiable data, would likely take a decade or longer to compile. It used to be that MD's, researchers and others took that time frame into account. They didn't have to worry about the media being so eager to pick up on a study (any study as this instance so ably demonstrates) that they could use to fill up time in the 24/7 news cycle. Add in the factor of bias towards anything that confirms the Global Warming/Climate Change phenomenon and you have, for those same MD's, an instant sensation.

Why spend a decade properly testing something out when you can cut to the chase?

Actually Larkin, you're rig... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Actually Larkin, you're right to a point, I see very little to ridicule in that article... It has nothing to do with global warming.

It lays out why the Colorado River is drying up....

A doubling of water demand in the area, and cyclical droughts that have been known to be occurring in the area for for the last 500 years. (long before the evil SUV)

It is quite easy however to ridicule you for being an absolute jackass suggesting it is proof of global warming. You're a dimwit.

The only factors they cite have nothing to do with this debate.

In fact them citing the fact there are cycles of drought in the area only serves to make the point that the earth is not static and we should not expect it to be.

If you had any ability to think critically, I would not have to explain this. Alas, you don't so I do.

larkin:I... (Below threshold)
langtry:

larkin:

I'm not a climatologist and don't claim to be an expert on this stuff. It just seems like too many strange things happening at the same time.

Ever heard of "coincidence"?!


What's happening to Lake... (Below threshold)
Paul:

What's happening to Lake Mead and the Colorado River is just one symptom. Like the decrease in the ice caps, increasing temperatures, disappearing glaciers, etc.

Larkin, you didn't read the article did you? You read the headline, saw the photo and posted it. If you read the article you'd know it isn't even about global warming.


I'm not a climatologist and don't claim to be an expert on this stuff.

Whew, that's a relief.

You don't need to be a climatologist but the ability to read helps.

Hey, my water glass is half... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Hey, my water glass is half empty. Global warming!

Wait, is it half full?

I'm not a climatol... (Below threshold)
J.R.:
I'm not a climatologist and don't claim to be an expert on this stuff.

Sadly, neither is Al Gore, but that doesn't stop people from thinking he is an expert. Unfortunately, it is his type of hysterical screeching that leads people such as yourself to look at that story you linked to and think man-made global warming is responsible.

lol I am so not surprised b... (Below threshold)
Methos:

lol I am so not surprised by this rubbish reporting. I live here in Australia and our media in all forms over the last few years has turned to total crap. They publish twisted and outlandish stories as "facts" and they were busted for it with another issue the other day.

Dont believe me? LOL read this!

OT, but I heard a great jok... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

OT, but I heard a great joke relating to this yesterday:

Hey, my water glass is half empty. Global warming!

Wait, is it half full?

Posted by: mantis

The Optimist says that the glass is half-full.
The Pessimist says that the glass is half-empty.
What does the Engineer say? The glass is too big!

From the <a href="http://ww... (Below threshold)

From the Christian Science Monitor.

Over the past month, a broad consensus has been reached among scientists that global warming is real and substantially man-made. A blockbuster UN report released Feb. 2 confirmed that the world is rapidly warming and added that the cause is almost certainly greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, released through human activity. Earlier this week, the World Bank's chief scientist, Robert Watson, urged nations to try to limit temperature rise over this century to 2 degrees Celsius (4 degrees F.), a task many scientists say will be difficult.

You can choose not to believe this stuff. I'm with the World Bank chief scientist myself.

heh thanks Methos I saw the... (Below threshold)
Paul:

heh thanks Methos I saw the link earlier today (or maybe yesterday?) but didn't follow it.

That's insane.

But on the bright side I heard CBS is hiring.

THANK YOU LARKIN... (Below threshold)
Paul:

THANK YOU LARKIN

Thank you for showing our readership the intellect of the average person spreading this tripe.

Your ability to reason and think critically demonstrate the "tragedy" part of my post above.

Larkin, There was once a br... (Below threshold)

Larkin, There was once a broad consensus that the world was flat. Science should be about FACTS not groupthink. But if you insist on a consensus, here are 17,000 scientists who say you don't have to worry about global warming.

How do you explain the fact that this is the fourth time we've had a climate change scare? Cooling at the turn of the century, warming in the 30s and 40s, cooling (and the population bomb) in the 70s, and now warming again. Give it another 20 or 30 years and the big scare will be cooling again; it's already starting. That's why the new scare phrase is "climate change" - formerly known as "the weather."

Please explain how the experts have been wrong FOUR TIMES in the last century on this issue. I'd really like to know your take on it.

Perhaps this column I wrote... (Below threshold)

Perhaps this column I wrote on CBSNews.com today will be of interest: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/22/opinion/meyer/main2503686.shtml

Thanks,

Dick Meyer

The global climate change m... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

The global climate change models suggest that Antarctic snowfall should actually increase in a warming climate, as the warmer atmosphere comes with a greater capacity for moisture. Intuitively, increased snow accumulation supports ice sheet thickening.

The problem comes when the temperature rise reaches a point where melting out paces snow fall which are now seeing in Greenland.

Another right-wing talking point put to rest.

<a href="http://www.busines... (Below threshold)

Info from the last global warming scare:

The rising mercury trend continued into the '50s. The New York Times reported that "we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century" on Aug. 10, 1952. According to the Times, the evidence was the introduction of cod in the Eskimo's diet - a fish they had not encountered before 1920 or so. The following year, the paper reported that studies confirmed summers and winters were getting warmer.

This warming gave the Eskimos more to handle than cod. "Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures," announced the Times during the middle of winter, on Feb. 15, 1959. Glaciers were melting in Alaska and the "ice in the Arctic ocean is about half as thick as it was in the late nineteenth century."

A decade later, the Times reaffirmed its position that "the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two," according to polar explorer Col. Bernt Bachen in the Feb. 20, 1969, piece.

Familiar, isn't it? But when it didn't happen, they switched to global cooling:

Journalists took the threat of another ice age seriously. Fortune magazine actually won a "Science Writing Award" from the American Institute of Physics for its own analysis of the danger. "As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed," Fortune announced in February 1974.

"It is the root cause of a lot of that unpleasant weather around the world and they warn that it carries the potential for human disasters of unprecedented magnitude," the article continued.

That article also emphasized Bryson's extreme doomsday predictions. "There is very important climatic change going on right now, and it's not merely something of academic interest."

Bryson warned, "It is something that, if it continues, will affect the whole human occupation of the earth - like a billion people starving. The effects are already showing up in a rather drastic way." However, the world population increased by 2.5 billion since that warning.

BTW, that article of Dick's IS of interest. It proves he's stuck in the global warming matrix too.

Familiar, isn't it? But ... (Below threshold)
astifafa:

Familiar, isn't it? But when it didn't happen, they switched to global cooling

Right, Laura. This reminds me of when they swapped that demons argument for the germ one.

Ain't they stupid?

Hey, who's your favorite NASCAR driver? Gonna watch 24 tonight? Huh? How bout that Weird Al? Ain't he funny?

How absolutely spam-o-riffi... (Below threshold)
Paul:

How absolutely spam-o-riffic of you Dick.

It's an interesting piece... but you left out the most important piece of the puzzle. The human intellect.

Many people recognize a snow job when they see it. (See Laura's posts on this thread)

It's rather funny you spend the whole piece rubbing your hands wondering why the media has failed to gin up an appropriate level of hysteria.

It's a tacit admission that's the media's aim.

Hey, got anything besides i... (Below threshold)

Hey, got anything besides insults? Like maybe something to refute the fact that the media keeps hyping normal climate changes? Like something that proves those 17,000 scientists I linked to are wrong?

I didn't think so.

>The global climate change ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

>The global climate change models suggest...

Sure they do.... The models suggest everything.

Hot during the winter? Global Warming!

12 feet of snow during the winder? Global Warming!

Hot during the summer? Global Warming!

Cool summer? Global Warming!

Floods? Global Warming!

Drought? Global Warming!

You're right, you guys predict global warming with uncanny accuracy.

"The issue of climate chang... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"The issue of climate change respects no border. Its effects cannot be reined in by an army nor advanced by any ideology. Climate change, with its potential to impact every corner of the world, is an issue that must be addressed by the world." George Bush 6/01

But what do you expect from a left wing lunatic?

Dick Meyer:... (Below threshold)
langtry:

Dick Meyer:

What you would call a 'basic human inability to recognize non-immediate threats' I would call common sense. So be it, it was a good try on your part.

What lost me, however, is your inane concluding paragraph:

Scientists, economists and "ists" of all sorts have probably done all they can do to trigger our humanoid alarm systems. American politicians will probably hurt, not help. Bizarre and inconvenient as it sounds, effective and affective warnings and information about global warming will likely come from novelists, moviemakers and comedians.

In other words: I should listen to an entertainer over the workings of my rational brain? The latter has served me quite well, thank you very much, while the former has done nothing but occasionally amuse me.

I'll stick with my brain.

John F not Kerry, as an Eng... (Below threshold)

John F not Kerry, as an Engineer, your joke is misquoted. It goes
Pessimists say the glass is half empty
Optimists say the glas is half full
Engineers say the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

I always count on Conan O'B... (Below threshold)
Paul:

I always count on Conan O'Brien for my science knowledge, don't you?

But what do you ex... (Below threshold)
But what do you expect from a left wing lunatic?

He's considerably further to the left than I would like, yes. Harriet Miers, illegal immigration, he let Sandy Berger off the hook, and hasn't bothered to catch the leakers at the CIA and put them under the jail as they deserve. I have a whole host of complaints about Dubya, as a matter of fact. And yes, he's dead wrong about so-called global warming too. It's all hype and has been for more than a century.

Ever notice a libbie will n... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

Ever notice a libbie will never answer a direct question, they either change the subject, OR, ask one of their ow to deflect their inability to answer.


Why should we trust people who say the earth will be hotter in 50 yrs, when they cant even get a 5 day forecast correct?

he head climatologist for canada says global warming is BS, I say its just a way for psuedoscientists to get govt funding since their job skills arent all that desirable in the free market.

"Like something that proves... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"Like something that proves those 17,000 scientists I linked to are wrong?" Laura

Your poll is a load of crap. It was distributed back in '99-01 before recent studies have shed further light on man's contribution to global warming. Also, the petition is full of inaccuracies.

One newspaper reporter said, in 2005:
In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency? [15]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

Barney,Your statem... (Below threshold)
SunSetSam:

Barney,

Your statement seems to indicate that there is one global climate change model - there are dozens. Do you know which models the IPCC uses? Do you know the biases of these models? Seems you would want to know that before you make statements that rely on them. Some of the global climate models that best replicate the global temperatures in the last 2,500 years are based upon solar radiation and volcano eruptions - CO2 is a minor forcing function.

The Antarctic is actually cooling right now except for one smaller area that is warming. The fact that the Antarctic is cooling can be demonstrated by the ozone hole growing (the ozone hole size is seasonal).

The actual recent IPCC study hasn't been officially released, but the summary has. The summary is designed for review by the various governments to make changes - without the benefit of the actual data.

If you want to learn more about real climate science and not just read the mostly ignorant writings in the press, see:

http://climatesci.colorado.edu

Pielke's blog (linked by Sa... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Pielke's blog (linked by Sam above, his research group page is here) is unfortunately down at the moment, but I would encourage people to check it out when it's back up. He's one of the smarter cats in the climate science community, and well worth reading. And sorry folks, he's neither an alarmist nor does he doubt the human impact on climate change.

Pielke's an advocate of moving beyond global mean temperature as the sole metric to assess anthropogenic climate change, and looking at other climate forcings beyond CO2, among other interests.

Oops, sorry to start getting into real climate science. I forgot this thread is about the media and silly Australian doctors.

The Sahara used to be grass... (Below threshold)

The Sahara used to be grassland and forest. Greenland used to be Green.

*This* "Scientists, economists and "ists" of all sorts have probably done all they can do to trigger our humanoid alarm systems." is the problem.

Try to scare me and I react a certain way. It doesn't matter what about, either. First, I resent the attempt to manipulate me by fear and through my other emotions. Second, I apply those manipulative claims to what I know about the world... in the case of "climate change" what I know is that Greenland used to be Green. I know that the area where I grew up was formed by the advance and retreat of glaciers and that among the granite picked from my father's fields were "chalk-rock" slabs of marine fossils, so very far from any large body of water. I know that the Natives told settlers they were foolish to build by a certain lake because it used to be much larger and 70 years later, just as people were warned, the lake is growing drastically. "Climate change" is a normal and expected process, or is for anyone who gives it a moment's thought.

Try to scare me and you lose credibility by default.

Everyone wants clean air and clean water and good food. We want our garbage cleaned up. We want to travel to exotic places and enjoy nature and culture and beauty without choking on the air or getting sick from the bugs.

Is self-intrest just not *noble* enough a motivation for the dedicated eco-religionist or what?

>Pielke's an advocate of mo... (Below threshold)
Paul:

>Pielke's an advocate of moving beyond global mean temperature as the sole metric to assess anthropogenic climate change, and looking at other climate forcings beyond CO2, among other interests.

AMEN

It's patently silly to look at a system as complex as the earth's climate and assume a single variable will dominate all other.

Why are you people arguing ... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Why are you people arguing with the liberals about global warming? They heard if from someone who heard it from someone in the other stall of the restroom, so it must be true. You should know by now that you will lose every argument at the facility for the criminally insane , same with a democrat. They are Brainwashed or Stupid, take you choice.

But on your other topic man... (Below threshold)
Paul:

But on your other topic mantis, I (often) focus on the media's stupidity and bad science for a number of reasons...

OK I admit it is low hanging fruit.... ;-)

But going beyond that; 90% (or probably higher) of the screaming alarmists out there read these thousands of news stories and believe that because there are thousands of news stories it must be true.

Media swarms to not good science make.

In fact it is a near truism that when there is a media swarm, they're getting it wrong.

[You've been here long enough to remember the Katrina era. I maintained for months they got 80% of what they said wrong. Looking back with the benefit of history, I was wrong. It was probably 90%.]

It is my attempt to try to get people to think a little more critically when they hear bogus news.

By illustrating beyond any shadow of a doubt this story is bull shit, maybe people will think twice before they believe the media babble.

The truly horrific problem ... (Below threshold)

The truly horrific problem with the promotion of the AGW hoax is best summed up in Michael Crichton's State of Fear. As science is politicized it becomes less reliable and ultimately, the public ends up distrusting it completely. Crichton is no conservative but he is practical. His own fear is that when the majority of people fail to trust the scientific community then no progress on real environmental and health dangers can be addressed.


WELCOME BACK PAUL!!!! In t... (Below threshold)
epador:

WELCOME BACK PAUL!!!! In the sense of a nice hearty post with a thread of comments rife with smack downs and debunkings.

Sniff, sniff. I've got tears in my eyes of joy. I was beginning to think your posts would not be seen much.

and to astifafa: is that the same as epqdor?

Global Warming causes stupi... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Global Warming causes stupidity in some--see, this explains, and can be blamed for, Lee/mantis/Larkin/et ick's lowered intelligence and inability to cogently reason without rambling incoherence.

So, they got that going for them, I guess.

"Trend: To scientists, thes... (Below threshold)
RicardoVerde:

"Trend: To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down."
Newsweek, April 28, 1975

Furthermore: "Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects"

And aren't we glad they dropped the ball!

One of the countermeasures that were mentioned in the piece was the suggestion that black soot could be spread over the arctic ice cap to melt it. (To be fair, they did note that the solutions might cause worse problems than the cooling). It is interesting to note that increased industrial output in places like China, where emission controls are very minimal, will effectively do the same thing.

It is my attempt to try ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

It is my attempt to try to get people to think a little more critically when they hear bogus news.

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. It's always pretty clear who your targets are, and they are deservedly so, so I usually leave you to it, or make a lame joke.

By illustrating beyond any shadow of a doubt this story is bull shit, maybe people will think twice before they believe the media babble.

A laudable goal, but I'm not real optimistic. Kind of how I think about the war in Iraq, really.

And you're right about media swarms, too; they always get it wrong. They did on Anna Nicole Smith, the fucking CIA killed her. Just like Marilyn!

And Tupac!

"Like something th... (Below threshold)
"Like something that proves those 17,000 scientists I linked to are wrong?" Laura

Your poll is a load of crap. It was distributed back in '99-01 before recent studies have shed further light on man's contribution to global warming. Also, the petition is full of inaccuracies.

Gotta work on that reading comprehension, Barney. I asked you to show me why they were wrong, not disprove the number. My response to Larkin with that link was intended to mock the whole consensus idea, which is why I wrote: "Larkin, There was once a broad consensus that the world was flat. Science should be about FACTS not groupthink."

But I'll give you this - I hadn't known the actual number was less than 17k. I never cared enough to look because I'm not basing my opinion on a Borg-like "consensus" mentality, I just use the link to illustrate how meaningless consensus is on this issue.

There are many things in science that are beyond doubt. Global warming is not one of them, and no matter how much your side shouts, declares, and tries to shut down debate, it doesn't change the fact that the one consistent thing about "climate science" so far is that it has been consistently WRONG. This is the fourth cycle, and it's just as wrong as the three before it. You want to start screwing with the economies of nations based on this stuff, and affect how people live - except for the hypocritical rich, of course, who can afford their "carbon offset" plenary indulgences - when so much of the science is thin and based on faulty computer models. Global warming acolytes conveniently igore the medieval warm period and the little ice age, and usually downplay the effect of the sun, as the last IPCC study did. Money, headlines, and political power are what's at stake here, not the future of mankind.

Climate change is nothing to get hysterical about. It's just weather. And thirty years from now, when we're in the midst of a global cooling scare, you will feel like a fool.

What this 'study' is doing,... (Below threshold)
hermie:

What this 'study' is doing, is trying to find the 'proof' of 'global warmimg', by trying to find something that will push peoples' buttons; and kids' health is a major button.

My science teachers always told us that you can't pick and choose your results to justify your conclusions. If your results of your research insufficiently or do not support the conclusion, you have to concede that your theory may be wrong.

And thirty years f... (Below threshold)
Bo:
And thirty years from now, when we're in the midst of a global cooling scare, you will feel like a fool.

Methinks you overestimate your adversary, Laura...

In thirty years when the "global cooling" scare is in full swing, people of that ilk will be just as vehemently defending "proof" of that phenomenon.

It stems from the idea that mankind is the One Foul Thing on planet Earth, and is intent on continuing to rape Mother Gaia.

And in reference to the "optimist, pessimist, engineer" joke...there's one more facet...

The manager says, "Fire the damned water-glass filler!"

Laura, you are absolutely c... (Below threshold)

Laura, you are absolutely correct about both the weather cycles and the media scare cycles. The fact that they coincide with each other is evidently lost on Barney, et al. Public school education is probably to blame here.

There are a few other points to be made about this since it is obvious to anyone with an ounce of understanding of what is really going on here knows; AGW is not unlike other scare tactics that have been used by the fascists (used here in the dictionary sense) on the left for so many years. They so crave governmental control over people's lives that they can't help but come up with a constant stream of threats and FUD in the hopes that more power will be ceded to them.

So here is my suggestion:

1. They need to be a good example. Al Gore, Michael Moore, Nancy Pelosi, and all the other notables pushing this hoax should be the first to give up their carbon footprint if it so harmful. Let them put their money where their mouth is. Prove to us that this is the most horrific cataclysm that can possibly befall us. If it is so terrible, then why are you causing it Al?

2. When the scientific community, that is pushing this hoax in order to get the federal research dollar, finally goes the other direction when the global climate starts cooling (as it inevitably will), can we arrest Al and Nancy and throw them in jail for embezzlement and grand theft? For that is what they are doing right now. Telling a tall tale then lining their pockets with our money is about as low as it gets. And taking advantage of the ignorance and gullibility of people like Barney is also very unkind of them as well. ;-)

So Laura, "I'm not basing m... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

So Laura, "I'm not basing my opinion on a Borg-like "consensus" mentality,.." You mean like God? There is no scientific evidence that God exists, only consensus.

As far as past changes in climate, show me who on the left is denying that? The question is not if natural cycles exist, the question is if we are causing an accelerated change that wont reverse.

As far as economy goes, tell me how developing a new industry will hurt the US economy? Tell me how becoming energy independent of the ME is a bad thing? Do you have a problem with keeping our energy dollars here in the US and out of the hands of Iran, Russia, Arabia and Venezuela? What do you have against living in a clean environment, or maybe you have a problem with using energy efficiently?

No, I think your problem is that you listen to Rush too often.

Barney, what motivates me t... (Below threshold)

Barney, what motivates me to believe in God is the evidence of Him working in my life. I never took a poll about it and my beliefs are not based on a popularity contest. And you have absolutely no knowledge of my media habits so you're just reverting to type, now, using irrelevant personal comments in lieu of a better argument.

There is no proof that human activity is causing "an accelerated change that won't reverse" in the earth's climate. Just like the medieval warm period wasn't caused by human activity. Again, some people are hyping this for the sake of personal gain and a boatload of others, such as yourself, have bought into it. Just like people have bought into it three other times in the last 112 years, in spite of the contradictions in switching from cooling to warming to cooling and now back to warming. (And each time, the results of these changes are going to be catastrophic! Floods! Famine! Droughts! Billions will die!!!1!!eleventy!!!!)

As for the effect on the economy, I give you Kyoto. An idea so bad that even the Democrats wouldn't vote for it.

Now your turn - go ahead and have the last word on this topic. That is, until a few decades from now when you realize you've been had.

I -heart- Laura. ;-)... (Below threshold)
Paul:

I -heart- Laura. ;-)

Who said we have to adopt K... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Who said we have to adopt Kyoto?

Again, what is the down-side?
-Energy independence
-An emerging technology that will provide high wage jobs
-Cleaner environment
-Kiss the ME and all that baggage behind
-New crops for family run farms
-New manufacturing jobs to make the new energy efficient products
-Keeping our energy dollars here in the US and reducing or trade balance deficit
-Selling our energy technology to the world market (energy exporters as oppose to energy importers)

There is only two reasons to be against taking steps to be energy independent:
1) You are big oil
2) Pro-Israel (afraid of what would happen if we no longer have a strategic reason to support Israel)

There is actually LOTS of e... (Below threshold)
Beeblebrox:

There is actually LOTS of evidence for the existence of God Barney. The fact that you are not aware of said evidence is simply an admission of ignorance, nothing more. The evidence lies in the field of Information Theory that I won't belabor at the moment since the existence of God is not something that evangelicals and Catholics are using as a reason to have the government take control of people's lives. However, there is WAY more consensus for the existence of God than for AGW and so, using the consensus model argument, we should probably be mandating the spending of billions of government dollars to build churches and institute regulations for people to attend those churches.

Since I can hardly see this as agreeable from the left, why would we proceed with a consensus model on your particular religious beliefs that have precisely ZERO scientific evidence to support them?

Oh, and regarding some fictitious "new economy". The world RUNS on oil (and I assume that this is the evil you are trying to remove from the economy). But you are aware that even if we were to become oil free (i.e. no plastics, no lubrication, no home heating, well, really, no modern civilization) you do realize that other energy sources also have a "carbon footprint" don't you?

One of the cleanest burning fuels is natural gas. You do realize that NG fired powerplants release huge amounts of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere don't you? And solar? The manufacturer and distribution of solar energy has a massive carbon foot print. Same for wind. Really, every power source you can come up with has a huge carbon footprint.

The irony here is that global warming is a good thing. If we could cause it that would even be better. In fact, I am a proponent of more oil burning for this reason (no, I am not kidding). More C02 in the atmosphere causes more trees to grow. More trees equals less reliance on non-renewable resources (although oil is renewable so that is why I see no reason to stop using it)

Oil is cheap, can be processed into millions of different products, is found everywhere (we have more under our soil than the ME could ever dream about having under theirs), requires next to no damage to the environment to pull it out of the ground, and makes it possible to have an advanced civilization that doesn't live in poverty, disease, and famine.

All in all, given that burning oil helps trees and, to believe Al Gore, would warm the planet, I think we need more SUVs and private Nancy Pelosi Jets flying around. We'd all be better off.

There is [sic] onl... (Below threshold)
There is [sic] only two reasons to be against taking steps to be energy independent: 1) You are big oil 2) Pro-Israel (afraid of what would happen if we no longer have a strategic reason to support Israel)

Not even close Barn.

Energy independency can be easily achieved by:

-drilling for our own oil (not just in ANWR but everywhere that it exists in our country). Remember, "Big Oil" gets most of their oil from other countries. We should have our own Big Oil pumping our own oil. Like I said, there is NO DOWN SIDE to the use of oil as a source of energy.

-Build nuclear power plants.

Two things that we can do EASILY tomorrow if we wanted to. The problem is that the the Ludite leftists in this country are essentially preventing us from being energy independent.

And here is some food for thought. Let's say that we got the majority of our energy from large solar farms in the desert southwest. I guaran-dang-tee you that the Left would be complaining about "Big Solar". The issue is not the type of energy but the fact that we are using whatever cheap energy we have to further capitalism.

Plentiful, inexpensive energy means more personal independence and less reliance on Big Government. "Big Oil" is a good thing, Big Government, OTOH, is an evil because it uses violence to force its will on us. I am promoting the former, you are promoting the latter. Personally, I have never been a fan of fascism (dictionary use of the term) but I guess evidently, Barney, you are.

As for the Israel comment. The day we stop supporting Israel is the day this country is history.

Barney also ignores what Ky... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Barney also ignores what Kyoto, if fully implemented, would produce.

About a .1 degree drop in temperature. And that assumes China and India don't pollute more, which would mean they'd have to completely stop growing.

And color me amazed that another leftist hates Israel. Jew hatred is en vogue on that side.
-=Mike

Where to start?... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Where to start?

Global warming acolytes conveniently igore the medieval warm period and the little ice age,

No, they don't ignore it at all. The medieval warm period is nothing compared to what is going on now. Consider the IPCC 3rd Assessment report:

The data show a relatively warm period associated with the 11th to 14th centuries and a relatively cool period associated with the 15th to 19th centuries in the Northern Hemisphere. However, evidence does not support these "Medieval Warm Period" and "Little Ice Age" periods, respectively, as being globally synchronous. As Figure 5 indicates, the rate and duration of warming of the Northern Hemisphere in the 20th century appears to have been unprecedented during the millennium, and it cannot simply be considered as a recovery from the "Little Ice Age" of the 15th to 19th centuries.

and usually downplay the effect of the sun, as the last IPCC study did.

Most climate models take into consideration solar variation, so I don't know where you're getting this crap. Do read up on climate modeling a bit. You might learn something (doubtful).

So that's two of your assertions which are crap. What's next.

Climate change is nothing to get hysterical about. It's just weather.

Climate is just weather? Ok, nevermind, you're clueless.

I do not "-heart-" Laura. Too ignorant. Moving on....

*The greedy scientist fallacy.

Contrary to the opinion of many nuts both here and around the world, there is not much money in doing climate change research. Scientists are not getting rich on this, and the vast majority of them could make a good deal more working in industry instead of research. Only morons without a clue about how scientific research is funded and conducted make this argument. Moving on...

And solar? The manufacturer and distribution of solar energy has a massive carbon foot print. Same for wind. Really, every power source you can come up with has a huge carbon footprint.

Totally clueless.

The irony here is that global warming is a good thing. If we could cause it that would even be better. In fact, I am a proponent of more oil burning for this reason (no, I am not kidding).

I hear this a lot, especially coming from the oil-industry and their flunkies. It's bullshit of course, in that it ignores all effects of CO2 other than "it helps trees and plants." Great, so the extinction of humans; shall we try that? Even if you think CO2 in the atmosphere is all fine and dandy, do you realize what CO2 does to the oceans? Read this.

-Build nuclear power plants.

Beeble, this is the only smart thing you wrote.

I just came from a meeting about climate change with chemists and engineers, and the contrast between those who really understand this stuff and are trying to develop viable solutions and the rampant stupidity of the anti-science crowd is quite stark in my mind at the moment.

*The greedy scient... (Below threshold)
*The greedy scientist fallacy.

Contrary to the opinion of many nuts both here and around the world, there is not much money in doing climate change research.


This is outright baloney (despite coining a really catchy phrase like "greedy scientist fallacy".) Setting aside the billions of dollars reaped by the environmental movement every year over this issue (read "State of Fear" for the specifics on this), there is HUGE money at the university level in pursuing this kind of research. I was recently employed in IT upper management at a major research university on the west coast and saw this money flowing through the door every day. The money is on the the side of PROMOTING AGW, not in debunking it. There is just about zero money for climate research in "industry" except for those who are ideologically inclined to fight the Left on this issue. But for the most part, research like this is done at the university level by people who would not have a job were it not for government grants.

...Scientists are not getting rich on this, and the vast majority of them could make a good deal more working in industry instead of research.

"Not much money" is your phrase Mantis but one clearly spoken in ignorance. A research academic can be paid 6 figures a year, be given his own lab, his own team of grad student assistants, IT support, nice offices, accolades all around, etc. in return for towing the leftist environmental line. While it may not be the case for you Mantis, to many people a 6 figure income is real money.


Only morons without a clue about how scientific research is funded and conducted make this argument.

Really? And you know this how? Actually, only a moron would claim otherwise, in the face of evidence to the contrary. Moving on...

And solar? The manufacturer and distribution of solar energy has a massive carbon foot print. Same for wind. Really, every power source you can come up with has a huge carbon footprint.

Totally clueless.

Nice retort. Are you aware of what it takes to build a solar farm? Do you have any idea of the amount of equipment, land, petrochemicals, etc. are expended in building one of these monstrosities? If they were the primary source of power in this country right now enviros would be screaming bloody murder about "Big Solar" and its negative effects on the environment. Mantis, you seem to not understand that the cost of building and maintaining anything solar comes at a VERY high cost, both in resources and in the effect on the environment.

The irony here is that global warming is a good thing. If we could cause it that would even be better. In fact, I am a proponent of more oil burning for this reason (no, I am not kidding).

I hear this a lot, especially coming from the oil-industry and their flunkies. It's bullshit of course,

Of course. ;-)

in that it ignores all effects of CO2 other than "it helps trees and plants."

Name one such documented, empirically observed negative effect. Just one.

Great, so the extinction of humans; shall we try that? Even if you think CO2 in the atmosphere is all fine and dandy, do you realize what CO2 does to the oceans?

Given that the evidence supports the reality that the concentration of C02 in the atmosphere has been higher in the past and given that our oceans are still here, I scoff at your chicken littleism. Furthermore, if you're anything like the average leftist enviro, I don't think you probably care that much about the "extinction of humans". People have been dying by the millions for the last 30 years in Africa as a direct result of American lunatic, leftist environmentalism.

-Build nuclear power plants.

Beeble, this is the only smart thing you wrote.

Amongst all the other things of course ;-)

Mantis, you can bray all you want but those without a dog in this fight are on my side of the argument. Again, I turn to Michael Crichton as a prime example of this. He has you guys so nailed.

> No, they don't ignore it ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

> No, they don't ignore it at all. The medieval warm period is nothing compared to what is going on now. Consider the IPCC 3rd Assessment report:

Hmmmmmm I think you might should look here.

and look at his methodology

>Contrary to the opinion of many nuts both here and around the world, there is not much money in doing climate change research.

Unmitigated bullshit. Bullshit mantis bullshit.

For starters the SF Chron just listed the largest donations and BILLIONS have been given to this hoax just from 3-4 people, forgetting government grants et al.

You make some good points mantis but then you piss it all away with bullshit. (that you know is bullshit)

I'll always -heart- Laura.

>I just came from a meeting about climate change with chemists and engineers, and the contrast between those who really understand this stuff

Understand what? We have some vague idea that maybe something bad would happen if we used automobiles too much... But as I posted last week, we really don't have data to back it up.

People have predicted the automobile would be the death of mankind for 100 years or more.

When my father was a child the "scientists" of the day said that if a woman went over 50 mph she would become sterilized.

Our "scientists" a generation (ok maybe 2 dad was old when I was born and I'm 40 now) aren't any less superstitious they just have the ability to make more noise now.....

Look- If the temp increase we've seen the last few years was measured 1000 years ago, they'd say Zeus was pissed.

Scientists have always fallen back on superstition when they didn't have the answer.

Setting aside the billio... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Setting aside the billions of dollars reaped by the environmental movement every year over this issue

No problem, since we were talking about university grants. I have plenty of problems with many environmental groups, and wasn't defending them.

there is HUGE money at the university level in pursuing this kind of research. I was recently employed in IT upper management at a major research university on the west coast and saw this money flowing through the door every day. The money is on the the side of PROMOTING AGW, not in debunking it.

There's not much money in debunking evolution either, because there's no scientific basis.

But for the most part, research like this is done at the university level by people who would not have a job were it not for government grants.

I'm sorry you have problems with our university systems and the government research they do. Deal with it.

"Not much money" is your phrase Mantis but one clearly spoken in ignorance. A research academic can be paid 6 figures a year, be given his own lab, his own team of grad student assistants, IT support, nice offices, accolades all around, etc. in return for towing the leftist environmental line. While it may not be the case for you Mantis, to many people a 6 figure income is real money.

I know many climate scientists, none of whom make 6-figures. Many do use university labs, and have grad assistants, and gasp! an office. And no, they don't get these things by "towing the leftist environmental line," they get them by doing quality, peer-reviewed research with reproducible results. Once again, I'm sorry you have a problem with university research. Deal with it.

Really? And you know this how? Actually, only a moron would claim otherwise, in the face of evidence to the contrary.

I refrain from giving up too much information about my employment or personal life on blogs, but trust me, I know a bit about how scientific research is funded and conducted.

Are you aware of what it takes to build a solar farm? Do you have any idea of the amount of equipment, land, petrochemicals, etc. are expended in building one of these monstrosities?

Yes, and when exactly did I advocate replacing our fossil fuel use with solar, or wind, at current technologies, wholesale? Oh, I never did. Are you aware of the advances and innovations being made currently in fuel-cell technology, solar and otherwise? Somehow I doubt it.

Name one such documented, empirically observed negative effect. Just one.

Read Diamond's Collapse, Flannery's The Weather Makers, and Kolbert's Field Notes from a Catastrophe, for a start.

Given that the evidence supports the reality that the concentration of C02 in the atmosphere has been higher in the past

The evidence points to higher concentration of CO2 when, exactly? Oh, btw, evidence doesn't support reality, it is the part of reality which we observe.

and given that our oceans are still here

Gee, I said the oceans would be gone? I don't remember that. Did you follow the link?

I don't think you probably care that much about the "extinction of humans".

Since it comes from a standpoint of total ignorance, I don't give a shit what you think I care about. My primary concern is the maintenance of human civilization.

People have been dying by the millions for the last 30 years in Africa as a direct result of American lunatic, leftist environmentalism.

I do love a good non sequitur.

Mantis, you can bray all you want but those without a dog in this fight are on my side of the argument. Again, I turn to Michael Crichton as a prime example of this. He has you guys so nailed.

I can only assume that by "those without a dog in this fight" you mean those who are uninformed. You can read an informed response to Crichton here and here. And yes, I read his book, and it was inane. He, like Laura above, doesn't even know the difference between climate and weather. That alone is enough for me to know he's talking out of his ass, as are you.

Mantis, you can complain al... (Below threshold)

Mantis, you can complain all you want about non sequiturs and things I never said (or you have taken out of context). Doesn't change the fact that you come off like an arrogant, closed minded bozo with an agenda.

You brought up the oceans, you brought up the concern about the "extinction of humans", you brought up alternative fuels, you brought up the entirely unsupportable claim about the money that ISN'T to be found in climate research (and then lamely mention that the climate scientists YOU KNOW don't make any money - Well, the ones I know DO.)

All of these things I addressed and with considerably more rationality than you have.

Bottom line, there is precisely ZERO evidence for AGW. ZERO. You can bow down before your computer generated climate models all you want but religion is still religion. The rest of us prefer to rely on evidence, not hope. AGW is not science, it is a faith (and a pretty poorly supported one at that.)

For starters the SF Chro... (Below threshold)
mantis:

For starters the SF Chron just listed the largest donations and BILLIONS have been given to this hoax just from 3-4 people, forgetting government grants et al.

Ok, let me rephrase then. What I meant was the scientists doing this research don't make that much money for it. I'm aware there are lots of research dollars out there, but the people doing the research are not living in mansions off them. At least not the ones I'm familiar with.

Hmmmmmm I think you might should look here.

and look at his methodology

I've seen that, what are you trying to say?

We have some vague idea that maybe something bad would happen if we used automobiles too much

Notice that I'm not that keen on promoting one or another scenarios about the consequences of global warming. I mostly am commenting on the evidence it is occurring and our contribution to it. When it comes to modeling and predictions, I think there is a wide range of possibilities, but there is plenty of historical evidence to support the idea that dramatic climate change is, at best, very disruptive (again, read Collapse).

Anyway, automobiles in themselves aren't the problem. Mine runs on electricity from nuclear plants. Very clean.

Scientists have always fallen back on superstition when they didn't have the answer.

I put much less stock in what science says will happen (which, if you stay away from the media and read the actual studies, it rarely does. Instead it lays out possiblities), and much more in what has happened.

You brought up the ocean... (Below threshold)
mantis:

You brought up the oceans,

And you still can't read the article I linked and refute it.

you brought up the concern about the "extinction of humans",

No, I said that the extinction of humans would be good for plants and trees, something you've stated you're keen on. Do you dispute this?

you brought up alternative fuels,

Ummm, ok. So what?

you brought up the entirely unsupportable claim about the money that ISN'T to be found in climate research (and then lamely mention that the climate scientists YOU KNOW don't make any money - Well, the ones I know DO.)

Ok, who are they and how much do they make?

All of these things I addressed and with considerably more rationality than you have.

Really? Did you do so on some other website?

Anyway, Beeblebrox, these two quotes sum you and your fantasy world up, and with them I am done with you. Juxtapose!

There is actually LOTS of evidence for the existence of God

Bottom line, there is precisely ZERO evidence for AGW.

Anyway, automobile... (Below threshold)
Anyway, automobiles in themselves aren't the problem. Mine runs on electricity from nuclear plants. Very clean.

There wouldn't happen to be any lead in your electric car would there? ;-)

Also, as you know, our electric power, at least in the states, is on a grid. One has no way of saying if their electric car is charged up on Nuclear vs. coal vs. Natural gas vs. hydro vs...

I put much less stock in what science says will happen (which, if you stay away from the media and read the actual studies, it rarely does. Instead it lays out possiblities), and much more in what has happened.

I guffaw at this statement. The PRIME argument that the politicos, the chattering classes, and the media have for AGW is from lists of alleged "scientists" (some of whom even know something about climate - although most have no more clue about it than anyone else) who claim that, although there is no evidence for AGW, it COULD happen in the future if we don't change our ways.

BTW, although I have no way of verifying this, I PREDICT, that if there were no government funds for GW research, that we wouldn't have lists of "scientists" saying it might happen someday, "all we need is more research to prove it."

>Ok, let me rephrase then. ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

>Ok, let me rephrase then. What I meant was the scientists doing this research don't make that much money for it. I'm aware there are lots of research dollars out there, but the people doing the research are not living in mansions off them. At least not the ones I'm familiar with.

Moooooo You're full of bull.

Are Global Warming researchers paid any less than other researchers? Um No.

You blew that one.
=======================
>I've seen that, what are you trying to say?

That your link is flawed.
=======================
>Notice that I'm not [snipped]

Missed that point, (read 3 times) can't reply.
=======================
>Anyway, automobiles in themselves aren't the problem. Mine runs on electricity from nuclear plants. Very clean.

OH it is? How did those lead acid batteries get produced? Carbon free? How are they doing to be disposed of?

You're smart enough to know that the eco footprint of an EV is greater than a fossil today. EVs are not green (today) and everyone (including the greeies) know that.

You know that!
=======================

>I put much less stock in what science says will happen ... and much more in what has happened.

Then I guess that link last week convinced you the whole thing was BS huh? lol

=======================

Well, mantis the exchange was depressing. I didn't lump you in with the "say any bullshit just to have something to say" crowd. I often expressed my respect for you.

Sadly that has been pretty dramatically diminished.

Anyway, Beeblebrox... (Below threshold)
Anyway, Beeblebrox, these two quotes sum you and your fantasy world up, and with them I am done with you. Juxtapose!

With all due respect Mantis, you seem well educated but not very discerning.

In all your babblings you have continued to avoid the central question. The fact that you can produce NO evidence for AGW proves my point. You nibble around the edges and bring up really meaningless side issues but simply are unable to bring yourself to actually prove your point!

Meanwhile, I can prove the existence of God quite easily. The fact that you think it is a fantasy just makes me sad for you.

Just a little demonstration of how we know God exists:

The Bible is demonstrably written by someone who has perfect foreknowledge of future events since it is full of prophecies that have been specifically fulfilled and at 100% accuracy. Since no man has been able to replicate this feat, then no man can be the author of the Bible. The author has to exist in dimensions outside of those we live in in order to predict the future. The author of the Bible also uses science that we now understand to be true but at the time the book was written, would not have been understood. For example, the sphericity of the earth, the existence of quantum particles, the orbit of the solar system through the galaxy, currents in the oceans, and on and on. These are mentioned as givens by the human writers of the books even though they would not have known these facts nor would they have thought to include them on their own for fear of being ridiculed by the "Scientists" of their day.

There are whole books written on the reality that the Bible simply had to have been authored by someone outside our time domain. I choose to call that someone "God". If you just want to call it an extraterrestrial intelligence well beyond ours that's fine as far as it goes. But there is one thing you should acknowledge; man was not and cannot have been the author of the Bible.


Oh, forgot to highlight Ma... (Below threshold)

Oh, forgot to highlight Mantis' central thesis:

Proof of God is a fantasy.
Humans undoubtedly cause global warming.

I'll let this world view sit on the page for others to marvel at.

Busy for the weekend and ju... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Busy for the weekend and just getting around to this; don't know if you'll see it.

Moooooo You're full of bull.

Are Global Warming researchers paid any less than other researchers? Um No.

Are you implying that researchers doing work related to climate change should make less money than other researchers? Well, they do (nanotechnology, biomed, etc bring in bigger bucks), but I'm interested to know why you think they should, if in fact you think that. And as far as being "full of bull," are you referring to my assertion that the researchers I know are not making tons of money? If so, how the hell do you know?

You blew that one.

Explain how.

That your link is flawed.

Well, the link works, so I assume you're saying that the graph is flawed. If that's what you think, explain how.

Missed that point, (read 3 times) can't reply.

My point is that the climate evidence collected up to the present is reliable, modeling is less so. I don't defend one predictive model or another at this point, though some are certainly better than others. I do defend the science explaining what has happened up until now.

You're smart enough to know that the eco footprint of an EV is greater than a fossil today. EVs are not green (today) and everyone (including the greeies) know that.

No, I don't know that. I could be wrong as I'm not completely sure how much energy is used in making my eight batteries as opposed to one, but I'm pretty sure it will be far less than what would be expended if I were still running an ICE. As far as how they will be disposed, they will be recycled just like all my old batteries. I do encourage you to look at the energy efficiency rates of EV as compared to ICE and come back and tell me they're not cleaner.

Then I guess that link last week convinced you the whole thing was BS huh? lol

Only if I didn't understand anything about climate and I assumed that every region on earth were reacting exactly the same to climate change. In any case, the simplistic (and wrong) conclusion that can be drawn from the Antarctica story is that there is in fact no global warming, and the evidence for such (regardless of how we are contributing and what the effects will be) is incontrovertible.

Well, mantis the exchange was depressing. I didn't lump you in with the "say any bullshit just to have something to say" crowd. I often expressed my respect for you.

Sadly that has been pretty dramatically diminished.

Other than the car thing (and I'll admit I just threw that in there because I'm proud that I was able to do the conversion; I usually have trouble with mechanical work, that's why I work with engineers but am not one myself), what did I say, "just to have something to say." Note also that everything I wrote was in response to Laura and Mr. "I can prove God exists" Beeblebrox up above.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy