Blaming Hurricane Sandy on the greedy and industrious is just as mad as blaming it on gays
Bill McKibben (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
After every natural disaster that occurs these days, we do two things. First, we guffaw or shake our heads in stern disapproval at those religious freaks who blame said disaster on mankind’s sin. And second, we nod in vigorous agreement with those eco-experts who blame said disaster on man-made climate change. And yet, the impulse behind both forms of finger-pointing, behind both the Bible basher’s harebrained claims that deviant people brought this disaster upon mankind and the environmentalist’s insistence that the disaster is actually the fault of industry and pollution, is the same – it’s about doing that very Medieval thing of finding someone or something to blame for scary natural occurrences. Only where Christian zealots blame sinning mankind, green zealots blame industrious mankind.
So in relation to Hurricane Sandy, we’ve all had a good old laugh at the American preacher who says the storm is “God’s judgment on gays” and also on President Obama for supporting gay marriage. How backward to treat a storm, a violent whim of nature, as a sentient force that is trying to say something to humankind! And yet, other claims that this storm is speaking to us, shouting at us, in fact, about our wicked or careless behaviour, are treated deadly seriously. So the Washington Post has published a piece by an eco-warrior who believes Sandy is the product of “global weirding” (that’s what greens freaked out by the lack of hard evidence for planetary warming have rechristened “global warming”), who tells us: “A wounded earth is speaking – are you listening?” Another eco-commentator chastises both Obama and Romney for refusing to talk about climate change in the current presidential campaign, and says that through Sandy, “the climate is now speaking to them – and to everyone else”.
So what is the climate “saying” to us? Basically that we have been bad, greedy, so obsessed with development and growth that we have let our planet fall into disrepair. In a video commentary that eerily echoes those issued by Christian cranks in the wake of every natural disaster, the influential American green Bill McKibben declares, “It’s really important that everybody, even those who aren’t in the kind of path of this storm, reflect about what it means… We really, finally need to have this reckoning – either the fossil fuel industry keeps pouring carbon into the atmosphere and we keep seeing this kind of event, or we take some action.” The idea that a storm “means” something, that it has sentience, ideas, purpose, something for us to reflect on, is as daft when it is dressed up in green-leaning lingo as it is when it’s dolled up in Biblical nonsense. What McKibben is really saying is that mankind must reflect on his behaviour and change it. No, not by having less gay sex, but by stopping being so greedy.
Add comment
Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work.
PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to administrator' link. If you find your post gone, it's because you violated the TOS.
Comments
People need to grow up and realize that we have had hurricanes for all of time and getting hit is eventual and accidental, based on the stochastic nature of our complicated weather.
There is no message here regarding climate and the scam of manmade global warming. We ARE NOT warming the planet. The greenhouse effect they claim does not exist and the planet has not warmed for 16 years. Where in that is warming causing more extreme weather events? It simply is NOT!
In the absence of warming, and active cooling since 2006, only a truly dishonest person would claim this hurricane has anything to do with warming or human activities.
"US News and World Report is running a poll on whether or not Hurricane Sandy was caused by global warming.
Since it is open to everyone, no matter what side of this opinion you come down on, see their web site to add your vote if you wish."
wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/30/poll-was-hurricane-sandy-caused-by-global-warming/
Being a good citizen, I voted.
Hurricane hits new york:BAAAAAWWWWW ITZ THE GLOBAL WARMING COMING TO GET US! BAAAWWW
anybody who isn't geographically retarded knows that newfoundland is further north than new york.
III'mmm back! Did you think I'd forgotten all you lovely skeptics. I won't say "deniars" becasue the debate may not be over, for you folks anyway, but surely it's gotta be coming to a close, ain't it? It's become a no brainer, that is, if you have a brain and I fear about half of the USA has theirs missing. Will Sandy help you all to find your lost think boxes? Maybe, maybe not. I tell you this much, on average you can expect that on average something of the magnitude of Sandy to happen about every three years for the next thousand years. Get it?
Anyone like to place some bets? No money of course, just a "bet ya".
Please explain, other than the media and people such as yourself getting diarrhea of the mouth over it, what is any different about Sandy from any other hurricane/tropical storm of the past? The "magnitude"? Just shows you what a bitch "mother nature" can be. And silly little tools like you think we have any control over that.
Quote:Seriously? With reasoning like that you expect us to take you seriously?
Yes we "Get it" Danny, you still don't have a clue. And no we won't be placing bets on when you will finally get one.
It has been a part of 'Webster's Dictionary' since its inception.
In 1900 a storm surge killed 8,000 in Galveston. In 1930 600 die in New England Hurricane.
Danny, you're a total fool.
wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/30/reality-check-who-believes-hurricane-sandy-isis-not-caused-by-global-warming/
You and Roseanne Barr!
Deadlier than Sandy, greater magnitude, similar track.
Now where were those other similar storms every 3 years since 1954? We've had worse storms so apparently by you logic and that of your "scientists" the cause should be the same. I mean it was after the industrial revolution o it has to be due to humans right?
Take your appeals to authority elsewhere, because you can't think for yourself doesn't mean the rest of us can't.
Danny is still el zippo on the science, I see, some things just never change!
There is NOTHING unusual or UNPRECEDENTED about our climate, or how we got here.
You can sleep tight tonight!
You know, I try to be clever like you all are, you know, with the digs and all. But you guys beat me all to hell. You really are pro's at cleverness, let me tell ya. I mean, it's like coming here and being in one of those reality shows, only the pro version. My hat's off.
Problem is, that won't stop climate change.
Speaking of academics, I must tell you I come here to learn from the school of internet digs, such as you are, but all get is guff. You need a new faculty me thinks.
How'm I doing coach? Prtty good digs there, I'd say.
BTW google storms in the USA and discover that Sandy was but a small time player in a long history of storms.
Good luck
"sCeptics" are: S.o C.alled E.xperts P.erpetually T.alking I.n C.ircles
Found Mann's Nobel Prize for him Drewski? Seems another of your heroes has proven himself to be a liar.
Must be crushing to see your heroes for what they really are.
Got any science yet?
Didn't think so.
wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/30/reality-check-who-believes-hurricane-sandy-isis-not-caused-by-global-warming/
We worry about the damage being done and look forward to the storm's passing. People like Danny are busy hoping and waiting for the next one or that the current one is really bad so they can use it as validation of their beliefs.
Not that we didn't already know he was sick and twisted.
Anyway, what I came back to you all to talk about is our, that is, me as an alarmist and you all as skeptics, that's what I mean by "our", you see. Anyway, is our relationship here just here, or if one of you saw me on the street, would you punch me in the nose? Or would you hold out your hand for me to shake saying, "Gee, ain't it fun to sit around and slam each other all day?" If you punched me I'd probably punch you back, maybe, depend on how hard you punched me, sometimes a punch can be a love pat and I'd sure think it was a love pat if you punched me on the arm, but if you hit my face, then I wouldn't think it was a love pat, but instead would think you hated me. That'd hurt my feelings and I'd probably punch you back. That wouldn't be a good thing.
So, I will talk with you all today some more. But for those who'd like to talk with me. Could we maybe try and find out why we do this. You know, the slam stuff. Let's see if we can set that aside awhile and just look at this polarization that is not good for our county, anyone agree?
You must be some sort of a pansy or something. You certainly have a muddled way of expressing yourself.
The slamming you perceive taking place in opposition to your silliness and that of others who side with the global warming faction, has to do with our efforts to reject the human-caused climate disruption propaganda machine. We respect science and the power of the natural world, while also hoping to preserve the integrity and progress of our modern society. We resent that the ultra-liberal environmental whacko fringe which pushes this swill upon us twists and distorts the truth about science and seeks to control population through fear-mongering, coercion and the endless and ever-tightening imposition of taxation, fees, fines, regulation and restriction upon our ways of life.
It's worth fighting about. It's up to your and your brethren to determine how fierce this battle becomes.
"It's worth fighting about. It's up to your and your brethren to determine how fierce this battle becomes."
That's a scary statment my friend. Yes I could proably kick your butt, does that make you mad when I say that? Should it have made me mad when you called me a pansy? the answeer is yes to both questions whether you think it is or not.
but anyay, with statements like you just made (more of a threat I'd say) then I fear we have a long ways to go. Do you wnat to see this coe to fisty cups, guns, helmets, all that crap. Do want resovle? Can you see that the issue(s) are mostly there these days to fuel essential and fundemental ideologies?
Yes, most men in this world could well kick my butt in a fist fight. I'm not a big person, but I'm quick and that has proved more useful and less damaging than direct physical encounters with my opponents.
The issue of Global Warming was a Giggle-Snort topic decades ago when I began my geology studies. It applied mainly to long-term (centuries and more) climatic variation that nature has imposed on our world since the very beginning and would likely never be witnessed or detectable by any single generation of humanity.
(continued)
This is not about science on your side. It's all about public policy, control of society and the destruction of our living standards for no good reason. That is why this is worth fighting for and I can bet that I'm willing to wager much more to defend my side here than you are.
Yes I think you would defend your side more than I would mine, not sure what that means? Well, I suppose that means you feel you have greater convictions than I do. But that really isn't true. I am very convicted towards my belief that the corporate world needs to be shut down, very much so. Yet, I don't like this fighting, I don't like that these convictions are separating us so much. You are probably a good guy, if you knew me better, you'd like me as well (everybody likes me). But deep in our makeups, something is there that seems to naturally become contrary to the other. What the hell is that(?), it is not the issues, no way. Tell me something else.
Just seems like natural variability to me.
PAY ATTENTION DANNY:
We covered this yesterday Danny. Is your information retention really that bad?
Once again...
"The Dutch researcher reports that "most of the 22 studies have not found a trend in disaster losses, after normalization for changes in population and wealth." In fact, he says that "all 22 studies show that increases in exposure and wealth are by far the most important drivers for growing disaster losses ," a conclusion that has also been reached by Changnon et al. (2000), Pielke et al. (2005) and Bouwer et al. (2007)."
If you make this claim again, you are knowingly lying, again.
See i don't think it's about the issues, yes, they are very relevant, but they don't tell the whole story. I see it as polarized ideology in the extreme, my side as extreme as your side, well, close anyway. And so that makes me wonder what is so different about our ideologies? Why do they polarize so much? It's a fascination of mine, but it also scares the crap out of me.
Now, that’s where I am.
continued
Quote:"The Dutch researcher reports that "most of the 22 studies have not found a trend in disaster losses, after normalization for changes in population and wealth." In fact, he says that "all 22 studies show that increases in exposure and wealth are by far the most important drivers for growing disaster losses ," a conclusion that has also been reached by Changnon et al. (2000), Pielke et al. (2005) and Bouwer et al. (2007)."
Quote:Oceans are alkaline.
Obviously you have been lied to. Are you going to continue to "trust" those who have repeatedly lied to you?
We'll see just how smart you are.
That's exactly the same rationalization they used in Nazi Germany regarding Jewish people as somehow being sub-human. It was in all their propaganda and it quelled the fears of its citizens. SCIENTISTS PROVE JEWS ARE [fill in the blank]. Use your brain Heim. Climate change is not a conspiracy, it's an agenda driven by the green extremists wrapped inside the tissue-thin cloak of science. "Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it."
Nazi?
Jews
are you kiddding
What?
What?
real?
are you kidding?
thanks for your input
Danny, why do you deny the truth?
I hope you get better.
Why not address the facts Danny?
Remember the old adage "Better Red than Dead?" I don't buy it, never have. The Global Warming movement seeks to control us all, from eventually deciding what kind of car or truck a drive, to how far from my place of work I choose to live and how big my house (or apartment) should be and how many vacations I take per year and how far I may travel. You may laugh at these notions, but they are in our future if the climate zealots have their way.
We made it through 4 decades of Cold War to put the powers in the world who burden their populations with just these kinds of intolerable limits to their personal liberties. Do you honestly think that free Americans will stand quietly and low our own legislatures adopt these draconian measures all for the sake of trying to fine-tune the worldwide climate, which really is way beyond or control? Absolutely not.
Yes, it's worth a fight. Humans are meat eaters, though we have convinced ourselves that we're omnivores who can live like herbivores. That makes us predators by nature and that personal make-up comes with a mindset that automatically causes us to defend ourselves and our own against any intruder, includes those of our own kind who seek to constrain us or deny us of something that is ours. So, yes, our fight against the global warming scam certainly can turn into a civil uprising. It most certainly could go international if the United Nations acts out of its warped belief that it is a world government.
And so this "scam" would be worth war to you?
This "scam," if left to its own, could induce our political elite to use the EPA and other arms of government to make life in American pretty much unrecognizable--more than it has already become. I don't wish to live under a totalitarian regime; in fact I will not, not quietly.
How can you or anybody not understand that? This is not a trivial quarrel.
I am a libertarian. I want everyone who is not a danger to society to be free, but I also want to be left alone.
Quiz: How do you know you are at a libertarian event?
It looks like a gun show, smells like a reggae concert, and feels like an Amway convention.
"deciding what kind of car or truck a drive, to how far from my place of work I choose to live and how big my house (or apartment) should be and how many vacations I take per year and how far I may travel".
I would not want these sorts of restrictions 'imposed' upon me either. But I would gladly voluntarily sacrifice these wishes for the greater good, no problem. I would also sacrifice my personal beliefs to thwart a very ugly war, which I am sure this sort of war would be. The hate goes deep, perhaps deeper than Nazi vs. yankee.
I am the frog who can see the warm water into which I am about to be thrown and I will fight with all I have not to be boiled alive.
How's this, you skeptics don't know your (&* from a hole in the ground...pretty good eh? That's one for me, see if you can beat it.
Acting shocked that we enjoy sparring with trolls is not working.
Seems to be the way with Liberals - they live for the fight without concern for the results. The fight tends to focus on the character of those who are involved in the fight and not what they are trying to achieve. For the most part, in our case, we are trying to stay on track, make progress, while the Liberals waste so much of our time and resources with squabble.
I initially took on this ID to protect family members from retribution, but have since found it relegates most ad homs to the ridiculous. I literally laugh out loud watching people attack that silly picture, I never tire of the hilarity.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our current global climate, or how we got here.
Now what?
Well, I don't have a clue how to answer that. All I can say is I've been hearing "unusual" and "unprecedented" quite a few times the last 3 or 4 years. Not from an indivual event, but as collection of events, they seem to fit those descriptions.
Truth is a personal and lonely journey, noone can make it for you. If you do not search truth out on your own, you are at the mercy of those who wish to use you as a tool.
Now back to your parroting authorities. As I stated above, they admit in their own assessments that they know very little about climate. They have written in AR4 that they have a "low" to "very low" understanding of 80% of climate drivers. Logic thus dictates that they are lying when they say they know what is driving climate change. It is very simple Danny, no PhD required.
We refute the propaganda by citing the geologic record which is the best reflection of climate history in the near and distant past. We also have molecular physics which tells us what the true role is of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Based on hardened and documented facts, we can be sure that human-produced CO2 has had virtually no influence on climate behavior over the past 200 years.
You should know to that the era of homo sapiens, also known as the Holocene, has been a remarkably calm and mild 11,000 years of earth history. Any recent changes we may notice pale against what we know to have happened during other periods prior to the Holocene. We actually have trouble explaining why the Holocene has been so benign.
it's a real simple qustion, what institution(s) did you and Gator get this geologic record? "What" in this case is like a name, first letter a capitol.
And if you tell me you went out with Gator in college and made these observations like he told me he did, well, I'm just gonna laugh, you know that don't you? I mean, I gues I otta look again to see for sure that's ewhat he said, but I believe that was it. A Name...ins-ti-tu-tion.
You are a religious zealot, just like those who could not allow that the Earth was not the center of the universe. You have admitted that you side with the liars, frauds, and writers of fiction.
The membership of your highly regarded "institutions" is composed of people. These are people who started out knowing very little about this, went to school, specialized in a field, collaborated with others of similar interests and background and gained understanding of their subjects by doing a whole lot more than reading magazines or snooping through the Internet. Take my word for it and you you know I'm right.
Bear in mind that, the only reason I'm spending time with you on this is because you seem to have an unusual desire to learn something. Most of the zealots come across with an inflexibility about acquiring a new insight or having a willingness to refine their understanding of something even slightly.
I have read something of that order myself. But I am failing to remember the rest. Can you give me the link to that? I'll show you what I'm talking about. I'll try finding it again, but if you can, give me that link. thanks
Faith in the Authority of some vaunted Institution or Credentials plays no part in the process.
Here is a skeptical scientist who asked Phil Jones for the "Data" so he could check it for himself. As they were finding problems with the Data. Right around the 3:00 min mark here. www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG_7zK8ODGA&feature=player_embedded
here's another one, you guys are so dumb you can't see, see, um, well you can't see anything. How's that you amatures?
Pearls before swine Danny. And no I am not calling you a pig, it is a parable. It means that something of value is presented to a party incapable of understanding its worth.
So sad, I hope you get better.
You are a juggler who appears at a sword fight. Knowing that you have no chance and will be ripped to shreds in a heartbeat, you continue to claim victory because your sword-wielding opponents can't or won't juggle. The sword fighters have more important things to do at the moment.
Truth is where credentials lie. I would say that, NASA, Harvard, NOAA, NSIDC, Oxford, Cornell, MIT, NAS, Royal Society, and many more of their types have some pretty good credentials. That's where I get my info, where do you get yours?
Don't talk to me about rocks, give me the credentialed institutions you did this studying from. Or maybe you can't do that, I did, can you?
Have a nice day.
Resistance to take a class in a subject that interests you, as this one seem to have you heavily involved, suggests to me that you are just plain lazy.
Truth is where credentials lie. I would say that, NASA, Harvard, NOAA, NSIDC, Oxford, Cornell, MIT, NAS, Royal Society, and many more of their types have some pretty good credentials. That's where I get my info, where do you get yours?
Don't talk to me about rocks, give me the credentialed institutions you did this studying from. Or maybe you can't do that, I did, can you?
If so, then cool, thanks for the info. If not than you have not said anything as yet regarding my inquiry.
Once upon a time there were two doctors from Austrailia who had a theory, every single medical "Institution" and in fact every other research scientist and doctor in the field were convinced they were out to lunch.
In the early 1980's, Drs. Barry Marshall and Robin Warren of Australia discovered bacteria in the stomach lining of patients with chronic gastritis and peptic ulcers.
They were correct and the 'entire' entities or "Institutions" were wrong.
And it was done without a single computer model.
Done for now, can only take so much bs, but, I'll be back as have internet access for awhile. Be waiting for me cause I'm coming to get you.
"Now I have a job, and it is about to end for the day, so I am logging off my computer and heading home to my beautiful little ranch in the boonies. Think for yourself Danny.
If you would ever listen to others than your chosen ones, you might actually learn something, like I LOGGED OFF MY COMPUTER.
Your religious zeal is most disturbing, and your lack of awareness of the world around you is amazing.
This is the same Gator who trumpets the nonsense that comes from the pens of fake lawyers, fake Lords, and fake scientists and then dismisses the studies and opinions from all (as in every single one) of the world's peaks scientific bodies because he believes they are all are part of the worldwide conspiracy to milk the the grant gravy train.
Years from now, they will name a neurological disease after Gator -- sCeptisiosis Swamposis.
Drewski is another in a long line of religious zealots who cannot disprove natural variability, yet screams man is causing climate change. Purely delusional.
I challenge all the alarmists on this page to produce even ONE peer reviewed paper that disproves natural variability as the cause of recent, or any global climate changes.
If you cannot disprove mother nature, it is impossible to blame man, and also stupid.
Put up, or shut up.
Just because you have no understanding of science, doesn't mean that others don't. I, myself, don't know everything -- believe it or not -- and in those rare cases, I ask the opinion of experts.
Where you may wish to believe what a fake Lord, the head of an anxiety organization, or even a serial liar and writer of child sex books may say on the subject of climate, I choose to accept the opinion of climate scientists.
Perhaps this explains your total lack of scientific understanding.
That or sCeptisiosis Swamposis (SCS for short)
If you have soooo many studies, why can you not post even one. Hmmmmmmm?
Drewski the Incredible!
Put up or shut up!
I think we should try that hypnosis again. When I count to three. . . .
You guys really have not shame!
There is no authoritative science published that refutes the role of natural variability in the behavior of climate. Instead you have only documents written by those who seek to convince the uneducated that human factors are more important - pure rubbish.
Can you count that far?
However as long as you agree with drewski he doesn't care if you are a fake Nobel Prize winner who lies about it, a fraud like Gleick, or dishonest like John Cook who revises the history of his website on a daily if not hourly basis.
Yes, we all know very well how much ethics matter to drewski even though he has none himself...
"This is a Sophie’s Choice: If we respond to the moral imperative to raise public awareness and alarm about climate, we have to be deceptive."
grist.org/climate-energy/hawks-vs-scolds-how-reverse-tribalism-affects-climate-communication/
'moral imperative to raise public awareness and alarm...'
Wow - if they had morals they wouldn't continually make things up and manipulate data that doesn't meet the models. They wouldn't commit fraud or make up false surveys.
The public has far more important things to worry about than climate change.
The climate changes it always has done and it always will.Alarmists will never be able to control the weather. I just wish they would admit it, but no they will continue on in their efforts to pretend they have some kind of mission and try to control all humans with their misguided beliefs. Sad!
"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
Pretty much puts the "Cheaters Playbook" right out there, doesn't he?
"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."
- Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world."
- Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
- Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University
“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”
- Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
The worst science fiction tax dollars can buy!
And the Koch brothers are outspent by tens of billions of dollars, that flows to the alarmists. It shows what a rube you are to even bring that up.
Quote:That's because you are probably equally as dishonest as those fascists, with whom you "sympathize".
Instead "We question experiments, and we question theories. We try to repeat or independently derive what we read in publications -- just to make sure that no mistakes have been made."
Accepting without question is the domain of Fath not Science.
Quote:And herein lies the problem. Lies.
The very foundation of AGW is a falsehood.
If by that, you mean that I do not blather on and on for days, about things about which I have openly admitted I am ignorant, and that it makes me appear much smarter than you, then yes!
You know Gator, that's why I tend to stay away from this quote crap and just talk as an everyday citizen who is not a scientist. Becasue there is so much crap out there, ON BOTH SIDES, it seems best to just stay out of the quote game. But you seem to like to quote, so give your link source so we can see if you are making it up or not. I think that is reasonable.
No, it's called "courtesy", and it is not found in people who honor liars. The reason I am not wasting my time giving you links is because it does no good, you are a denier of facts.
You have Google, use it.
Now come on Gator, this isn't or at least shouldn't be a competition. You are acting like it's some game and "don't tell the other side" or they'll get the advantage. All you said above is more slams, name calling, all that crap. I'm done with you dude. Box beats you all to hell, at least he knows how to debate. Good day sir.
I can disprove virtually every single "fact" you have supplied, and you have not been able to refute even ONE of the facts I presented to you.
Quote:That may be, but you don't even register on the scale!
No Danny, I like facts and not opinion. You listen to opinions you like and dismiss facts. That is the grand gulf that separates us, and why we will never agree.
I have no agenda except the truth. Prove that we need to stop producing CO2 and I will. Prove communism works and I will call you comrade.
The problem Danny, is that the left believes the "ends justifies the means" and the rest of us do not.
We can rant all day about our facts, opinions and knowledge, but not one of has any belief that we can change the mind of the other. What counts here is that we have made our positions firm, but most of all: We CANNOT be forced to change our convictions. Instead we are willing to be convinced, if actual factual evidence is brought out into the open that leads to a new viewpoint, which in turn may lead to a new understanding. I, for one, and you, for another, are clearly ready to take on new information and mesh it with what we already understand. Others, particularly those opposed to us, seem not to be.
Its called deliberate intransigence and it is all designed to shield them from learning anything that would increase their intelligence. When a sCeptic's IQ gets above 80, they run the risk of entering the "going postal" stage of intellectual development.
So you see, remaining ignorant is the sCeptic's way of surviving. Its sad though, because it only takes reading a few peer-reviewed studies to elevate one's IQ through the "postal zone" into near normality.
It is simply fear that is holding back their development -- the fear of science otherwise known as SCS (sCpetisiosis Swamposis).
Yes drewski, we know who the ignorant one is and it is you.
sCeptics want to base their knowledge on the views of serial liars, anxiety experts, unqualified weather readers, and English puzzle makers all of whom have a combined total of zero scientific qualifications to support them.
So you see, not everyone agrees. I would expect the percentage would be about the same as those who disagree that the world is a sphere or that the earth does not revolve around the sun.
As far as empirical evidence goes, you can find more than 2 million references on normal Google and over 700,000 references in Google Scholar. So I suggest you follow the advice you gave Danny and look them up yourself.
Or you could Google the position statement on Global Warming for any of the worlds scientific organizations. Try ANY Physicist,Astronomical, Geological, Marine Science, Chemical, Environmental or even Medical Organization anywhere in the world and you will see that they ALL agree with the basic tenant that adding heat trapping gasses to the tune of 300 Icelandic volcanoes simultaneously erupting does, indeed, add heat to the atsmpsphere. I think the last science organization of merit to accept the consensus was the American Society of Petroleum Geologists in 1997.
Of course, their combined knowledge is nothing compared to that of the un-Lord Monckton and his non-science credentials or OMG'Sullivan and his degree by mail.
The proof is in the predictive skill of these "people who actually write and publish climate science papers."
And that makes the models wrong??
Best you take the time to understand the graphs you present otherwise you may suffer the same fate as Adam.
Empirical Quote:www.thefreedictionary.com/Empirical+observation
A Model...Quote: simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_model
The global warmers come back from this exposure by essentially saying, "Yeah, but your shoes are untied, so your entire premise is based on false reasoning and biased assumptions."
We cannot let ourselves be lured into arguing with these nuts on their basis. It's so easy to want to bash them over the heads to convince them, but conviction will never come. Our primary objective, I feel, is to make the situation clear that we will not let the zealots get away with destroying our civilization and way of life. We may well lose by some other means, but it will not be squandered by these nit-wits.
Most alarmists I speak to accept anything from authority without question. They lack an ability to read between the lines or deduce an opinion of their own based on logic and investigation. Kind of like a one way street - they follow blindly. Lemmingesque!
Their main arguments seem to be based on attacking personally anyone they disagree with. There evidence is their faith.
You said a mouthful there Box, only about the wrong side of the coin. Yet, isn't it interesting that we would have the exact same view, I mean exact. How does that happen? How is it that you are calling me a nut, and I know I'm not a nut at all, and I call you a nut and you know you're not a nut at all. What's up with that? How-does-that-happen? I'm asking you as one human being to another, not as an alarrmist talking to a skeptic. And I'm asking you becuase you seem to be the most rational one here.
I have no interest in being on the wrong side of this issue. I started studying earth and being fascinated by it before the age of ten. It directed me toward geology as a field of study in college and the earth sciences has been my passion for more than 40 years. It is my interest to preserve the truth in science that causes me to stand so firmly in defense against the human-caused global warming propaganda. I also resent the distrust of science that is growing among the public because of the AGW campaign.
In a different context, my unwilingness to compromise, is similar to having my family attacked and held hostage with no outside assistance to help me resolve the issue. The attacker threatens to kill one or all of my family and I tell the attacker that I will not allow that to happen. So the attack asks where I'd be agreeable to having the lives of my wife and children spared, but that must have their right hands cut off. Of course not, I am just as resolved to save my family completely uninjured and risk the deaths of all of us to assure that.
Giving in on this or meeting half-way means turning my back on principle and things I cherish. Won't happen.
You said:
"Polarization happens because I am not willing to compromise on what I know to be the truth."
I couldn't agree more! You see, I would say exactly that same thing. So what intrigues me is that I would say that same thing see what I mean? The fact that 'we' are doing that tells me something. With the issues completely aside and just looking at that particular phenomena, i.e. you have "the" truth I have "the" truth at the very same freaking time, well, in reality that can't happen. "The" truth is "the" truth. And so what makes the two truths so facinating in our case is that they are exactly diametrically opposed.
Look at the elections, 50/50, not just national, but state and local as well! That's why I am so adament about discussing this. And with the issues, we are not talking about variations in opinions, instead they are even and odd, black and white, totally saying the 'exact' opposite. With climate change at one point we even had one side saying it's warming and the other saying it's cooling, how the f^#k does that happen? Well, please, lets don't get into that, but you see what I mean.
Now, I am a person who believes our present paradigm and how free enterpris has brought it about has to change. I am rather a socialist, quite a bit I'd say. But I would have that pinion without climate change. But climate change stands alone in my mind as something to avoid, it just so happens that it dovetails into a paradigm that fits my philosophies.
You know better, and yet you keep lying.
You are a serial liar just like Drewski.
Do you really wnat that to happen? If so, then why?
If you would stand for the truth, we would have no issues.
Calling people liars doesn't help anything. How do I know, becaue i've done it as well. and i regret having done it and hope i don't do it again.
I know what the rent seeking grantologists say. I also know what the science says. Go get one of your papers you "read" and bring it back here for review.
I will remind you again...
"The Dutch researcher reports that "most of the 22 studies have not found a trend in disaster losses, after normalization for changes in population and wealth." In fact, he says that "all 22 studies show that increases in exposure and wealth are by far the most important drivers for growing disaster losses ," a conclusion that has also been reached by Changnon et al. (2000), Pielke et al. (2005) and Bouwer et al. (2007). And he adds that "no study identified changes in extreme weather due to anthropogenic climate change as the main driver for any remaining trend."
Zero connection because there is zero growth in extreme weather.
As I said days ago TO YOU, it is lies that I hate, and not people. So you are right about one thing, I am revealed, as one who is passionate about the truth.
Enough of your obfuscations and lies.
Not only do you ignore science, you also ignore history. The largest examples of inequality are all in socialist nations and states. www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=W-8g5S0z5Y4
Free markets are working just fine. In fact the fastest growing global economy is completely free from ANY regulation. Quote: www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/28/black_market_global_economy
"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."
- Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace, sponsor of many chapters of the IPCC reports
True believers always return to the church when they have any questions, and the church lies... sorry guys.
More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore... -- features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC.
ec.libsyn.com/.../2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d01cd8630d8c05b5a91&c_id=2869473
I have a thousand, anybody got a bigger list? I will require names and credentials.
I thought you went home.
That's rich from the guy who lies about giving me papers, he has never even seen!
But hey, congrads on the reprot. I'm sure it will have an impact towards your cause. However, just like I've seen when orgs on my side to this sort of thing, you can bet it will be debunked. Here we go, happily down the debunking trail...oh brother.
So you reject the IPCC! Great!
Now, how does being on a particular website or list revoke one's credentials?
Danny, you make zero sense. You have a cognitive disconnect that prevents you from reasoning on your own, or with the assistance of others.
1000 scientists, many of whom worked for the IPCC, and you are the true denier telling them they do not count.
Childish. Weal minded and immature. That is what you are.
Well the post is right above Gator last post there, but here's the rest of it. Judge for yourself.
For example, anything of this sort that 350.org does or Climate Progrss, Climate Science Watch, any of these type of orgs on either side, including Climate Depot, Al Gore or Richard Lindzen. Why? THEY ARE BIASED REPORTS. Once again, that's why I stay out of that stuff, and that's why I go with the established institutions. In short, what the government listens to and relies on for policymaking. Then I'm safe, at least safer than would be with these type of entities.
Oh yeah, no I do not inclue the IPCC as someone to reject or not use to make for opinions, they are because of the UN and are a souce for governments, remember, I stated that in the paragraph you cherry picked. And you do know that the IPCC is most definatley a government source for policy making, don't you? Well...maybe not.
Now, how does being on a particular website or list revoke one's credentials?
It doesn't. But "I", that is as oppose to "you", you do what you gotta, but I go by established institutional reports. Notice I said "reports". So that exludes articles, opinions of staff or guest,etc. That's different. I read those a lot and they help form opinions, but always stay aware of where it is I reading. Make sense?
Now, have fun cherry picking this one, I left lots of good stuff for you this time, go for it.
here, let me give you your best cheery pick out of this post, I'll even do your response, watch:
It doesn't.
See! right there out of his own mouth! he admits Climate Depot has credentials!
That's about how bad at this you are man, wake up. You are a major cherry picker and it shows like the warts on my butt.
I AM LOGGING OFF NOW, DO NOT BE ALARMED AND DO NOT FRET, I AN FINE.
If you cannot comprehend the above statement, phone a friend.
You know, there's so much crap goes on here, from everybody, alarmist and skeptics. So, maybe we'll all get better someday. But until then, we're running on the edge of driving each other crazy. So, let's back off and just be human beings, let's try that for a change. Otherwise, I fear we'll be having our first physical meetings on a fields of battle, and wouldn't that be just one awful shame, that we were that stupid, that stubborn. I'm speaking to humans, not skeptics, not alarmists, just humans.
I'm sure you had a discussion here with someone about that topic before.....
The "real data observations" fell well below the "IPCC Low" Model despite reality actually following the "IPCC High" or worst case prediction. Quote: Did they also predict the increase in Antarctic ice over the oxymoronical "30-year period which has recently occurred"?
perhaps graphs aren't your thing -- maybe you should stick to babbling.
The three "projections" are based upon three different Co2 reduction schemes.
The upper on is what actually happened. A ZERO reduction in man made Co2.
Perhaps graphs aren't your thing -- maybe you should stick to babbling your own self Comrade drewski.
The entire IPCC case for a high climate sensitivity to CO2 is based on just 20 years of history, from about 1978 to 1998. Since 1970, skeptics and drewski's have roughly equal periods of time where they can make their point about temperature causation. 20 years of rising CO2 and flat temperatures vs. 20 years of rising CO2 and rising temperatures.
I wanted to exlpain a little more about that thing i said the other day about models with actauls to model forecast. First off, know tht I am just giving my impression of what I've understood. I know that the models do forcasting of climate, ie impacts. So when I say the actuals are the emperical data or I should say emperical information I hope you understand that it means however close they have come to what actually happened according to their projections, then that would constitute empercial information, and you could say emperical information "of a sort". However, I may be using the wrong terms for this, but I hope you see why I've used them. That information is important to understanding how good the models are working. And as bst as i can tell, they are doing prety good these days, in the near term, long term they seem to be too conservative.
Lets say the "ten or twelve IPCC climate models all had very different climate sensitivities — how, if they have different climate sensitivities, do they all nearly exactly model past temperatures?"
"If each embodies a correct model of the climate, and each has a different climate sensitivity, only one should replicate observed data. But they all do." Quote: www.climate-skeptic.com/2011/07/return-of-the-plug.html Still think the Models are "Doing pretty good these days"?
Quoting Drewski:
The Arctic has NOT lost 75% of ice volume, nor even 75% of sea ice expanse. And the measured effects of warming that may or may not be evident in the Arctic are not automatically due to increased CO2 at the pole. In any case, the CO2 is present everywhere in amazing equal concentrations.
www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs /10.1162/rest.91.1.1
Models are used primarily to test variables rather than complete systems. The virtual world generator, which is the general technical description of these things, does not attempt to built a fully realistic model that demonstrates how the global systems work. Instead the generator is a composite of as many known variables and outputs which either run the system or result from it. After setting the model in motion, typically at accelerated virtual speed, individual inputs are changed so that the outputs can be measured and compared. These results are useful to learn about the properties and characteristics of the variables, NOT to learn more about how real system operates. As the variables become better understood and calculated, the system does improve and more closely approximate the real thing, that being earth's atmosphere in this case.
www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/rest.91.1.1
Danny, you have a cognitive disorder that does not allow you to reason. I say hello and chit chat with anyone. But when someone is claiming the sky is falling, when it clearly is not. And when that person uses a falsehood to try and steal my treasure and my freedoms, I will fight as if my life depended upon it. You are trying to take what is not yours, by spreading falsehoods. That is evil. Period.
Quit lying about me too. I am not full of hate, I do not spread hate, I combat evil. What you spread is tyranny, pure evil. Stop.
You think I am wrong about my position, well then, what are you worried about? If you are right, then nothing's going to happen. And that includes tings political as well as climate. Do you really believe congress is going to act enough to impose on your daily freedoms? That even if they do, your freedoms are going to vanish? Maybe you can look at it this way, those Democrats in congress are just as fond of their money as the Republicans. Do you really think they are going to throw away that money on regulation and taxes on the individual? I doubt it. They havn't yet, and they, just the same as the Republicans, are dillying around and putting it off as long as they can. It's pitiful to me but you otta be happy.
Let me ask you this, what is this tyranny you speak of? What will it look like if all your fears are manifested?
That is evil.
I am paying more for energy than is necessary, and that prevents me from doing things I would otherwise be free to do.
That is stealing my treasure and freedoms.
The money wasted on the fraud known as AGW is enough to provide shelter, food, clothing and medical care for every human being on the planet. They are being denied a freedom known as "life".
There are REAL problems that humanity faces, and AGW is not one of them. The people who continue to lie about the science, for their own personal promotion, are killing fellow humans. Period.
That Danny, is pure evil.
The folks that do not understand they are losing freedoms, never had any, intellectually.
You are a sick puppy.
It's damned annoying when trying to solve difficult problems.
hey man, have you tried to submit a paper before on your rock studies?
Don't give me that wounded dove crap! You brought this on yourself through wilful ignorance.
have you tried to submit a paper before on your rock studies?
Two different parties here have explained that it is not "my" rock study. It is the geologic record which is studied by all geologists as students. We have covered this already, ad nauseum.
Danny, you do not like being called names, but there is little I can call you besides "Danny", that would be both truthful and kind.
Now quit wasting my time.
I'm just sitting around trolling, got nothing better to do today and actually for the next couple of weeks. You may end this converstaton anytime you like, but if you want to keep responding, I got time and so do as you wish.
You don't even see it. Obtuse.
However, I must second Gator's reply to you. This is NOT HIS rock study. The evidence of global climate history we cite draws from the worldwide, universal record which has taken generations of geologists (from professionals to hobbyists) to assemble. It is a millions, if not billions, of pages testament that describes how the surface of the earth has changed over thousands, millions and billions of years.
And believe it or not, many many of these researchers of written as well as published their works. If you are interested in one of these that is also enjoyable reading, look up Tony Hallam works. He was Professor Emeritus at Birmingham (England) University for many years and during a period before the global warming shadow loomed to darken everyone's scientific efforts.
There are countless other sources to seek out, but if you want readability and a clear picture, I have found Hallam's works to be unequalled and immensely authoritative.
I'm no climate scientist (praise the lord) but to my mind this actual evidence (as opposed to modelled evidence) leads me to believe that things were warmer then than they are now.
The vostock icecores (and other evidence)indicate that that warming was global
The cores also show that the earth warms and cools as part of its natural rhythm.
The earth has stopped warming despite increasing co2 levels.
It should be back to the drawing board for the AGW theorists dont you think?
My doings here (mostly being a troll) are to try and see what I can do to thwart the violent verbal goings on amongst the liberals and conservatives on this issue and others. As you can see by my conversations with Gator, I ain't gettin' to far.
I've been asking people here this question:
Being that I am an alarmist, do you see me only that way, do you hate me for that stance, do you think it is possible for 'you' to like me in spite of my stance given a chance to get to know one another?
Danny, every one of those organizations gets their opinion from the IPCC, and I have shown you conclusively that the IPCC cannot account for natural variability. Ergo, they cannot blame CO2, man made or otherwise. None of the above organizations have done their own homework and few have read the IPCC reports in detail as I have.
So there is no scientific basis for AGW.
And hey, I appreciate your last couple of responses.
Danny, this is not about belief systems, it is about evidence. You may believe that you can flap your arms and fly, and profess as much, but you will still need to provide evidence.
Again, this is not about "feelings" and "beliefs".
IPCC AR4... 2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing
www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-1.html
This shows that the IPCC admits to a "low" to "very low" understanding of 13 out of 16 IDENTIFIED forcings.
I have heard climate scientists refer to "hundreds" of forcings at work.
It is literally impossible to assign blame to any one forcing with this immense wealth of climate ignorance.
If you cannot understand this simple concept, I cannot help you.
Global temperatures have remained statistically steady for the last 15 years. All those letters you listed accept that as a fact. (add the CRU to your list too)
They interpret that as (yes but....)the world is still warming and the current situation is a mere lull in the process, albeit unforseen and not predicted by any of the models.
I ask you to look at the temperature sets and confirm back that temperatures have not risen for the last 15 years
Why would you choose to be an "ALARMIST!!!?" That seems to suggest that you think it is a good idea to instill panic among the public, and as an alarmist, you wish to do this for unfounded reasons. While you may believe the underlying cause is just, you think it is proper to make them react in severe ways when calm reason is called for.
I think the sentiment that sums up a scientists personal relation ship with his or her work is respectful astonishment. Even the discover of something that is potentially deadly causes fascination. An honest presentation of the facts and findings known so far is the responsibility of the scientists who have a story to tell. It is up to others to decide what to do with this information . . . for the most part. Today we have "scientists" who invent problems in one breath, and dictation solutions to them in the next. This is a gross case of malpractice.
Do you think these draconian measures are a good idea?
Will you willingly pay them?
Do you think these proceeds are actually going to help anybody supposedly "damaged" by carbon dioxide?
Of course not. But you have sided with those who wish to inflict this tyrannical garbage upon all of us. And that makes you a tool.
Danny is still commenting just to get attention, at least that seems to be the only point in his comments anymore. Stopped reading them days ago.
Their efforts would be much better spent on other areas of the environment which are in need of attention and where human activity can make a difference.
As I've said before: Worry about global warming is like fussing over the paint job on a sinking ship. We have better things to worry about than the non-issue of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere. Case closed.
Now if you please I have work and school to deal with so do not address any further comments to me as I a) will not read them, b) will not reply.
Turns out I do have some things to do, you'll be relieved of me a while. I sincerely wish you all the best, good luck with your cause. Believe it or not I am sure you do have some things to say, do what you must and be as happy as you can in this screwed up world. Later dudes and dudetts.
"UNEP has identified Afghanistan as one of the countries most vulnerable to climate change."
Time for the UN to mandate hybrids and EV's for car bombs!
The most amazing thing is that someone actually was proud enough of this "finding", to put in print! They just don't get it.