Heartland Institute Learning To Troll On Billboards

Fluffeh writes "The Heartland Institute is a lovely group of folks who take issue with mainstream climate science. They organize an annual get-together of like minded folk and talk trash about environmental change. 'The people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly on the radical fringe of society.' (That's from a press release!). Recently, when they were tricked by a researcher into sending him a lot of internal documents, they decided to go on the offensive and also get some more media attention. After all, any story is a good story, right? Launching a billboard with the Unabomber on it with the slogan 'I still believe in Global Warming. Do You?' was just the start, with the institute planning Fidel Castro, Charles Manson and possibly even Osama Bin Laden. That's when even their stout backers threatened to walk away, backing started to dry up — and it seems that common sense started to prevail — but only so far as to stop them from making their message too public."

Comments

crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

Shills for the oil industry.

Re:crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

and it seems that common sense started to prevail

Of course, "common sense" means "you agree with me".

Launching a billboard with the Unabomber on it with the slogan 'I still believe in Global Warming. Do You?' was just the start, with the institute planning Fidel Castro, Charles Manson and possibly even Osama Bin Laden.

I've seen some crazy Linux advocates, real rabid foaming-at-the-mouth types who think you're just a stupid piece of shit if you disagree with them in any way. Does that mean I should never use Linux? Or should I realize these were a tiny vocal minority of Linux users and still evaluate Linux on its merits?

It's one thing to laugh at this group and their ineffective methods, but AGW proponents need something more convincing than "see we found a group of crazies who don't agree with us" if they want to be persuasive. Yeah, I see how you are trying to imply that one group of nutters disagrees therefore the only sane thing to do is to agree, but that's hardly scientific. Save the propaganda techniques for advertising mmkay?

Besides if you want to troll billboards in America, how about a nice big billboard on a high-traffic road that reads "LOSE WEIGHT YOU DISGUSTING FATBODIES!" That would definitely get some attention. Like every person with a deviant and unhealthy lifestyle (e.g. alcoholics, smokers) fatties who eat too much have a lot of denial and get really very upset when you suggest that they could stop eating so much more calories than they burn.

Re:crazy

[Chrisq]

crazy

Shills for the oil industry.

Strictly speaking shills for the oil industry are not crazy, just immoral and money-grabbing.

Re:crazy

[Miseph]

AGW proponents don't need to prove deniers are crazy to prove their point... that's what science is for.

One side sees this primarily as a scientific question to be resolved through inquiry and research... the other views it primarily as a political problem to be resolved through rhetoric and propaganda. To be sure, both sides are engaged in some degree of each, but at the end of the day it does make a difference whether the scientists seek out the politicians or the politicians seek out the scientists.

Re:crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. Sorry if science has a liberal bias, but the first post sounds pretty accurate. Yours sounds like the ranting of someone who doesn't let facts cloud beliefs. This whole 'fair and balanced' thing need not apply when one side is crazy.

Re:crazy

[squiggleslash]

Curious to know what well funded entities are paying money to people to have them make up stuff that would encourage people to want "Big Government".

One thing I'd like to know is this: for the last few decades there's been a concerted campaign to make conservatives distrustful of science. I don't mean conservatives are (although the fact most of the ones I know insist that AGW is a hoax is a problem), I mean that there are hundreds of millions of dollars being funneled into groups like The Heartland Institute and Cato specifically because however non-partisan they claim to be, they do, ultimately, aim their messages at the Republican party and conservatives in general.

We've seen this on AGW, on tobacco's links to cancer, on asbestos, to a certain extent on evolution (though that's explainable from the conservative church groups), and I'm beginning to wonder if the minor flare up we've seen recently about vaccines isn't going to grow into another example, though there's no evidence they're targeting any political group yet.

So here's what I want to know:

1. Why? Why target conservatives specifically with anti-science propaganda? Why aren't liberals being targeted too? (Arguments like "Conservatives are more gullible" will be ignored for obvious reasons.)

2. Why is there no backlash from conservatives themselves? How many conservatives actually want to (a) be subject to anti-science propaganda that will, inevitably, result - thanks to the wonder of echo chambers - in believing something that's wrong and (b) want to be in a group that will inevitably be considered anti-science?

What gives?

Re:crazy

[I_am_Jack]

Really? So if I oppose the Heartland Institute for being primarily funded by the oil industry and its cohorts, then I must be supporting Big Government. Your new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.

Re:crazy

[meerling]

It seems to me that science is not liberal or conservative, it's not a political construct though it may get caught up in politics. Instead, science is factual. It is based on observations, data, experiments, and facts. Gravity or superconductors don't change because of your party affiliation, nor does thermodynamics. Science has never been about belief, it's always been about proven predictability and repeatable results, something that politics have nothing to do with. I totally agree that the Faux slogan of 'Fair and Balanced' has nothing to do with science. That's because science was never unbalanced in the first place, it does what it was always meant to do and does it rather well with it's peer review system and it's logical and rational methods. As to fair, it's as 'fair' as anything that isn't a game or competition can be, even though some fools out there want to paint it as a circus.

By the way, the Heartland Institute is NOT scientific, it's a bunch of politically motivated crackpots that try to pretend they are. The sooner they drown in their own ignorance and lies, the better it will be for humanity.

Re:crazy

[drinkypoo]

Why aren't liberals being targeted too? (Arguments like "Conservatives are more gullible" will be ignored for obvious reasons.)

Denial is not a river in Egypt. So-called "conservatives" are more gullible. They're also not conservatives. They actually favor regulation of business, but they want it regulated how THEY want it regulated, not how the liberals want it. They ALSO want to tell you what you can do in your bedroom. They're fascists.

Why is there no backlash from conservatives themselves?

Because they're more gullible, and they think this shit is really clever.

A conservative is someone who wants government to regulate morality and to not regulate business. These people are vanishingly rare in the actual population. Most people are more centrist than they realize. But they are amazingly common in government. Moreover, they do not believe these regulations should apply to them. That means they're not really conservatives, either. They're what, oligarchists or something, I don't know what you'd really call it. But they don't believe what they're saying. The short form is "liars". Neither liberals nor conservatives are well-represented in government.

Re:crazy

[lexsird]

It's all one big pot of "Fascist Stew" that has been on the burner for quite a while. From your wording and "tone" I glean that you are a Con and are trying to put some reason to it all. You need far more objectivity.

Follow the money I say. This particular topic concerning this group interests me only in one aspect; who's funding them? My guess is, their backers wanted a low level background noise of decent, and instead got decent on "10" with an over the top message. This draws fire and attention, something they don't want.

One has to first free their own mind before they can have the objectivity to see how this fits into the big picture. I think you are starting to ask the right questions. But if you follow this down the rabbit hole, it gets really ugly. Be prepared to examine all of your instilled values as they are part of the issue of a deeply propagandized nation. Here is a barometer for you; The more sacred the cow, the more it should be tipped.

Follow the money for the answers you seek.

Re:crazy

[Scareduck]

Curious to know what well funded entities are paying money to people to have them make up stuff that would encourage people to want "Big Government".

That would be... big government.

Re:crazy

[Coisiche]

The wikipedia summary for conservatism answers both questions...

...promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity...

Re:crazy

[mcgrew]

If you are going to call someone a "shill" for the people paying the bills, then you have to be fair and apply the same standard for both side.

Yes, if both sides are shilling. A shill pretends to be an outside observer when he's actually being paid by the side he's representing. It's a traditional carnival/magic show trick where the magician reads the mind of a "stranger" from the audience.

If Bill Gates signs on to /. as an AC and says Windows is the best OS on earth, he's shilling. If he signs in as himself and says the same thing, he's not.

The oil companies have an agenda, and they pretend to not be behind the deniers. That makes them shills. If someone from the solar industry put up billboards warning about global warming without a "paid for by Solar Inc" they would also be shilling.

The climatologists who are warning about GW aren't shills. They're scientists.

Do you really believe that Climate Change is a hoax perpetrated by government to raise your taxes or something? You do realize that the AGW folks (Big Oil) benefit from big government, right?

Re:crazy

[khallow]

AGW proponents don't need to prove deniers are crazy to prove their point

Then why do they expend so much effort trying? For example, in the last link the author states:

Heartland's continued efforts in this area seem to risk turning it into a single-issue think tank. And that may actually make sense; the leaked financial documents indicate that some of its largest donations come from single individuals who are targeting money for climate efforts.

A scientist sacrificed his career to obtain this information fraudulently (as well as forging a memo to sex up the leak when the existing information wasn't good enough). Why wasn't the science good enough for him?

One side sees this primarily as a scientific question to be resolved through inquiry and research... the other views it primarily as a political problem to be resolved through rhetoric and propaganda.

Sure. So which "side" is which? The side that uses terms like "denier" (and equates them to crazy people) strikes me as the "rhetoric and propaganda" side.

Re:crazy

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Mod parent up! The sad truth is that if you teach fundamentalist [insert favorite religion here] to a person, you've automatically taught that person to think irrationally, opening them up to belief in anti-AGW, creationism, flat earth, a permanently growing economy and so on.

This is convenient for politicians and those who profit from the sale of religion or other belief systems. It is inconvenient, and may be fatal in the long term, for humanity.

Re:crazy

[i kan reed]

Except heartland shilling for the oil industry is a well documented fact, and you can check their funding sources and output very easily and see it.

You, on the other hand, are just blindly insulting a stranger on the internet. We're all impressed with your debate skills.

Re:crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

when you set your 'lambs' up to believe in bullshit and turn them against right-thinking and science, what DO you expect? you expect a lifetime of being shown non-intelletual ways is going to reverse itself suddenly? when you 'get' people very young and embed this emotional seed (religion), its nearly impossible to counteract later on in life. its often a life sentence of stupidity that they'll never get out from under.

what do they do, then? revel in it! rolling around like pigs in mud. 'look how stupid we are , WHEEEEE!'. seriously, its not far from that.

'god fearing people' also fear knowledge and reason. its a perfect marriage with the republicans. 100% perfect for the *modern* republicans, at least.

how could a group be so anti-science you ask? look around and see the new jesus-land (middle of US and almost all its south) that america has become. I'm amazed we get ANY science done in the US, anymore. all I see is christians forcing their views on people, in the laws and in cultures they don't understand and don't belong.

'liberal' is one who seeks higher understanding. we can see what the morons are doing and we're not joining in with their race-to-the-bottom.

Mods, how can this be anything but flamebait rated? There is no discourse here expanding the discussion in a meaningful way. This is nothing but pure hate bashing with strawmen arguments and stereotyping.

Re:crazy

[goldstein]

It might also be noted that some influential fundamentalist Christian churches believe that the world is coming to an end within a few decades and that there is also a belief that God will provide everything that man needs. It follows that long term thinking/planning is pointless and that any concern whatever about the environment betrays a mistrust in God. Just the perfect recipe for completely irresponsible behavior.

Re:crazy

[i kan reed]

How do you keep getting modded up? I really don't get it.

Not a thing you've said makes sense. Governments don't benefit from AGW or even belief in it. Here's a hint for you: governments rule by fiat, by and large, and if they have a thing they feel they need or want to control, they can. You simply allege a conspiracy and motives and move on. How, exactly does a government benefit from climate change research? Be specific. If you just say "it lets government get bigger" you're only buying further into your own delusions rather than actually answer the question. Tell me who benefits from "bigger government" as a completely abstract concept.

Should the underlying motive for proving AGW exist, you've still alleged a monstrous conspiracy including every scientist who's worked on the subject in any meaningful way. Does it not give you pause to say "Not one of these scientists has enough ethical principles to publish their actual findings instead of made-up ones"? Think about the scope and scale of what you're talking about. I honestly can't get into your head where it's easier for everyone disagreeing with you on every forum on the planet is part of a massive conspiracy being easier to accept than the possibility that atmospheric composition affects planetary cooling rates.

How do you come to the conclusion that the government is bribing scientists?
How do you arrive at the notion that scientists are complicit?
How do you decide people agreeing with them are shills?

Those are not easy conclusions to arrive at, but you jump straight to them without any of the in-between parts.

Re:crazy

[khallow]

Curious to know what well funded entities are paying money to people to have them make up stuff that would encourage people to want "Big Government".

As another replier noted, the obvious well funded entities are the governments themselves and the entities that cash public fund checks. The US Federal government for example spends well over three trillion dollars a year. One doesn't need a near mystical understanding of human nature to know that spending on that level creates a vast conflict of interest.

Then there are numerous groups that want regulation to change human behavior. Sometimes that desire is well-justified and sometimes they're just busy-bodies. But a strong, "big government" is much more able to make such regulatory changes than a less powerful, "small government".

One thing I'd like to know is this: for the last few decades there's been a concerted campaign to make conservatives distrustful of science.

What makes this "concerted campaign" unusual is that it was intended to have the opposite effect. Cry "wolf" with false pretenses often enough, as say, Greenpeace or the US's Southern Poverty Law Center (an institution that attempts to fight racism, primarily in the US) does, and people stop listening to you.

We've seen this on AGW, on tobacco's links to cancer, on asbestos, to a certain extent on evolution (though that's explainable from the conservative church groups), and I'm beginning to wonder if the minor flare up we've seen recently about vaccines isn't going to grow into another example, though there's no evidence they're targeting any political group yet.

Oh, you meant that sort of campaign. Well, it's worth noting here that we haven't actually seen this sort of campaign. Merely claiming that there's a campaign (and just listing a few hot button topics from the past few decades) doesn't mean there is such a campaign. I think you get my drift here.

1. Why? Why target conservatives specifically with anti-science propaganda? Why aren't liberals being targeted too? (Arguments like "Conservatives are more gullible" will be ignored for obvious reasons.)

They aren't being specifically targeted. In fact, liberals are probably the intended target, because they're still listening.

2. Why is there no backlash from conservatives themselves? How many conservatives actually want to (a) be subject to anti-science propaganda that will, inevitably, result - thanks to the wonder of echo chambers - in believing something that's wrong and (b) want to be in a group that will inevitably be considered anti-science?

The backlash is quite evident such as the criticism that showed up during the leaking of emails and code from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (which incidentally was heavily dependent on public funding). Why do you think it's not there?

Re:crazy

[TapeCutter]

It's one thing to laugh at this group and their ineffective methods

Crazy yes, ineffective hardly! They've been selling the best anti-science propoganda money can buy for almost 2 decades and more than a few Americans have sucked it down like it was chicken gravy. Science cannot compete with cheap and nasty PR, especially when a large chunk of the population is scientifically illiterate.

Re:crazy

[Score Whore]

One thing I'd like to know is this: for the last few decades there's been a concerted campaign to make conservatives distrustful of science.

That's your problem right there. Assuming you're referencing the recent study, you've accepted statements of the media blindly without actually looking into background of their statements. The study says nothing about trust in science. It's about trust in scientific institutions, colleges and government agencies and the like. The question used for this analysis was:

The GSS asked respondents the following
question: “I am going to name some institutions in this country. As far as the people running these institutions are concerned, would you say you have a great deal of confidence, only some confidence, or hardly any confidence at all in them [the Scientific Community]?”

The question has nothing to do with actual beliefs and trust in science. Hell, it'd be like saying prefer to have sex with teenagers because they answered "Selena Gomez" when asked "Of these three women which would you have sex with if you had to have sex with one of them: Rosanne Barr, Betty White, Selena Gomez?"

Re:crazy

[phantomfive]

the other views it primarily as a political problem to be resolved through rhetoric and propaganda.

Which side is that? As far as I can tell, AGW has been politicized for a long, long time. Ultimately the wheels of science will turn, overcoming liars and politicizers on both sides.

Re:crazy

[guises]

One side sees this primarily as a scientific question to be resolved through inquiry and research... the other views it primarily as a political problem to be resolved through rhetoric and propaganda.

The problem is that this isn't true anymore. The science is pretty much settled, so it's all political now and scientists generally suck at that.

And yes, they do need to prove deniers crazy. Or at least convince the majority of people that this is the case. It's the only way to get anything done when there's this much money working in opposition.

Re:crazy

[mcgrew]

One thing I'd like to know is this: for the last few decades there's been a concerted campaign to make conservatives distrustful of science.

Well, that's pretty simple, actually. If you're not in the 1% and you're conservative (in the modern sense, today's "conservatives" would call Eisenhower and Reagan liberals) you're fighting against your own interests. Notice that the conservatives were all for continuing the tax breaks for the rich that Bush pushed through, but against tax breaks for the middle class and fought those breaks tooth and nail? They're for flat taxes, which would only benefit the rich? They claim to be against deficits but are for war, the most expensive of government programs? They're against medicare, social security, spending on public education, and everything else that only benefits the poor and middle class?

Anyone earning less than a quarter million per year who votes Republican is voting against his own interests.

We've seen this on AGW, on tobacco's links to cancer, on asbestos,

Again, conservatives are for big business and only big business. They're funded by oil companies, tobacco companies, banks, etc. and they have lots of money to dupe foolish middle class people.

to a certain extent on evolution (though that's explainable from the conservative church groups)

What I don't understand is conservative church groups. Conservatives are for everything Jesus taught against. Taxes? Christ said "render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's and to God that which is God's". He taught against arrogance (the meek shall inherit the earth), pride, greed, the death penalty, etc. Conservatives want everyone to have a job, Christ preached about the lillies of the field. Conservatives are against the homeless, Jesus WAS homeless (remember that next time you curse a bum).

Jesus was a liberal. So why are there conservative churches?

Why is there no backlash from conservatives themselves?

Because if they're middle class they've already been duped, and if they're rich they're the ones doing the duping.

Re:crazy

[avgjoe62]

Frankly, neither should be trusted. Fraud has been proven on both sides. For example, scientists that disagreed with the UN report on global warming had their names included as if they signed off on it. Scientists have admitted exaggerating the effects of climate change. Scientists have been caught trying to silence critics of their work.

Citations, please. It is impossible to agree or disagree with an opinion. Please provide citations so those reading can see the basis of your opinions to see if they come to the same conclusion.

Re:crazy

[TheGratefulNet]

That's why I hate religion and despise religionists. They have so stacked the deck that their ridiculous ideas are treated with respect.

bears repeating.

they do NOT deserve modern man's respect.

sadly, they keep getting it, though.

when they brainwash your kids at a young age (sky daddies that rule for good and punsh the bad. yeah, right...) its an embedding process. you attach religion to 'motherhood, baseball and apple pie' and its nearly impossible to detangle that later on.

would it be legal for you to teach your kid intentionally stupid and incorrect things? as kids, there's a joke that is often played on younger kids by older ones: they 'talk wrong' to intentionally mess up the kids' minds. make up words and use them a lot or use real words incorrectly, on purpose, to confuse the young. its a 'game' older brothers sometimes play to younger ones; but learn from this 'game': when you indoctrinate young kids, they don't have a choice and its you who are ABUSING THEM by filling their heads with junk 'lessons'. I consider this child abuse; but sadly, religion is too rooted in the US and not enough thinking people will stand up and call it for what it is.

its going to take a long, long time for humanity to rid itself of its sky daddy lies. until we do, expect an intentionally dumbed-down populace to thrive and actually *enjoy* their ignorance. "thinking is HARD!" (sigh)

Re:crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

The moment you say "the science is settled", you set yourself up for disaster.

Many before you said the same things. People saying the world was flat, that heavier than air vehicles were impossible, etc.- all saying, "the science is settled".

Nothing in your statement is scientific.

Re:crazy

[BronsCon]

Besides if you want to troll billboards in America,

you should put them under bridges.

Re:crazy

[goldstein]

There is a huge difference. Mainstream science involves publication in scientific journals with stringent peer review processes. There are quality control mechanisms in place, starting with the journal editor(s) and reviews by other experts in the field. Furthermore, if you publish a paper that is later shown to have contained deliberately falsified data, your reputation and career will be permanently destroyed. Furthermore, it is difficult to get a paper published if it doesn't contribute something new. Also, if you submit a paper which basically amounts to taking the same data that Dr. X analyzed to get more or less the same result, the likelihood that it will be accepted for publication in a reputable journal, or even a conference, is nil. There is really no advantage, and serious drawbacks, in attempting to achieve a conclusion that isn't supported by scientific evidence and analysis. The flip side is that most of whatever scientists that can be counted in the the anti-AGW community have minimal background in climate science or closely related areas. The remainder tend to be eccentric figures or those who directly receive money directly from from the fossil fuel industry or indirectly through an affiliated organization such as the Heartland Institute. Note that in such cases, you can be certain that the funding organizations are looking for certain results and anyone receiving money from them knows that. I find it really curious that many of those who see climate science as the harbinger of really big government seem to be perfectly accepting of new measures for reduced legal rights, internet surveillance , etc.

Re:crazy

[MightyMartian]

None of your examples are in fact true. Does it bother you that you cannot even come up with counterexamples that ever happened?

I know of no one who said air vehicles were impossible. Certainly the Greeks pondered it and da Vinci designed air vehicles. As to the world being flat, well yes, in Bronze Age and pre-Bronze Age epochs, many cosmographical myths stated a flat earth, but we've known for something like 2500 not only the shape of the Earth, but its circumference with reasonable accuracy.

For you to in fact provide examples, you should, well, you know bring up some examples from the era of science, and the example has to be something that the general scientific consensus pointed in one direction when ultimately it was determined that it was the other way around. Good luck with that, there aren't a lot of scientific theories that had gained general consensus that have been outright falsified. Big ones like the Steady State model of the universe presented enormous problems that even when there was some general acceptance, Einstein was still forced to insert a Cosmological Constant because his own theory actually demonstrated the steady state model to be false.

But by picking at low lying fruit, like what some Ancient Babylonian believed to be true, you rather prove the point that the pseudo-skeptics aren't terribly interested in a scientific argument at all, but rather in rhetorical games. As to your air vehicle thing, more pure bollocks.

Re:crazy

[jdgeorge]

Well, the pathetic thing is that none of the people they're putting on billboards have made any public statements about global warming.

Re:crazy

[rocket rancher]

So here's what I want to know:

1. Why? Why target conservatives specifically with anti-science propaganda? Why aren't liberals being targeted too? (Arguments like "Conservatives are more gullible" will be ignored for obvious reasons.)

2. Why is there no backlash from conservatives themselves? How many conservatives actually want to (a) be subject to anti-science propaganda that will, inevitably, result - thanks to the wonder of echo chambers - in believing something that's wrong and (b) want to be in a group that will inevitably be considered anti-science?

What gives?

Nice way to frame the debate, dude. I'll reframe it by suggesting the answer to both your questions is pretty straight forward. The answer is rooted in the psychology of faith, i.e. the irrationality of believing in something in the absence of evidence, or more to the point in this debate, to continue to disbelieve in something in the face of steadily mounting evidence. You say gullible is an off-limits term; I say fine, let's use deliberate self-deception, instead.

For your first question, conservatives are being targeted because propaganda only works on people who *believe* in something, i.e., only on the faithful. Propoganda -- by definition -- can't be aimed at rational people. For your second question, there is no backlash from conservatives for largely the same reasons. People hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest, to quote Paul Simon's lyrics in "The Boxer." Rational people are not affected by propaganda, but people of faith are, and they will easily ignore the obvious lies and distortions in propaganda as long as the message being propogated affirms their irrational beliefs, i.e., their faith.

Re:crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

A well funded organization vs a lone gunman, one represents a side much more than the other.

They can still be crazy, like, bat-shit crazy, without it being rhetoric / propaganda. In fact, look at the billboard. Does someone who is not crazy and wants an honest discussion going to be doing that?

Re:crazy

[sycodon]

slower political change that makes smaller, immediate changes with measurable expected outcomes so that we can, scientifically, evaluate our decisions and continue, advance, or eliminate programs based on their results.

That is pretty much right there is the essential essence of Conservatism.

Re:crazy

[jellomizer]

Humans are the key component to global warming, in order to fix this people have to change... People don't like that. Global warming supporters tend to not really know the science and turn it into fear mongering taking the 3rd or 4th sigma out as a high probability of happening, scaring people to change their ways or else something will happen soon, it didn't happen soon... People don't like to be mislead. There is a poor job in educating the masses the difference between global warming and local weather trends, so people see local weather isn't that much different, especially if you get a real cold winter, or a mild summer... This adds to the impression that they are being lied too. Many of the proposed changes to help fix global warming, requires reducing factors that will hurt the economy... In many peoples lifetime they remember the Communist Scare, where the Soviets were trying to discredit the benefits of a capitalism, if they knew about global warming back in the 1950's they would have had a field day with it. The global warming unfortunately had became a political debate, not a scientific discussion, So those people who were afraid of the actions went to their politicians (And the ones that fear changing their actions are people who work in the areas that causes most of the green house gasses, and/or live in more rural areas where such areas makes it hard to find alternative energy sources, in rural areas) Who tend to be republicans. So now we have a bunch of republicans fighting the Global Warming, to keep their jobs, and the Democrats are trying to defend the science to keep their jobs (Democrats are popular in Cities and College areas). Thus the new debate. I am not congratulating the Left of being pro-science, they are just giving science the mouse service because their areas where the voters are are more pro-science.

Re:crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

Those are interesting questions. I'll try to answer with a link and with a joke.

Link: I strongly recommend downloading and reading Bob Altemeyer's book "The Authoritarians". In this book (75% scientific footnotes you can skip, 25% mindblowing clearly written sociology research) he makes a clear distinction between "right-wing authoritarian followers" (the main topic of the book) on the one hand (because you can't have a right-wing movement, dictatorship etc. without all those people who just neatly obey what TPTB instruct them to do), and "right-wing authoritarian leaders", who are a rare breed of people who have no scruples at all and happen to have found they are really good at gaining power over the backs of the "right-wing authoritarian followers" which they manipulate and enthuse.


Joke: This is a lame joke, I'm not exactly sure why I'm telling it here on Slashdot, but it felt appropriate somehow so indulge me.

It is a stormy night. Two men are driving on a motorway through the storm, looking stressed-out, tired and wary of the road. The autoradio is on softly but suddenly it gets interrupted by a blaring emergency traffic report:
"Attention! A wrong-way driver(*) has been detected on the E0 road driving northward! Keep to the right and try to signal the driver with your lights!"
Says the driver to his passenger: "ONE wrong-way driver?!?! Hah! I've had to dodge at least TWENTY of those idiots already!"

(*) the joke is marginally more funny in Dutch where the word is "spookrijder" -- "ghost rider".

Re:crazy

[georgenh16]

Conservatives are not what you say they are - I like to think of us as practical libertarians

We want less government, but not anarchy.
We want lower taxes, but everyone to pay their fair share (e.g. flat tax)
We want people to live moral lives, but we don't want a powerful state to force them to do so.
We want government to be as local and accountable as possible, with the federal government much smaller.

Fascists are Communists are both Totalitarian Statists. Only the rhetoric is different. Fascists are nationalist and say they don't own the businesses, while Communists are populist and say "the people" own the businesses, but in both cases the state controls everything.

Conservatives want a small state, exactly the opposite of your fallacious cry of "fascists!"

Re:crazy

[azalin]

Ether theory, Newtons Models (still working in most but not all scales), electrons are particles, origin of the species, miasma ...
There are probably a couple more, but these are the ones that came to mind first. Science is and has always been evolving.
I totally agree that we are f*cking up earth big time and that it would really be a good idea to conserve energy, and stop burning up resources like there is no tomorrow. The data shows that we changed the atmosphere and it shows things are changing, but acting would be inconvenient and expensive (somewhat) so we ignore the problem.
On the other hand , dismissing outright proof because it doesn't fit your world view isn't such a new idea either.

Re:crazy

[thefixer(tm)]

Shock absorbers, you use them like shock absorbers...

Re:crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

...a political problem to be resolved through rhetoric and propaganda. To be sure, both sides are engaged in some degree of each, but at the end of the day it does make a difference whether the scientists seek out the politicians or the politicians seek out the scientists.

Nope. You've just provided another example of the balance fallacy.

There's a BIG difference between the type of people who get into science as a profession and people who get into political lobbying as a profession. Equating the two is just stupid.

Re:crazy

[MightyMartian]

Yes ether might count, but Newton's models still work for non-relativistic speeds, so are just a special case of GR, electrons like all force mediators can be considered particles, origin of the species if it refers to Darwin is still generally accepted, with modification, wasn't aware miasma was ever a "scientific" theory.

Re:crazy

[SockPuppetOfTheWeek]

None of your examples are in fact true. ... I know of no one who said air vehicles were impossible

I beg your pardon? What, have you never heard of Kelvin? Yes, that Kelvin. The one who did all the stuff with thermodynamics and heat transfer and has a temperature scale named after him - you might recognize that, at least?

Then you do know of someone who said that heavier-than-air vehicles were impossible:

"heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible" (Australian Institute of Physics, 1985) ... "I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning...I would not care to be a member of the Aeronautical Society." (1986)

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Kelvin.html

But hey, I suppose now you'll read that link, discover that his interpretation of the two laws of thermodynamics led him to be a young-earther, and you'll dismiss him from the annals of history...

I'd have liked to hear what he had to say about global warming, though.

Re:crazy

[azalin]

Before I get flamed for the last example, let me clarify I meant the way people thought about it before, Darwin and others came up with an explanation and a sound theory. Some people didn't get that one either, so global warming is in good company.

Re:crazy

[DerekLyons]

That's some lovely stereotyping you've built your strawmen out of - and a lovely illustration of how widespread the type of discourse that Heartland is indulging in really is.

Re:crazy

[georgenh16]

I don't mean to speak for the parent poster, but here's my 2 cents:

"Tell me who benefits from "bigger government" as a completely abstract concept." - Government employees, government funded researchers, politicians, and the businesses they write earmarks for, etc. Pretty simple really...

"possibility that atmospheric composition affects planetary cooling rates." - We can acknowledge this without accepting with 100% certainty that current models that statistically fit old data can accurately predict future temperatures. We can also disagree about the potential effects, and politically what to do about it.

"How do you come to the conclusion that the government is bribing scientists?" - They're funding most of them. Not bribes per se, but grants flow to those the government approves of.

I believe most of the scientists (and most of the believers or "shills") are not part of a conspiracy, or getting paid by the government to create propaganda. But they are "jumping straight to" the "easy conclusion" that because the Earth has warmed for a couple decades, "it's all humans fault, and we need to tax somebody right now to avoid Armageddon".

Re:crazy

[Hillgiant]

That is pretty much right there is the essential essence of Conservatism.

To paraphrase Ghandi:
I like your Conservatism. Your Conservatives, on the other hand.

Since the mid-70's Conservatives have not been at all interested with efficiency in government programs. They have been focused on elimination of government programs. They do not want to do more with less, they want to do less with less (unless their district is involved, then they might be interested in doing less with more).

Re:crazy

[azalin]

My guess is that conservatism is about business as usual, keep things the way they are, avoid change and not rocking the boat.

Re:crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

Why wasn't the science good enough for him?

Because he realized that the majority of American voters are morons who can be easily persuaded by propaganda.

Re:crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

The side that uses terms like "denier" (and equates them to crazy people) strikes me as the "rhetoric and propaganda" side.

That's because you've made up your mind and won't be convinced by any amount of evidence, which is objectively crazy. It's not propaganda to call a crazy person crazy.

Re:crazy

[MightyMartian]

You will note that his expertise was not aeronautics. What you're doing is a sort of a reverse appeal to authority. This is no different than Fred Hoyle's anti-evolution claims. Just because someone is an expert in one field does not make them an expert in others.

Re:crazy

[sycodon]

Hint: When the Lemmings all run off the cliff, not all of them are in on it.

Re:crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

When you can't face reality, you are a denier of reality. Period.

When Copernicus showed a much simpler model of planetary motion and later Galileo observed it, they were labeled heretics by the church. It wasn't until John Paul II that the wrong perpetuated by the church was righted and the Roman Catholic church basically said they were wrong and science was right. This is why Roman Catholic church does not challenge science anymore (like they should not), but reserve their business to the world of the paranormal. The pope even indicated that evolution is not incompatible with christian beliefs - they don't want to repeat the "Galileo incident".

Now, we have similar deniers about reality, this being AGW. Something that has been shown to be increasingly more likely for decades.

So yes, deniers can't show that earth is not warming. They can't show that man is not responsible. All they can do is put labels on reality and say it can't be happening if they believe it hard enough. HTFU and deal with it, deniers!

Re:crazy

[Anonymous Meoward]

Most conservatives do cling very strongly to science, myself included. The wackos are just very loud

So.. where is this majority of conservatives to which you hint? They're too busy being the silent majority, I suppose.

Unfortunately for you, silence does imply approval.

Re:crazy

[sycodon]

We certainly seem to be doing less with more at the moment.

Re:crazy

[phantomfive]

I know of no one who said [heavier than] air vehicles were impossible.

Wow, you should look this stuff up. Lord Kelvin wasn't exactly a light-weight in the world of science. Politically he was the most powerful scientist in Britain, if not the world, at that time.

Re:crazy

[azalin]

I have to admit that miasma was more or less a placeholder for all the voodoo babble in the history of medicine and especially infections diseases. I probably should have used blood letting instead. Newtons (as I stated) still works in most, but not all circumstances, but was considered to be universal until relativity and quantum mechanics proved it not to be. Electrons are particles but at the same time waves (double slit experiment), which seriously transformed the previous concept of how one looks like. Though I'm not 100% up to date about the current quantum based models. And for Darwin, that was rather badly worded. I meant the concept people had before Darwin et al.

Re:crazy

[SockPuppetOfTheWeek]

What I'm doing is pointing out the irony of your ignorance of the guy who claimed that heavier-than-air flight was impossible; I'm sure you've heard of him, but weren't aware that he had an opinion on heavier-than-air flying machines. Particularly ironic, because his area of expertise was heat, and we're talking about global warming.

Re:crazy

[tbannist]

I think you're suffering from the "false consensus effect". I don't think your views are typical of actual conservative ideology. There are two types of conservatives (they are not mutually exclusive): fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. Fiscal conservatives want effective and efficient government, they want to pursue policies that reduce costs. They have also been largely chased out of the Republican party. Social conservatives want the government to enforce morality and social order. They don't like it when people don't conform to their moral and social codes. They are perfectly ok with a bigger government that benefits the "good" people and hurts the "bad" people.

You seem to be neither type of conservative. Of course, that was pretty obvious when you described yourself as practical libertarian. Own it, you're a libertarian and not a conservative. The difference is fiscal conservatives don't care about the size of the government, they care that tax money is spent efficiently and effectively. On the other hand libertarians care about liberty, freedom from taxes and freedom from rules. To libertarians there is no such thing as efficient or effective government spending (except to protect property rights).

Also, I don't think you understand what fascism is.

Re:crazy

[ArcherB]

Frankly, neither should be trusted. Fraud has been proven on both sides. For example, scientists that disagreed with the UN report on global warming had their names included as if they signed off on it. Scientists have admitted exaggerating the effects of climate change. Scientists have been caught trying to silence critics of their work.

Citations, please. It is impossible to agree or disagree with an opinion. Please provide citations so those reading can see the basis of your opinions to see if they come to the same conclusion.

...scientists that disagreed with the UN report on global warming had their names included as if they signed off on it...

I can't find the articles explaining who the authors were that were listed as in the IPCC report that disagreed with the conclusion that GW was man made. In the mean time, here is another article by an author who states what I said, that the IPCC was a political body, whose authors were selected by their representative governments, whose purpose was political, for example, to get the US to sign the Kyoto protocol. ...Scientists have admitted exaggerating the effects of climate change....

There was a Slashdot story on this not too long ago. ...Scientists have been caught trying to silence critics of their work....

This one is easy.

Re:crazy

[scot4875]

Conservatives want a small state, exactly the opposite of your fallacious cry of "fascists!"

Then please take your party back from whatever is currently running it. Please.

Until then, STFU about what conservatives want, because from what we've seen over the last 10 years, the conservative legislators in this country want: the TSA, the PATRIOT act, a constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage (wtf does that have to do with 'conservative' principles? Oh -- you've defined it as 'immoral' -- how convenient), denial of health care to anyone who can't afford it (and by God they'll make sure there are plenty of low paying jobs in places like Texas to make sure people can't afford it), no campaign finance reform (get money out of politics! Money is speech and you can't restrict how it's spent!), outlawing abortion and a half-century of legal precedent (again, you're perfectly happy with state use of force as long as it's something you *agree* with).

You're full of shit and so is your party. I'd happily vote for a Republican candidate if they were truly the less-evil option, but unfortunately I have to vote Democrat because I consider bad IP laws to be less-bad than all the crap Republicans promise they'll do.

--Jeremy

Re:crazy

[i kan reed]

I don't mean to speak for the parent poster, but here's my 2 cents:

Never hurts to hear another perspective.

"Tell me who benefits from "bigger government" as a completely abstract concept." - Government employees, government funded researchers, politicians, and the businesses they write earmarks for, etc. Pretty simple really...

Except they don't. Politicians benefit from being reelected, employees benefit from raises and promotions. Those don't mesh at all with the concept of bigger government. Not even a little, so I'll move on to...

Businesses that get earmarks, while the most plausible, don't do better from more regulation, they do better from more spending, and those are not the same. None of that fits the concept I was referring to. Furthermore we're getting even further separated from the people who are presenting the so-called false information, creating an even vaster conspiracy. The chain would be: businesses that get paid by the government have an unclear investment in the concept of a bigger government, so they buy law-makers, who instruct(by what means? laws? comitees? very public record here) the grant givers, who give grants to complicit scientists, who publish false information. Look at that chain of responsibility, and tell me it's robust and able to engage in both secrecy and efficacy all the way down.

"possibility that atmospheric composition affects planetary cooling rates." - We can acknowledge this without accepting with 100% certainty that current models that statistically fit old data can accurately predict future temperatures. We can also disagree about the potential effects, and politically what to do about it.

"How do you come to the conclusion that the government is bribing scientists?" - They're funding most of them. Not bribes per se, but grants flow to those the government approves of.

Yes, but you're missing an important characteristic here. The money comes first, the results second. What prevents the researcher from, you know, publishing their actual results? Many of them have tenure, therefore a well paying job-for-life, with benefits. There's just no liability there to make them dependent on creating favorable results. Besides that, most climatology research grants aren't even for global warming. There's no compelling reason to "play ball". Moreover, how do the researchers know that they're getting grants on the basis of positive results? Who would let them know?

Again, the only explanation is a conspiracy in which every researcher is a part. Which is crazy. Like, very crazy.

I believe most of the scientists (and most of the believers or "shills") are not part of a conspiracy, or getting paid by the government to create propaganda. But they are "jumping straight to" the "easy conclusion" that because the Earth has warmed for a couple decades, "it's all humans fault, and we need to tax somebody right now to avoid Armageddon".

Except it's 1.5 centuries of directly measured warming, with a clear trend towards acceleration. Not a couple decades. And the availability of ancillary data(thousand year old glaciers disappearing) is quite large. I think you'll find that taxes are not the only proposed plans for dealing with the problem, and there's a wealth of proposed actions, only a small subset of which are needed to be implemented to halt the problem within 50 years.

I again see nothing but broad-stroke conspiracy allegations, with nothing in the way of supporting evidence. As for me "jumping to the easy conclusion", I've studied meteorology, a dash of climatology, and the relevant data. No alternative hypothesis(I've looked at "Natural cycles", "stellar output", "bad measurements", and "alternate carbon sources") for current temperature trends has even a lick of correlation, nor do they have any substantial theoretical backing that could be called scientific in nature. The problem isn't that it's the easy conclusion, it's that it's the remaining one, ruling out the impossible.

Re:crazy

[i kan reed]

The good old "argument by analogy to fictional events".

Guess what, that doesn't happen. Next you'll tell me the free market is amazing because of how well Galt did.

Re:crazy

[i kan reed]

To clarify, this is an allegation that is easy to make and is never demonstrated through historical examples. The only justification I ever hear is by means of hypothetical examples.

Re:crazy

[scot4875]

George Soros.

Thanks for putting that right up front to let us know to quit reading.

--Jeremy

Re:crazy

[Uberbah]

Curious to know what well funded entities are paying money to people to have them make up stuff that would encourage people to want "Big Government".

As another replier noted, the obvious well funded entities are the governments themselves and the entities that cash public fund checks. The US Federal government for example spends well over three trillion dollars a year. One doesn't need a near mystical understanding of human nature to know that spending on that level creates a vast conflict of interest.

You don't have to have a doctorate in observation to see that's a lot of hand waving without being able to point to a single there there.

As opposed to the massive amounts of cash the oil industry throws at Congress, the subsidies given to the oil industry by members of both parties, opening up new areas for drilling by presidents of both parties, or that hugely profitable companies like Exxon and BP have been let off with slaps on the wrist for some of the wost environmental disasters in history. All of which are known, quantifiable, and indisputable....as to the crazy Soros-Gore conspiracy the Randians pretend is out there....

Re:crazy

[squiggleslash]

Treat this as a response to everyone who responded to my OP with a "Conservatives are stupid because they're religious and shit" thing:

No, that's not an answer, because it's not true.

My circle of friends includes many conservatives. The majority are smart, well educated, individuals, and actually, come to think of it, none of my conservative friends, excluding those met via family, offline are actually religious.

And yes, they'll argue till their blue in the face that AGW is a ridiculous liberal myth and they'll only nominally give some credit to the concept that tobacco causes cancer (in particular, the second hand smoke thing they'll treat as a complete myth.)

They are precisely the people targeted by groups like Heartland. They're not idiots. They like to think of themselves as free thinkers. But, nonetheless, relentless anti-AGW propaganda has left them thinking AGW is a giant conspiracy, despite the utter obvious absurdity of such a position.

What gives?

Re:crazy

[i kan reed]

Yes, that's true. I do not in fact have the qualifications to make a final assessment of the data. Regardless, I can answer crazy conspiracy theories directly.

Re:crazy

[moeinvt]

I hate to use these sweeping labels, but for the sake of argument, it's not necessary to invent problems to make "liberals" want big government. The mere presence of a problem (of which there is no shortage) is sufficient to generate demand for new federal laws and more government spending. Federal government is the proverbial hammer of the "liberals" and every problem imaginable looks like a nail.

An unfortunate number of "conservatives" have also consumed the "big government" Kool-Aid. Arguing the point that "government is not the solution", although typically true, seems to be a hopeless endeavor. Perhaps the only alternative strategy to stem the tide is to argue that there is no problem to begin with?

I'm certainly not going to provide any 'backlash' because I'm concerned that general recognition of a problem will generate the knee-jerk response of giving the federal government power to micro-manage our energy consumption.

Re:crazy

[geekoid]

Because the Heartland institute is lying, and using lies to change policy. They are backed by people who want to be able to dump what they want where every they want regardless of the effect. SO yes, people need to be aware that these people are lying to change policy.

One side has mountains of facts and data, has research every available hypothesis, and has came to a consensus based on all the current data. The other side has no facts, not supporting evidence and has resorted to comparing people who know the actual science to a mass murders.

his isn't a discussion where two side have pretty much equal wait in evidence, that would have been the 70's and 80s'.

That's why one group is deniers, and the other groups is actual science and fact based.

Re:crazy

[KhabaLox]

Yes ether might count,
  special case of GR,
with modification,

So what you're saying is that the general consensus of those theories when they first were developed has been shown to be wrong in some cases?

Couldn't it be that "AGW" as a theory is a "special case" that applies to some fairly specific set of circumstances related to the current state of the planet? Saying that any type of science is settled is just poor rhetoric.

Re:crazy

[KhabaLox]

Besides if you want to troll billboards in America,

you should put them under bridges.

Then what would we do with our homeless?

Re:crazy

[im_thatoneguy]

It comes down this. A technologically advanced society with a high population density *needs* regulation. The natural checks and balances in the world at this level of density start getting to the point of "just reduce the population back to equilibrium". So the only way to sustain a population such as ours is the introduction of technology.

We can't feed the world's population without industrial farming. We can't sustain population densities like we see without sewage and plumbing. We can't have a functioning economy without trade and massive transportation systems.

If you're walking you need no regulation. If you're driving you need a driver's license. If you're working by yourself you need no structure. If you're a part of a global supply chain with thousands of components you need schedules and order and precision.

If you live 30 miles from your neighbor you can fire your gun into the air and probably nothing bad will happen. Try that in Manhattan and you're bound to kill someone.

Density and industrialization necessitate collaboration and regulation. The problem is that the conservatives don't want it on ideological grounds. They physiologically don't want to be a social organism. Which is fine when you can live out in the woods by yourself or in a really small town. It doesn't work when you have a million people living in 3 square miles.

The reason Conservatives are targeting science is because science is the field of observation. The *reality* of the situation is that small government just empirically doesn't work. And when someone says that your belief empirically doesn't work you rightfully say that it is attacking your ideology. So if it's attacking your ideology it must be political. To quote Colbert "Reality has a well known liberal bias". The conservative war is a war on reality. Big government liberals just 'lucked out' and happened to be psychologically more in line with the direction society is leading.

Ironically conservatives are the hardest drivers of this change in reality. They don't believe in population regulation (Don't interfere with me), they are the largest proponents of industrialization (Don't interfere with my business) which is just accelerating our advancement to a world that needs regulation.

Re:crazy

[sycodon]

Good job of ignoring the point of the analogy.

Re:crazy

[i kan reed]

Clarify, please. By what mechanism could you possibly propose that climate scientists are similar to migrating rodents? An analogy works by common factors. This one sounds more like "lemmings are stupid(which as I indicated is a false assumption) therefor any other group in general agreement with itself is stupid". Was I misreading the claim because it was too minimalistic or off-topic?

Re:crazy

[MightyMartian]

But blood letting dates back to a point before the scientific discipline of medicine came into being. This is my point. Trying to invoke the bafflegab of the pre-scientific era, or the clearly unsupported nonsense from the scientific era doesn't make the point. I'm talking about scientific theories here. Even ether wasn't really a scientific theory, it had no real supporting evidence for it, and was rather easily falsified.

And QM and GR didn't disprove Newtonian Mechanics at all. That there were problems with Newtonian Mechanics was known before General Relativity came along. The issues with the procession of Mercury were a problem that showed that Newtonian Mechanics had an issue. What you're claiming would be like saying 3.14 is useless because it's not a sufficiently accurate enough approximation of Pi. It's true that for very accurate measurements, 3.14 won't do, and engineers will have to use better approximations, but for the purposes of high school geometry it's fine. Much in the same way, Newtonian Mechanics is a good enough approximation for getting satellites into orbit or getting a probe to orbit Mars. It utterly fails at any kind of relativistic velocities, and for certain kinds of phenomena.

In other words, Newtonian Mechanics wasn't falsified. It was subsumed as an approximation of General Relativity for non-relativistic speeds. It was a part of the answer, not the whole, and you will find most theories sit in that vein. Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection lacked a good system of heredity. Does that mean Natural Selection is wrong? No, it means it was complete and required a marriage with genetics to give a fuller answer, but it was still useful to explain observations.

So let's bring this back to AGW. Is it a complete theory? No, it is not. But enough groundwork has been laid, there is enough data being gathered to suggest that in the larger picture, it is correct, that three centuries of puking millions of years worth of previously sequestered CO2 and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere through industrial activity is influencing climate. The theory will doubtless be refined, and is being refined, but nothing brought to bear so far has shown the theory outright false, or even in the important points, mistaken.

Re:crazy

[MightyMartian]

Ether straddles a line between Classical Physics and a solidy pre-scientific era. I don't think any physicist would view it as a theory in and of itself, any more than alchemy is chemistry. Not everything that attempted to explain an observation is science. And it's been a helluva long time since anything like a scientific theory has been outright falsified. The last I can think of were some of the pre-Tectonic Plate geological theories and the Steady State theories (although the latter had no real model at all, and was more of just an assumption).

Scientific theories don't get to be theories just by being wild-ass guesses.

Re:crazy

[MightyMartian]

But his expertise was not aeronautics. To those who were experts, I'm sure for much of the 18th and 19th century they understood the underlying problem was creating a sufficiently light engine to provide lift. I'm not sure why you think quoting Lord Kelvin is any more useful to this debate than quoting his cook.

Re:crazy

[georgenh16]

Yeah maybe I wish more conservatives were like me, I never liked Rick Santorum.
I do join with them in detesting the immorality going on, and keeping traditions and institutions that made this country great.
I just don't think the government should be heavy-handed in doing all that by force.
But I also don't want them to go and legalize (read: encourage use of) drugs that are already illegal. All that together is why I've called myself conservative.

Relevant part of fascism: "radical authoritarian nationalist ... totalitarian single-party state"

Re:crazy

[MightyMartian]

Was patently unscientific, and was bought by the Soviets because they viewed it as ideologically pleasing. I know of no one outside Soviet circles who thought Lysenko was anything but a crackpot.

Re:crazy

[georgenh16]

That's what the Tea Party is about. The RINOs of the past 12+ years must be cast out.
Jesus knew you in the womb. He is not a liberal.

Re:crazy

[TheEyes]

They are precisely the people targeted by groups like Heartland. They're not idiots. They like to think of themselves as free thinkers. But, nonetheless, relentless anti-AGW propaganda has left them thinking AGW is a giant conspiracy, despite the utter obvious absurdity of such a position.

What gives?

It's about maintaining the status quo. As a rule, people don't like change: they don't like having to change their behavior; they don't like having to change their thinking; they don't like having to change their perceptions of the world. Science is a deeply troubling system for most people because it is constantly changing, evolving, coming up with new theories which force people to reevaluate their lifestyles. Given that, is it any wonder that anti-science propaganda finds a sympathetic ear amongst the intellectually lazy?

Take climate change as an example. Since Joseph Fourier first postulated the theory of global warming by way of the greenhouse effect nearly two hundred years ago, scientists have slowly but surely been coming to the inevitable conclusion that it is unsustainable to endlessly continue our current technological reliance on spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every day. The obvious, inevitable conclusion is that we must transition away from carbon-based energy production soon, to prevent potentially catastrophic environmental consequences. But, people don't want to change. They want to drive their big cars, run the AC with the windows open. Damn it, they want to eat meat with every meal, not just a few times a week!

And then, here comes the Heartland Institute, backed by the Fox News tabloid conglomerate, saying that you can still have all those things, you don't have to change at all. All you have to do is ignore the scientists. After all, what do they know, those elitist snobs with their multi-year longitudinal studies and lifetimes spent studying the climate and basic science. You have people who can say stuff too, and, even if their degrees are in lying and stealing money (read: law and business) instead of science, they're saying stuff you'd rather believe in, because it means you can still drive your SUVs and eat all the meat you want! Everybody wins, well, except for your grandkids who'll have to live in a world with stronger hurricanes, massive flooding, and food riots thanks to most of our farmland no longer being able to support crops, but that's decades away and you'll be dead.

Re:crazy

[Q-Hack!]

You mean like this?

Re:crazy

[riverat1]

Of course it's falsifiable. It will just take longer than you want it to take. If it is a false theory we will certainly know within 20 or 30 years.

Re:crazy

[Uberbah]

Big tautology.

Re:crazy

[i kan reed]

bigger government --> bigger raises, promotions, staffs, budgets to play with for government workers. Again, not claiming conspiracy here, everyone's just working for their own self-interest, which coincides with bigger government.

I'm imagining myself in the role of a grant-awarding bureaucrat. I ask myself "would I get a raise from my boss if I chose to give funding to A or B". A is a grant proposal that describes building a long term climate model improvement based of temperature readings in the Atlantic, cross-referenced with atmospheric carbon levels. B is the same proposal, but is by a person who had previous published a paper proposing a stronger correlation to stellar output to global temperature. If I am looking to move up the ladder in DC, do I choose A or B?

The correct answer, as I see it, is choosing the one that will get the most useful results fastest and cheapest, regardless of anything else, because my promotion depends on doing my job well, not on the outcome of the paper. Choosing who to fund on any other criteria doesn't seem like it would influence my chances at all. Being a skilled employee(at least a masters in an appropriate field so I can understand the proposals I'm given) my workload is not necessarily lightened by more co-workers. Please correct my scenario so I can be in the mindset of a selfish auditor who can somehow benefit from the fraud you allege.

Do scientists live off one grant? Where does their next one come from? Same place? oh...

Tenure or not, they're getting cash from Uncle Sam to do research, so are inclined to support bigger government. No bribes or "directed" research (or conspiracy) needed.

And again, I repeat a challenge, now for the third time in the thread. By what mechanism does "uncle sam" communicate this dependency between research results and grants. Other than republicans telling them this is what they do, why would a climate scientist go "oh better agree with everyone else"? The point is, the way you put it, there must to be a conspiracy involving just about everyone in the field. There is no other way. And they literally have to repeatedly as a universal group decide over and over again that the next grant in a specific sub-field, from one particular source(believe it or not there are lots of private foundations that support general research too, not enough, but some), is worth more than their credibility, ethics, and legacy. Not only that but they have to fake data that looks realistic and is consistent with the other fakers out there. It's just not possible. Just from the government->scientists part. Then you require a beneficiaries->government grant givers path too.

The only demonstrated example of the government interfering with climate research I've ever heard of was when Bush administration specifically had NASA reports redacted by non-scientists to remove references to Global Warming research. That's a demonstrated example that was well documented, so the kind of meddling you mention does leak from time to time, but we've never heard in the other direction. I think you need to build yourself a flow-chart showing exactly who tells who what to do, and by what mechanism they convince the counter-party to do it, all the way from the beneficiaries(particular people in particular roles) to the scientists who publish particular papers on the subject. Draw it out, with lots of specifics on paper, and then tell me you think it's still credible.

If you do that, I'll help you track down evidence to support your claim. If you don't do that, you're afraid of (or too lazy to)critically analyzing your own beliefs and there's nothing I can do to change your mind.

Do we cheer on the Black Plague in the 1300s then because it had been warming for a couple centuries? "Must've been those pesky human's fault. That's gotta be why it cooled for a couple centuries afterwards. Wait, there were more people in 1700 than 130

Re:crazy

[Attila Dimedici]

Wow, you started out sounding like an AGW proponent. Then you said this:

One side sees this primarily as a scientific question to be resolved through inquiry and research... the other views it primarily as a political problem to be resolved through rhetoric and propaganda.

and I began to think maybe you weren't, since the AGW proponents are the one's who seem to be seeking a political "solution" to the "problem" they believe exists, rather than just telling people the facts and letting them decide what action to take.

Re:crazy

[Attila Dimedici]

The science is pretty much settled,...

You mean the same way that many of these same people told us in the early 70s that the "science was settled" that if population growth wasn't stopped there would be massive increases in starvation throughout the world by the year 2000?

Re:crazy

[Attila Dimedici]

You know, I go onto several forums that are primarily conservative and very few of the people on those sites reflect the position that you claim is what conservatives believe. For the most part, the people on those forums want the U.S. government to adhere to the Constitutional model of a limited federal government. Even the social conservatives on those sites want the government to be smaller.
As to what fascists are, fascists think the government should control the means of production under the guidance of an elite group of superior intellects who will guide the national economy on the basis of scientific principles for the purpose of making the nation great. As opposed to communists. who think that the government should control the means of production under an elite group of superior intellects who will guide the economy on the basis of scientific principles for the purpose of creating a workers' paradise. The only difference I can see between the two is the reason they want to take away my freedom to make decisions for myself.

Re:crazy

[mattack2]

So-called "conservatives" are more gullible. They're also not conservatives. They actually favor regulation of business, but they want it regulated how THEY want it regulated, not how the liberals want it. ...
A conservative is someone who wants government to regulate morality and to not regulate business.

Wait, do they want regulation of business or don't they? These two fragments seem to be describing the same thing, since you say they 'both' want morality regulated.

Re:crazy

[mattack2]

Now you're foisting religion upon us? That's why I won't vote for Tea Party people, even though I agree with at least many of their fiscal beliefs.

Re:crazy

[BronsCon]

I guess they get trolled, too.

Re:crazy

[georgenh16]

I just couldn't not reply to his sig.
I don't want to foist religion on anyone.
But an unborn child is another person, and I don't want infanticide to be legal.
Aside from stopping murder, I don't want the government big enough to be enforcing morality on you.
I think a lot of Tea Partiers agree on that - the focus is stopping the current fiscal insanity.

Re:crazy

[Attila Dimedici]

Of course the fact that the oil industry spends more money on grants to AGW proponents than they do on groups like Heartland Institute doesn't bother you at all.

Re:crazy

[SockPuppetOfTheWeek]

Whether or not it was his expertise is irrelevant. The point is and always has been that AC said,

"People saying .... that heavier than air vehicles were impossible, etc.- all saying, "the science is settled"

And you replied that it never happened. It did happen, and I cited the person who said it. Whether or not you appreciate the irony in the fact that he's a well-known scientific thinker, or that his area of expertise was in thermodynamics, is not particularly important.

Flying machines wasn't just some low-lying fruit belief that was held by ancient Babylonians, it was held by well-known, well-respected, highly credible scientists of their time.

And really, since science hadn't properly learnt to use fluid dynamics on air yet, there were no scientists who were qualified at that time as "experts" to make the statement, so you're going to have to consider the statements of scientists who weren't experts in heavier-than-air flight. They were all equally unqualified; they had nothing but the scientific method - logic and reason - and it failed each and every one of them until the Wright brothers finally proved them all wrong.

Re:crazy

[Darinbob]

Overall, the voters are stupid and don't think. On the right or the left the vast majority of us do not have well thought out political opinions based on sifting through the historical evidence, we don't read through proposed legislation, we don't read past the front page of a newspaper, and we believe what we're told. Essentially the majority of people operate on knee jerk reactions.

This means you can manipulate people to act in ways counter to their interests, or sometimes even counter to their outspoken beliefs. So if someone is slightly distrustful of government it becomes very easy to nudge that into a high distrust of government. Then you merely need to say "the government wants to do X" and you've got an army of voters who are behaviorally conditioned to be against it. This works on the left and the right.

Re:crazy

[i kan reed]

Who's doing the throwing back in their face? Why is it 100% of the time? How can scientists pass peer review when they've faked their results?

You've alleged corruption without a shred of evidence. Why? You've invented a narrative, but that's not the same as legitimate argument. It's all based on psychic understandings of free money for doing something where ostensibly the free money would be available either way. No one ever overtly tells anyone it's this way, there's no societal expectation it's this way(how about all the republicans who disagree?) You just believe everyone involved has some secret understanding with everyone else.

It's paranoid. It would be plausible IF there were evidence pointing that way, or people who stood up to such a system out of ignorance of it, and fell along the path you describe.

I'll tell you the same thing I told someone else in this thread. Make a flow-chart of decision making. Who's telling who what to do, and how, until you get back to someone with a clear, direct financial interest in the results of a paper. Look at the length of said flow chart, and all the possible points of leakage, and tell me there can be complicity there. And be specific. Identify the real people who are making the manipulative decisions you allege, and why.

If you do, I will happily help you find evidence of your claims. The reality is you probably are too afraid of self-examination to even do the simple step of examining what you are saying in detail.

Re:crazy

[riverat1]

You are right that science is not liberal or conservative. I think the point of the adage "Science has a liberal bias" is that liberals in general (not all) are more open to adjusting their worldview to be in sync with science than conservatives. Conservatives are more likely to take their view and seek evidence to back it up.

Re:crazy

[i kan reed]

Yep, you sure can make up character traits for me.
I'm sorry you're so far behind the science that you honestly believe there is any way, shape, or form that global warming could not exist. That's painfully misinformed. The rest of your post jumps off from their into a bed of tangent.

Re:crazy

[ArcherB]

Not really. Sorry if science has a liberal bias, but the first post sounds pretty accurate. Yours sounds like the ranting of someone who doesn't let facts cloud beliefs. This whole 'fair and balanced' thing need not apply when one side is crazy.

There are literally thousands of scientists who say that either global warming is bullshit, our methods are bullshit, our models are bullshit, or that the suspected causes for the warming is bullshit.

I don't know if I'd call them crazy, but if you want to silence those that you disagree with, calling them names is one way to do it.

Re:crazy

[sycodon]

Not only do you not know how to click the correct Reply link, you really don't understand people and you completely miss the entire point of this little minithread.

Re:crazy

[ArcherB]

Are you seriously trying to tell this guy what he truly believes? Do you seriously think you know better than him?

A guy says that all conservatives are Christians, and most of those are fundamentalists, the post you reply to say it's not true and you tell him he doesn't know what HE believes? I am a conservative, and I am a Christian, but even my church is not full of "fundamentalists"!

I know you WANT to believe that conservatives are what you claim they are. Then, your hatred is fully justified. Unfortunately, you don't realize that if you have to vilify your opponents to yourself to justify your disdain, maybe you should question your feelings toward them.

Re:crazy

[squiggleslash]

appealing to the authority of science, even when there is no actual evidence supporting it.

Science done in the absence of evidence. An interesting concept.

In the late 60s, some liberals realized that science was well respected by most people and if you cloaked your argument as "science", people would accept it without looking any further. Conservatives started to realize that "science" was being used to promote agendas rather than agendas being derived from science.

Yeah, but we're actually talking about science here, not things people have labeled science. As in collecting evidence, creating a hypothesis or two, testing the hypothesis, developing these into theories, and all within a framework of peer review. So I'm not sure what some marketing campaigns really have to do with this.

the policies that the AGW proponents say that we need to implement to fight AGW are the same policies that they said we needed to avoid mass starvation/prevent the hole in the ozone layer from getting too big/prevent some other cataclysmic disaster.

Uhm. Hokay.

AGW proponents don't seem to be saying much except maybe we should cut down on our oil usage a bit and see whether less energy usage, or development of better energy sources, might help.

Ozone layer - you're not seriously arguing that was part of a liberal 1960s conspiracy now are you? Funny thing: I once read an article by Isaac Asimov in the 1970s describing exactly the problem with CFCs, how they were originally a miracle invention, and how people were starting to learn that they had a habit of breaking down ozone molecules when exposed to direct sunlight.

Anyhoo... the people who were concerned about CFCs were saying we should develop alternatives to CFCs and use them to power our fridges and aerosoles. Which is what happened.

Starvation. Now, that's that thing where we give money to Oxfam right? Pretty sure the solutions advocated by virtually everyone concerned about mass starvation have to do with ending unnecessary wars in the third world, cancelling third world debt, and funding essential infrastructure, together with a few other political tweaks to deal with locally specific issues.

Now, help me out here, but maybe I'm missing something, but how are any of these like any of these? I mean, how is cutting down on fossil fuel usage and using less energy like replacing CFCs with safer alternatives, or cancelling third world debts?

I just don't see it.

Now, maybe you can find some obscure sixties hippy who said something like "Maaan, we can, like, fix the ozone layer, and solve mass starvation, and maybe keep weather patterns under control, by, like, smoking more weed, listening to Jerry Garcia, and implementing a nation wide health care service that's free at the point of delivery", but I can assure you, that guy aint typical.

Re:crazy

[ArcherB]

Jesus was a liberal

No. Liberals think that government should take care of the poor. Jesus said his followers should take care of the poor. Liberals don't like it when Churches care for the sick and the hungry. They think that's government's job.

Until then, STFU about what conservatives want...

Am I qualified to say what it is YOU want? No? The that probably means that you have no idea what conservatives want. The problem with most of the examples you've provided is that they are decided on a federal level. Since federal law trumps state law, we have to fight them there. I have not met a conservative yet that wouldn't take every issue you've brought up and let the states decide. Liberals believe in a strong federal government that dictates what the states are allowed to do.

Oh, and TSA and The PATRIOT Act were not abused under Bush. Under you liberal Obama, however, well, it's practically a police state! So don't tell me what conservatives want, rail on them for what you THINK they want, and then give a pass to your LIBERAL president who has abused the very powers you accuse conservatives of abusing.

Re:crazy

[ArcherB]

How do you come to the conclusion that the government is bribing scientists?
How do you arrive at the notion that scientists are complicit?
How do you decide people agreeing with them are shills?

I didn't say that scientists were being bribed, I said that government is paying for the studies.

I never said that scientists were complicit. The scientists that come to the conclusions that the government wants to hear get more grants. Those that don't are labeled "deniers" and no longer given grants. After a few cycles of this, all the scientists (who still have jobs) truly agree with the conditions that require more government regulation.

I never said that people agreeing with them are shills. The original post said that the Heritage Foundation were shills for big oil, because big oil at one point made a contribution. So, if Heritage Foundation are shills big oil because big oil is paying the bills, shouldn't it also be true that those who take grants to support AGW are also shills for big government? The logic is sound. If X is a shill to Y because Y pays the bills, then A is a shill to B because B pays the bills.

How do you keep getting modded up? I really don't get it.

If it makes you feel any better, I've now been modded down. I've been modded down because because people who disagree with what I've said naturally thing that what I've said is wrong. Since there is no "Disagree" moderation, they silence me by modding me "Flamebait". This, by the way, is against the moderator guidelines. There is no "Wrong" mod for a reason. Evidently you agree with the mods opinion in this case.

Re:crazy

[MightyMartian]

And again, Lord Kelvin was not an aeronautics expert, so why do you think his views on the topic would be any more well informed than his gardener's? Here's a hint, science is littered with great men who made fools of themselves by making sweeping claims on subjects they held no particular expertise in. I have my doubts that engineers at the time Kelvin made any such claim believed it impossible, and certainly great progress was made towards the end of the 19th century.

Re:crazy

[mattack2]

You are foisting religion on us by mentioning Jesus in any way other than some supposed historical dude.

Re:crazy

[riverat1]

We can acknowledge this without accepting with 100% certainty that current models that statistically fit old data can accurately predict future temperatures.

When you say that climate models "statistically fit old data" it becomes obvious you don't know what you're talking about. The big GCM's (General Circulation Model or Global Climate Model) use the physical relationships that have been derived from studying the atmosphere. They don't just take some weather data and derive a statistical trend from them. Here are a couple of FAQ's from the scientists who actually write one of the major GCM's that explains what they do:

FAQ on climate models
FAQ on climate models, part II

And here is an analysis of model projections to actual data through 2011:

2011 model/data comparisons

Any scientist worth his salt will not jump straight to the easy conclusion because if they care about their scientific reputation at all they care that the science they present is as accurate as they can make it. If they are presenting bad science for political reasons eventually the scientific reality will overtake them and their reputations will be destroyed. I don't doubt that there are some in the scientific world who would take that chance but when it comes to global warming there are just too many scientists involved for it to be a tenable contention that they're all ignoring the actual science.

Re:crazy

[tjstork]

"That's why one group is deniers, and the other groups is actual science and fact based."

Except that, the actual science and fact based people keep ignoring the fact that scientifically speaking, the solutions they propose to AGW will undeniably force humanity into a new dark ages, unless they come around and support a massive buildout of nuclear power and massive investments in fusion research. For all their fact based and so-called based intellegence, AGW people have yet to realize that the solution they offer to the problem of global warming is, in fact arguably worse than the problems presented by doing nothing. In the worse case, sea levels rise by what, 10 feet? Fine, we move inland, use up the fossil that we have and invest continue to invest the savings and increased economic activity into researching alternative energies. That's not even acknowledging the very real scientific fact, that, even if we stop all CO2 output now, it will take 800 years for the earth to stabalize again and CO2 levels to actually drop - if it does, in fact, stabalize at all.

So, to recap, the idiotic deniers seem to think that if we do nothing, we can deal with whatever happens, but the scientifically brilliant proponents want humanity to go into a new dark ages, for a result that will take 800 years to achieve. Who are the ones that are stupid in this equation?

Re:crazy

[georgenh16]

You've made me think. I like that. Also I apologize for the incoherency at the end there, finals and a 3mo old will do that to a guy.

Fastest and cheapest are words evidently outlawed in DC...

I don't see the the kind of bribery, collusion, or coercion it seems you're looking for. (maybe in order to label me a conspiracy nut?)
Here's how I see the motives of the players involved, and how they benefit:
Politician: Holds the idea that he knows better than everyone else, and would be happy to tell the peons what kind of car they have to drive. Congratulates himself as a savior of mankind whenever he champions the fight for this kind of AGW stuff, thinks "I'm such a man of the people!". Appoints bureaucrats below him, only those that share his views. Benefits when government is bigger because he can tell people what to do more (which he likes), and direct funds to campaign donors, a way to perpetuate keeping his job.
Bureaucrat: Appointed by the politician, this guy is usually really passionate about the views of the politician, including AGW. Highly unlikely to hire people for his department that disagree with him. If he's deciding grants, he'll pick the ones he likes - his job has nothing to do with efficiency as bureaucracy is efficiency's antithesis. If he's in the EPA, of course he supports AGW, it gives them a bigger budget, more policing to do, feeling more important. Bureaucrats benefit from a bigger government, otherwise their jobs would not exist. They want it even bigger because then they can be promoted to lead the new task force (which eventually becomes a department, that never dies) for the new "problem" bigger government is supposed to address.
-- bureaucrat repeats here for # levels because government is too damn big --
Scientist: Fits a line to 150 years of temperature data, says the Earth will boil soon, and calls it "science" because that's his job title. Or maybe he's a real scientist setting up a long term experiment and gets shunned by his colleagues as a denier if he voices any skepticism. But probably not, as I imagine at this point after a couple decades of politicization, only supporters enter this particular field of science anyways. Supports politician, because he wants to send more funds to research like his. Supports big government generally anyways, because he thinks it's government's role to fund all kinds of science.
AGW believer: Actually cares about the Earth. Gives politician their vote, and free reign to do whatever it takes to fix the problem, damn the consequences (or more likely doesn't think about the economic/political consequences). Is either overly afraid of a theorized disaster in the future, or shares the politician's self-congratulating, or both. Wants a bigger government because they actually think government is the solution to their problems.
Business Exec: Buddies with the politician, this guy's business is so big he can handle some extra regulations, and would love to see that since he knows his smaller competitors can't. Gets contracts with the government through the politician.

Re:crazy

[tjstork]

Actuallly, check out the "entertainment line" in the UAH lower tropospheric temperature series, which, in my mind is probably the only reliable data set that can be used to check on the earth's temperature...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/02/uah-global-temperature-anomaly-goes-negative-2/

Can you think of any cycles that mirror that entertainment line?

I really wish the CO2 / Temperature / Atmospheric monitoring satellite had not blown up during lift off. Regardless of whether you are a tree hugger or not, more earth monitoring spacecraft and drones are desperately needed.

Re:crazy

[Hillgiant]

Thank you for your clearly objective and well researched treatise. I shall immediately endeavor to improve the sorry state of my personal character and reform it to your standards.

Re:crazy

[Genda]

I'm sorry but you seem to be the one with a profound lack of information. First there is a tremendous amount of work being done on alternative energy including huge recent breakthroughs in Solar (we are quick approaching the $0.50 per watt area and will surpass oil in unit cost per watt by end of year or early next.) This is critical when you consider the high probability that the $3 gallon of gasoline has gone the way of the dodo, and the $4 gallon is probably close behind it. We are making headway on every front, geothermal, wind, ocean/tidal, bio and synfuels and new advanced nuclear (including micro-reactors, pebble bed, helium fail proof systems and safe fast breeding.) Most important of all, is the incredible reduction in need without ever building a single new reactor by improving global efficiency. The simple fact is that if you take all these things together we are in great shape, can meet or exceed the carbon reductions without so much as an iota of change in the quality of life for anyone save the fossil fuel companies. They sadly would hurt a lot. The rest of us however would be doing remarkably well. More important, we could help the developing world bypass our mistakes and help usher in an era of human satisfaction and abundance never before seen.

As for water rising 10 feet... by when are you talking about? Then what about the next 10, and the 10 after that, and that, and that? Kiss Florida good-bye, highest point is 42 feet. Kiss the entire Mississippi delta (including New Orleans and Baton Rougue) good-bye. Kiss Florence, Italy, London, England, Hong Kong, China and Tokyo, all good-bye. In fact 6 out of 10 critical ports in the world would be inundated or so impacted by rising seas that they would for all intents and purposes be destroyed. Kiss entire nations like Bangladesh good-bye. Where do you suggest they go? I'm certain India would be overjoyed to take in an entire nation of bitterly poor and starving refugees. There are islands all over the world which are threatened, and many that will cease to be habitable. You suggest they move inland, just for grins and giggles what would the logistics of moving a billion people be like? Who's going to absorb these newly homeless people? How do you suggest we pay for this?

Oh, and the conversation about stabilization. That would presume we were sitting on our collective hands watching the world suck and doing absolutely nothing about it. We have plenty of use for carbon. If nothing else it looks like graphene is going to change the world. Just this week, there were half a dozen articles on breakthrough processes to sequester carbon and turn it into fuel, turn it into energy and convert into new and interesting substances with vital economic importance in a technological society. The coolest part is that most of these technologies use bacteria, algae, and other lifeforms to fix carbon.

Before voicing an opinion or regurgitating someone else's, please bother to find out is it holds any water.

Re:crazy

[couchslug]

As the sign on the British bus said:

"Science flys you to the moon.
Religion flies you into buildings."

Re:crazy

[Genda]

Alright, let's try this instead. The body of evidence is now so ridiculously overwhelming, and comes from so many different disciplines and so many different schools of thought and so many different countries and so many different points of view that the big issues are presumed by most researchers as scientific fact. The same way we presume Relativity, Evolution, Newtonian Mechanics, Chemistry, Biology and Genetics. By all means, we make new discoveries by the hour, but these things add wrinkles to and shade nuances of existing frameworks of existing thought. They simply don't overturn large scientific frameworks for which there is such a tremendous body of evidence, and so much success in making predictions.

Holding out belief on the hope that at the last minute some impossible new truth that nobody ever considered is going to overturn millions of person-hours of research and analysis, is at best magical thinking. At worst its devoting yourself to a belief system in the face of physical reality... and that is simple self deception. Not evil, in fact we probably all have areas that we live in hope over. It just doesn't have any rational basis and shouldn't be compared to rational thinking.

Re:crazy

[Genda]

A lot of people have opinions... Einstein said "God doesn't play dice with the universe." People are wrong all the time. That's why we listen to theories after they've proven themselves. Your argument is specious and unless you can come up with a single case where a body of researchers with a widely accepted theory were proven wrong by some new overwhelming discovery, then all your saying is that just because you're a scientist doesn't make your opinions any better than anyone else's and nobody is arguing that.

We are saying science, not scientists, provides compelling explanations regarding the nature of the universe and that GW is accepted by most informed people as fact, verging on irrefutable fact.

Re:crazy

[Genda]

Yeah and Newton was a god in his time but it didn't stop him from trying to create the "Sorcerer's Stone". How does any of this have anything to do with the conversation at hand?

Re:crazy

[Rakarra]

When Copernicus showed a much simpler model of planetary motion and later Galileo observed it, they were labeled heretics by the church.

Eh. Copernicus was never officially labeled a heretic, and no fierce opposition arose against his work until decades after his death. Galileo was a different story, but he ran into trouble because he peppered his work on planetary motions with hidden (and not so hidden) insults to the pope, and that was a very dangerous thing to do back then.

Re:crazy

[I_am_Jack]

Of course the fact that the oil industry spends more money on grants to AGW proponents than they do on groups like Heartland Institute doesn't bother you at all.

Funny, but I don't recall saying anything of the kind. Unless, of course, you were trying to do this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man.

Re:crazy

[Genda]

There are two responses to this... the first being taking a comment out of context is a no-no, the conversations were fair and founded on the population growing without incredible gains in global support and technology. Ta-da, both things showed up.

Second, we now have 7,000,000,000 people and a third go to bed hungry. Where full on starvation is just a terrible problem in developing nations, severe malnutrition is a full on crisis.

Again, a fair description of the trend, an issue addressed over 40 years, and we are where we are. How does any of that have to do with GW? The men in the 70s were perfectly correct from their position and ultimately were part of a process that saved billions of lives. You know, things like thr "Green Revolution"? Wise people now warn you that you're driving full out towards a cliff, your response is to say "I stopped at that last sign they to me to and nothing happened, I think I'll gun it this time?" Okay, but the people warning aren't the problem... just a hint.

Re:crazy

[phantomfive]

It responds directly to what he said, which I quoted. Please try to keep up.

Re:crazy

[goldstein]

Good points all round. In reality, the kind of conspiracy that would be required is impossible. Even making the extraordinary assumption that the scientists involved have all clandestinely agreed to conspire on AGW, a tremendous amount of co-ordination would be needed to ensure that everything published by a large research community dispersed across the world sends out a sufficiently consistent message for the whole thing to hold together. If its all being made up, how do you know that the paper you are publishing won't contradict one that is being published by someone else? Obviously the truth would leak out quickly and all involved would be disgraced.

Re:crazy

[phantomfive]

lol when you are shown to be wrong, it's because that person is not enough of an expert, eh? Science is also full of people who made fools of themselves by being wrong in fields that they WERE experts in, as well.

Re:crazy

[goldstein]

This is far from reality. In a bureaucracy, the way to get ahead is to tell the senior leadership what they want to hear. I can assure you that government bureaucrats in North America are well aware that there is no mileage in pushing AGW as a serious issue. In the US, we just had the spectacle of virtually all of the major candidates for the Republican presidential nomination falling over themselves in rejecting the notion that their could possibly be something to AGW. In Canada, the federal government has, for some time, been backsliding on environmental issues, particularly those concerning climate change e.g., http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=fc976a67-2f9a-424c-a98d-704785dde80c&k=91227 . And the notion that there are significant economic interests that are pushing AGW is laughable.

Re:crazy

[khallow]

That's because you've made up your mind and won't be convinced by any amount of evidence, which is objectively crazy. It's not propaganda to call a crazy person crazy.

This is the sort of dribble that comes out of the "rhetoric and propaganda" side. You're telling me what I think rather than making even a half-assed attempt at a reasoned discussion. I hope you figure it out some day.

Re:crazy

[khallow]

At the moment, this is "producing CO2 causes climate change".

A little bit of dishonesty there. It's also what sort of "climate change" and to what degree? It's worth keeping in mind here that any change in human society or behavior which reduces the production of CO2, will require some degree of effort and sacrifice. The bigger the change, the more huffing and puffing. So we need to know enough to say how much benefit is going to happen for the cost. You know, economics.

Merely saying that some highly ambiguous degree of climate change happens as a result of our activities is not useful because climate change would happen anyway.

The counterargument is simple in that case: if climate change is going to happen anyway, it'd be better if it were a result us doing something useful rather than a incoherent attempt to maintain some particular climate that's not going to stick around anyway. The only way to defeat that argument is to have a solid cost/benefit analysis that happens to support CO2 reduction.

Re:crazy

[Falconhell]

And how many of those "scientists" are climate experts I wonder-ah yes virtually none.

Re:crazy

[Falconhell]

More ludicrous babble for ArcherB, are you really that stupid as to believe that nearly all climate scientists are
lying. Face it you are simplr denying reality and using FUD to discredit reputable peer reviewed scientists, not that isnt your standard form of irrational denial, going by your posting history.

Re:crazy

[ArcherB]

If Christ were a liberal, why are more liberals not Christians?

Re:crazy

[khallow]

I didn't feel the need to comment on an empty phrase. But since you continue to repeat it, I'll note that there has been a lot of politicians coming to the scientists on AGW. Public funds are quite prevalent in the funding of climatology and I can't help but think that there's more funding for researchers who sex up their climatology to confirm and exaggerate the AGW theory. Perhaps, you'd care to comment on that potential bit of confirmation bias?

Re:crazy

[khallow]

You don't have to have a doctorate in observation to see that's a lot of hand waving without being able to point to a single there there.

i agree that you handwave remarkably well. But perhaps you'd like to comment on a particular, solid number, $3.360 trillion. That is how much the US Federal government spent in 2011. In comparison, the oil companies during 2011, a record year, supposedly picked up somewhere around $200 billion in profits. Nice work but about a factor of 15 less than the amounts of money that the federal government (ignoring quantitative easing) fondles.

hugely profitable companies like Exxon and BP have been let off with slaps on the wrist for some of the wost environmental disasters in history

We need to keep in mind that the "worst" environmental disasters weren't all that bad. A bad pollution day in China probably kills more people and other organisms than Valdez and Deepwater Horizon combined.

I think the problem here isn't "handwaving", but a lack of perspective. Big oil is small fry compared to the money going through the world's governments. And the "worst" environmental disasters are small fry compared to the day-to-day activities of China.

Re:crazy

[khallow]

Well, here's my prediction. [...]

I didn't completely read your post before replying (I thought you were the same AC as the post three up). I apologize for missing the mark in my previous reply.

Re:crazy

[riverat1]

Well, I would back it off to a more scientific statement than "producing CO2 causes climate change" and break it up a bit.

My first hypothesis is: After the Sun the level of CO2 is the second most important factor in the Earths surface temperature. I will qualify that by saying that over thousands of years things such as plate tectonics and Milankovitch cycles have a major effect as well. You can falsify that by showing that something besides the Sun is more important than CO2 in Earth's energy balance. And before you object that water vapor is more important, yes water vapor causes more greenhouse warming than CO2 but the level of water vapor in the atmosphere is strictly controlled by temperature. That means it can't control temperature even though it affects it.

A my second hypothesis is: The increase in CO2 in the atmosphere (and the carbon cycle in general) is mostly due to human burning of fossil fuels. That can be falsified by showing that something else is causing the increase in CO2. And before you object that nature emits more than 10 times as much CO2, yes but in the carbon cycle it also absorbs about as much CO2 as it emits. That's why the level stayed around 280 ppm for thousands of years until the early 1800's.

If the two hypotheses are true the logical conclusion is that human actions are affecting Earth's energy balance and yes, producing CO2 causes climate change.

I think that in 20 or 30 years the reality of global warming will be painfully obvious to anyone with a brain. If I'm wrong then it's falsified.

Re:crazy

[khallow]

Well, then they're also part of the "rhetoric and propaganda" side. I got that covered.

Re:crazy

[khallow]

Because he realized that the majority of American voters are morons who can be easily persuaded by propaganda.

Of course. Can't take the moral high ground. Instead, he had to show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he could be dumber than the majority of American voters.

Re:crazy

[khallow]

When you can't face reality, you are a denier of reality. Period.

And what makes you think you're the one who can face reality?

Re:crazy

[azalin]

Mmmh looks like you guys are interpeting a lott of things into my post that I didn't actually intend to say. Let me clarify my statement for a last time because I don't really thinks we disagree that much/at all.
Somewhere up the tree AC said:

the moment you say "the science is settled", you set yourself up for disaster.

MightyMartian disagreed and claimed the example to be ancient and not very good and therefore dismissing the argument.
While I'm pretty sure we are going for a global disaster if we don't do anything against global warming and I do consider the data convincing and sound I don't think we should never accept any scientific theory as a final truth. Never questioning it again because the consensus says so. To illustrate the point I threw in some more recent examples that came to mind.
On the topic on hand I agree that it's time to end the discussion in the US (the rest of the world seems to have already accepted is as a fact for quite a while) and act accordingly. I was simply stating that outside of religion there should not be any final truths. Once you introduce final truths that may not be questioned into science you turn it into religion.
Of course it's tiring to disprove everybodies pet theory, especially if they simply ignored or skewed the existing data because it didn't fit. But I'm afraid this kind of discussion, as exhausting as it may be, is necessary for the advancement of science. The problem we run into these days is that legions zealots swamp the process.

Re:crazy

[Attila Dimedici]

You ask, what does the predictions about mass starvation from population growth in the 70s have to do with AGW? The fact that the people who were saying we would have mass starvation if we didn't implement their preferred policies were suggesting the same solutions to the problems as the people who are today saying that AGW will cause mass deaths if we don't implement their preferred policies.

Re:crazy

[squiggleslash]

If I were referencing a story about whether conservatives are distrustful of science, I would be asking why conservatives are distrustful of science.

However, as you can see, not only do I make no such reference, but I ask why there's a concerted campaign to make conservatives distrustful of science, in an article about one organization that's mounting a concerted campaign to make conservatives distrustful of science.

The question "Is it working" would be interesting if it wasn't already obvious - conservatives are, far and away, more likely to use words like "hoax" against actual science (as in peer review, studies, hypotheses, testing hypotheses, development of theories from tested hypotheses, etc), and I'm not merely talking about Presidential candidates like Santorum, but also about otherwise smart and open minded friends of mine who, for their own bizarre reasons, self identify as conservatives, and vote Republican.

But that's not the question. The question is why so much money is being funneled into groups like Cato, The Heartland Institute, and others in a deliberate attempt to make conservatives distrustful of science? Why is there not just as much time and effort and money being spent in making liberals distrustful of science?

And why do conservatives just accept it, rather than treat it as the insult it is and fight back?

Re:crazy

[gottabeme]

Discrediting them is another way of silencing them. Why can't it just be about the science?

Besides, "virtually none" is a meaningless thing to say.

Re:crazy

[gottabeme]

Argh, "insightful"? Really? This is nothing but labeling, generalizing, and stereotyping. The "F word" (fundamentalist) is simply a convenient tool used to belittle ones' opponent of the day, whether it's "Islamic fundamentalists" or "Christian fundamentalists." A "fundamentalist" is simply a person or group one disagrees with. The same goes for "extremist"--it's just anyone who, in one's personal opinion, has an extreme opinion.

Notice how the parent ridicules religious people by equating belief in religion to belief in a flat earth (something obviously factually untrue)--and ridicules people who disagree with him by equating belief in a flat earth with anti-AGW and Creationism--both of which are factually unprovable and un-disprovable. He also blanketly accuses religious people of being irrational--a claim which is, itself, irrational.

He concludes with alarmism and fatalism.

This is convenient for those who have agendas other than the pursuit of truth.

Re:crazy

[gottabeme]

"It might also be noted that some influential [stereotyping-negative-adjective] [group-I-disagaree-with] believe [something extreme]. It follows that [something reasonable] is pointless and that any concern whatever about [something important to me] betrays a mistrust in [what they believe in]. Just the perfect recipe for completely irresponsible behavior. [Ad hominem completed.]"

All this labeling and stereotyping: it's what historians will really look back with dismay on. Yet it's always happened, and I suppose it always will.

What is needed is for people to stop labeling and stereotyping and generalizing and ridiculing people based on irrelevant, personal beliefs and opinions, and instead to reason with one another.

You're not helping.

Re:crazy

[gottabeme]

Perhaps their hypothesis is that government is, generally, incapable of doing things efficiently, and therefore it's best for government to do only that which is absolutely necessary--that government has an innate tendency to grow perpetually, unbounded. Another way to put it might be, "First, do no harm."

Frankly, that seems like a reasonable hypothesis to me.

Re:crazy

[gottabeme]

Your vehement, hateful intolerance speaks volumes about yourself. You label and generalize and stereotype and ridicule anyone who you disagree with. You build a nice wall around yourself by grouping together all who you disagree with into one giant group of ignorant fools. And you conclude by attempting to sound rational by asking for proof of something which can be neither proven nor disproven. You set your own standard and dismiss anyone who can't meet it.

Yet you claim that you are the one seeking truth. I consider that to be hypocrisy.

Here's an outlier for you: I am a Christian. I believe that God exists. I believe he created the universe. I believe it doesn't matter how he did it or how long it took. I believe he created our universe full of natural laws for us to discover through science. I believe that science can neither prove nor disprove God's existence. I believe that the government should not exert moral control over its citizens, excluding crimes such as murder, theft, etc. I believe in personal freedom and personal responsibility. I believe that all human beings should be treated with respect and dignity. I believe in the pursuit of Truth. I believe that not all the answers may be discoverable, short of building a time machine.

Sorry if I don't fit into your mold. I encourage you to examine yourself and find out why you're so full of hate right now.

Re:crazy

[gottabeme]

Actually, all people deserve respect. Isn't it ironic how religious people are often labeled as intolerant, while anti-religious are considered tolerant?

The truth is that one can be religious and also be rational, intelligent, thoughtful, and scientific.

You claim to be interested in truth, but actually you obfuscate the very rational thinking that aids the pursuit of truth by your labeling, stereotyping, generalizing, and ridiculing. You're as much an enemy of truth as those who blindly accept every word of a religious text as literal truth.

Re:crazy

[gottabeme]

You did a nice job of framing religious people and anyone who doesn't agree with the AGW hypothesis as irrational. How very hypocritical of you.

Re:crazy

[drinkypoo]

Wait, do they want regulation of business or don't they?

Well, when I said "They actually favor regulation of business" which you quoted, I thought that was fairly clear. But I guess not. Work on your parser. Try reading.

These two fragments seem to be describing the same thing, since you say they 'both' want morality regulated.

No, actual conservatives want to regulate morality and not business, fake conservatives who want to regulate both business and morality (the vast majority of people who consider themselves "conservative") are actually fascists. See how that works?

Incidentally, the same is true of most so-called liberals. They want the drugs legalized THEY want legalized, but not all of them. They want freedom of speech, unless it targets specific groups. And so on.

Re:crazy

[gottabeme]

Sad but probably true. +1 Insightful.

Re:crazy

[drinkypoo]

Even the social conservatives on those sites want the government to be smaller.

Not really. They THINK they want smaller government, but then they say "the government should do something about" some thing that requires government oversight. And they tend to cheer our massive military as well, claiming that we need it for self-defense, when a force of half the size would suffice for that purpose.

Re:crazy

[gottabeme]

Actually, here's a book that says just that: that climate change is a vehicle by which ideas, characters and projects can be organized around and propelled by. The author says that we should ask not what we can do for climate change, but what climate change can do for us. He says that the myth transcends the science.

https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=why+we+disagree+about+climate+change

It's so blatant, it would be funny if it weren't so sad.

Re:crazy

[Attila Dimedici]

Except that they don't say "the government should do something about".

Re:crazy

[drinkypoo]

That's some lovely stereotyping you've built your strawmen out of - and a lovely illustration of how widespread the type of discourse that Heartland is indulging in really is.

If you can show some evidence to contradict my statement that most people who self-describe as conservatives are really something else, then I'm interested. Otherwise, you've said even less of substance than I have.

Re:crazy

[i kan reed]

I think you don't know about the reply limit, actually. Thanks for being a hypocrite, and refusing to actually clarify your point in any meaningful way. A terrible analogy, capped with a terrible "I win" statement. I imagine you can't even consider that some people argue to be more informed, not to be right.

Re:crazy

[i kan reed]

Ok, fair enough.

Now, where are the weak links in there? Where are the points at which there'd be a paper trail, or inexplicable meetings? Let's go fetch you some evidence.

Re:crazy

[drinkypoo]

Except that they don't say "the government should do something about".

Yes, yes they do. Except they say "We should go bomb the fuck out of those people", typically. Heard it again and again.

Re:crazy

[Score Whore]

I guess the point I was trying to make is that no one is trying to make conservatives distrustful of science. When you ask questions like this:

The question is why so much money is being funneled into groups like Cato, The Heartland Institute, and others in a deliberate attempt to make conservatives distrustful of science? Why is there not just as much time and effort and money being spent in making liberals distrustful of science?

Your are basing the question upon false assumptions and incorrect facts. To simplify my point this is what you are asking: "Why is so much money being on activity X." There is not activity X, no one is spending money as you describe. The recent paper that triggered the recent wave among liberal bloggers and media of accusing conservatives of distrusting science was completely misunderstood by those making such accusations. Conservatives don't distrust science. They distrust political activists who use positions in scientific institutions to advance their politics.

And then there is:

The question "Is it working" would be interesting if it wasn't already obvious - conservatives are, far and away, more likely to use words like "hoax" against actual science (as in peer review, studies, hypotheses, testing hypotheses, development of theories from tested hypotheses, etc),

You are just factually incorrect. There is no widespread calling the actual acts of peer review, or making and testing hypotheses, the scientific method, etc. as hoaxes. What skeptics are pointing out is that a lot of the "science" used to justify political crusades is not science by any objective criteria.

Here's a simple study for you to carry out. Go to your local university and conduct a survey to determine the political leanings of various professors and instructors. You'll find that the majority of conservatives are going to be in business, science, engineering and mathematics. The reconsider your assumptions about what conservatives believe.

Re:crazy

[goldstein]

II am not talking about irrelevant personal beliefs. To be more specific I am referring to the "Prosperity Gospel" churches ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology ) . I did have the experience to attend a service at a local church where I heard repeated over and over again the message that the faithful will be looked after and that the world was coming to an end in 2047 and that they alone would be saved. There was a huge number of people there who were swept up with enthusiasm through all this - this all seemed more like a cult than anything else. It is possible to be religious and be rational. There are prominent Christian denominations that do accept that man has responsibilities for stewardship over the earth and I am a member of one of these. I have no difficulties with the personal beliefs of individuals as along as (a) they do not attempt to impose them on others and (b) they do not act on them in a way that will likely lead to widespread harm.

Re:crazy

[Rakarra]

No. Liberals think that government should take care of the poor. Jesus said his followers should take care of the poor. Liberals don't like it when Churches care for the sick and the hungry. They think that's government's job.

Liberals do not think that taking care of the poor should be "optional," which is what you get with charity. They also would rather money go towards the poor as opposed to many other things the church may put it towards (printing of bibles, missionary work in other countries, etc), and preferably without having to give money to those organizations that may take hard lines against things they like (contraception, gay rights, etc).

I'm more libertarian than liberal, but I know what liberals like.

Re:crazy

[nobodie]

But you are not seeing what the GP was saying: this is not about change, or fear or "people" in general. It is about the oil industry recognizing that the world is changing in a way that affects their current and expected profit profiles. They see themselves (being "corporate entities" they are "selves") as fighting for their lives, or at least their health, in the near future. It does not matter if the effect on the rest of the world is negative and destructive, they are in a battle against forces (like us) who want to take away their sources of "fiscal nutrition" that allow them to grow and remain healthy.

Therefore, when considered this way, the Heartland institute and the many other still unknown sources of pushback against scientific and political forces that are clearly trying to reduce that fiscal nutrition are a logical response.

A modest proposal? How about the government offer the oil and energy industry a monopolistic opportunity to provide alternative energy equipment for, say, 5 years. During that time they have the chance to create the industry that they can use to replace their current nutritional base and thus will maintain their control of the energy market. This is all that they need to help them get behind the move, the clear vision that it will provide a revenue stream that can and will help replace their existing sources of income.

Why is this a "modest proposal"? Clearly this is anticompetitive and anti-capitalistic, bashing the ideals of enterpreneurship and free markets. But this is what would make "big energy" happier because it would maintain their monopoly on energy and control of the profit and revenue stream on which they feed. Big energy is an entity in and of itself. It is a "super-entity" in the same way that New York City or the United States are entities. While there might be competing interests inside the body of the entity, all the interests recognize that they must work together to provide for their long-term health. Recognizing this means that you recognize that the legislation and the understanding of the world that created the legislation that controls "monopoly" is doomed to failure. The entities are already bigger than the legislation proposed to control their parts.
The immodesty of this proposal comes from the recognition that either we go to war against these entities ( and the "United Nations" of big international business corporations that would come about because of that war--think WWII) or we accomodate them in a way that they can accept: in other words we lay down on the ground and spread'em.

Re:crazy

[gottabeme]

Seems that I misunderstood you, then. :)

Re:crazy

[goldstein]

Thanks!

Re:crazy

[squiggleslash]

Your are basing the question upon false assumptions and incorrect facts. To simplify my point this is what you are asking: "Why is so much money being on activity X." There is not activity X, no one is spending money as you describe.

Yes, they are. For example, the Cato Institute and the Heartland Institute are both running campaigns promoting a mistrust of science and scientists amongst conservatives.

See, for example, the subject of this very discussion, an attempt to equate scientists with serial killers.

The recent paper that triggered the recent wave among liberal bloggers and media of accusing conservatives of distrusting science was...

...irrelevent to this discussion. You keep bringing it up, despite claiming that it's not what you're talking about.

You are just factually incorrect. There is no widespread calling the actual acts of peer review, or making and testing hypotheses, the scientific method, etc. as hoaxes. What skeptics are pointing out is that a lot of the "science" used to justify political crusades is not science by any objective criteria.

No, you're making things up, probably because you don't want to face the truth. The AGW theory, like tobacco causing cancer before it, is, in fact, science. That is: peer review, studies, hypotheses, testing hypotheses, development of theories from tested hypotheses, etc. That is what conservatives are referring to as hoaxes. You may want to pretend otherwise. But you tell me: what evidence has been posted anywhere that climate scientists are faking any of these? Is Cato seriously claiming that nothing has been peer reviewed, or that the peer reviews are fake? Is the Heartland Institute arguing that climate scientists have not been attempting to test hypotheses?

No. Quite simply, any glance at the anti-science propaganda by these outlets normally boils down to "The scientists say X... BUT LOOK OVER THERE! Mars has a melting glacier! And models are HARD!"

You and I know this. You're trying very hard to pretend otherwise, but you know that... well, look at realclimate.org, a website set up solely because groups like the ones we're talking about keep manufacturing talking points that are bogus: they keep promoting possible explanations for global warming as if these are fantastic new theories nobody has ever thought of and checked out.

Think about that for a moment, a website devoted to "*sigh* Yes, we did check into that."

Why is there a need? Surely if these groups were serious, honest, and not running a campaign that promotes an anti-science agenda, they'd read the fucking science. Because if they had, they wouldn't be coming up with this shit.

Here's a simple study for you to carry out. Go to your local university and conduct a survey to determine the political leanings of various professors and instructors. You'll find that the majority of conservatives are going to be in business, science, engineering and mathematics. The reconsider your assumptions about what conservatives believe.

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps I'm not understanding conservatives, and perhaps you're providing the answer, however unintentionally. You don't want to discuss whether the conservative movement is being targeted by pressure groups with anti-science propaganda, so you keep changing the subject, you keep trying to pretend that this is about whether conservatives are anti-science.

Hence you keep bringing up some study that has no bearing on this conversation. Hence you're now asking me to visit a university and do a survey of political opinions (like I have the time or energy or resources to commit to such a project) despite it having nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Could it be that conservatives, as you're demonstrating, get scared of questions they can't answer? And could it be that this makes them a natural target for an anti-science campaign, given science is all about difficult questions?

Re:crazy

[georgenh16]

Cool links thanks for those. I do find the models really interesting, and I don't dismiss them out of hand. But they are still just models, and by their own words "there is often a tunable parameter or two that can be varied in order to improve the match to whatever observations exist."

Moreover, it's the assumption of the models' predictive accuracy I take the biggest issue with. On the last link there I see three different graphs with actual temperatures lower than modeled predictions over the last 7-8 years. "That's cherry picking!" you'll say. Ok, then let's collect some data for another 7-8 years, and another 7-8 after that, (the more the better) and then see how accurate it actually was.

They Never Even Said Those Things

[eldavojohn]

Fidel Castro, Charles Manson and possibly even Osama Bin Laden

Wow, I never knew that Ted Kaczynski and the above crew were quoted on Global Warming. So, upon reading the article I found that:

How did Heartland justify the comparison between murderers and tyrants and anyone who believed in global warming? "Because what these murderers and madmen have said differs very little from what spokespersons for the United Nations, journalists for the 'mainstream' media, and liberal politicians say about global warming," according to the press release that announced the ads. It went on to claim that "[t]he people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly on the radical fringe of society."

Wait, so you're telling me that you're putting pictures of some of recent history's most hated and feared men next to quotes about believing in Global Warming?

Congratulations, Heartland Institute, your argument is now so depraved that you've reduced yourselves to holding up pictures of Hitler in a public forum while pantomiming your opponents. Is that reductio ad ridiculum or is this so childish that people didn't even bother coming up with a Latin phrase for it?

So they won't mind if I put up a billboard that reads

"... and when this Earth is fucked
the free market will build us a better one."
(read more at www.heartland.org)

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[clickclickdrone]

"... and when this Earth is fucked the free market will build us a better one."

Thing is, I can genuinely imagine them thinking this is worth a try.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[bjourne]

Wait, so you're telling me that you're putting pictures of some of recent history's most hated and feared men next to quotes about believing in Global Warming? Congratulations, Heartland Institute, your argument is now so depraved that you've reduced yourselves to holding up pictures of Hitler in a public forum while pantomiming your opponents. Is that reductio ad ridiculum or is this so childish that people didn't even bother coming up with a Latin phrase for it?

Actually it is called "guilt by association" also known as Reductio ad Hitlerum :). People come up with dog Latin phrases all the time.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you even suspect that you're completely bonkers? You've come to some very odd, completely unsupported conclusions.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[Zemran]

And before the 2nd war in Iraq, Bush would always talk about terrorism etc. in the same sentence as Saddam Hussein even though there was no link. He would talk about Bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein in the same sentence even though they were enemies. He wanted to portray Saddam Hussein as the evil so he creates an image - we call this propaganda. Get used to it, it has been around for a long time. If people hear it often enough they will start to believe it. I often meet people that honestly believe that Saddam Hussein was a terrorist even though he was our ally.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[GameboyRMH]

"Denier" has no more association with "holocaust denier" than "consumer" has with "consumer of human flesh." But don't tell that to your raging persecution complex.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[GameboyRMH]

Funny (and sad) thing is that this advertising campaign will be very, very effective. It's not too childish or ridiculous for the target audience. It's what many are already thinking.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Kaczynski, of all those on the list, seems the most likely to have an opinion on the subject.

His methods were sufficiently notorious to largely drown out his message; but his motivation was, quite explicitly, violent opposition to the perceived consequences of large-scale technological society.

Politically, though, he isn't really a fit with any remotely mainstream philosophy. His explicit opposition to 'liberalism' and state intervention look vaguely conservative; but his equally strong distaste for private-sector control and his total technological pessimism would make him few friends among economic 'conservatives', and the secular, quasi-evolutionary-psychology, flavor of his antiliberal social views would make him an outlier at best among either contemporary secularists as a whole or among any of the flavors of theistic conservatives. Really a very odd duck(albeit a brilliant one).

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[buchner.johannes]

Is that reductio ad ridiculum or is this so childish that people didn't even bother coming up with a Latin phrase for it?

reductio ad absurdum is what you're looking for.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[Anonymous Coward]

"you've reduced yourselves to holding up pictures of Hitler in a public forum while pantomiming your opponents"

I seem to recall environmentalists doing the same to Bush.
And no, I don't support heartland. I just don't support hypocrisy.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[h4rr4r]

No, Disagreer and Skeptic suggest well reasoned differences of opinion. Denier is simply clearer, these people deny facts. Would you call some who claimed the earth was flat a skeptic?

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[Joce640k]

Yep. Just hang out in any climate thread on the Internet and you can see the results of their work.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[MightyYar]

The only way to get the "denier" label is to oppose whatever socialist fascist corporate-kleptocracy solution that has been proposed as the only or final solution to the problem.

I disagree. I've been saying for the last few years now (even here on Slashdot) that while I completely agree with the science behind AGW, all of the solutions are naive and overly optimistic. It is really cute to think that you will get the entire world to agree to stop using the easiest resources available to them. We should be spending money on it, but it should be on predicting and mitigating the effects - trying to prevent it is foolishness. I want to know whether we should, in the next 50-100 years, be putting up seawalls and such or not. How high should this new levy be? Should we bother to rebuild this coastline after the next hurricane? This valley after the next flood?

That said, I hope someone proves me wrong. I've had people disagree with me - and I don't blame them, it's a pessimistic view of human nature. But I've never had the reaction you describe.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[khallow]

"Denier" has no more association with "holocaust denier"

There are quite a few people who disagree (which in itself creates that association). And I suspect the people who started use of the term, "climate denier" were deliberately invoking that parallel.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[hackula]

Congratulations, Heartland Institute, your argument is now so depraved that you've reduced yourselves to holding up pictures of Hitler in a public forum while pantomiming your opponents. Is that reductio ad ridiculum or is this so childish that people didn't even bother coming up with a Latin phrase for it?

The appropriate phrase is "Reductio ad Hitlerum" (seriously, google it).

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[niftydude]

Congratulations, Heartland Institute, your argument is now so depraved that you've reduced yourselves to holding up pictures of Hitler in a public forum while pantomiming your opponents. Is that reductio ad ridiculum or is this so childish that people didn't even bother coming up with a Latin phrase for it?

Oh this form of logic is fun!

Since the thread is already Godwined: Hitler ate bread and drank water. YOU eat bread and drink water. Therefore, you are like Hitler!

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[Gr8Apes]

False.

Write the word 'denier' at the top of a page. Get people to list their connotations. 'Holocaust denier' will be high up there.

You're smoking crack.

While what you say may be true for a tiny minority of people with vested interests, the vast majority of the population would never even think of "Holocaust denier" even should those two words appear on the same page on separate lines. Why? Because for most of us, a "Holocaust denier" is much like an "Earth is Round denier". If they ever run into one, they're considered a lunatic fringe and they move on.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[cvtan]

Their address at "South Wacker Drive" explains everything.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[Miseph]

I'm no fan of trying to equate modern politicians with Hitler (at least those who are not overtly interested in committing genocide), but I have to say that comparing a conservative nationalist with strong tendencies toward militarism and foreign wars to Hitler is somewhat more reasonable than doing so with liberal environmentalists who wish to reduce pollution and greenhouse emissions.

To make a car analogy: likening a Camry to a Malibu is more reasonable than likening a Camry to a Maserati... they are all cars, and there are some similarities on which you could reasonably base the comparisons, but it's a bit of a stretch to argue that an ordinary mid-size sedan is more like an exotic luxury sports car than it is another ordinary mid-size sedan.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[khallow]

No, Disagreer and Skeptic suggest well reasoned differences of opinion.

In other words, it's more important to discredit the opposition, than to be right.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[tibit]

So they won't mind if I put up a billboard that reads

"... and when this Earth is fucked
the free market will build us a better one."
(read more at www.heartland.org)

That is quite epic. Thank you!

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[GameboyRMH]

No, he's saying it's better to be right than to coddle the opposition. They do not have well reasoned differences of opinion. This makes skeptic wrong and disagreer dubious.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[LordLimecat]

Take your pick: red herring, fallacy of irrelevance, reductio ad Hitlerum, or an ad hominem,

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[Gadget_Guy]

Every one of the people that do not buy all (or part of) the whole AGW religion have been labelled "deniers" for 10 years now.

It is interesting that you mention this in relation to a story about Heartland Institute. It was this exact argument that made it apparent to me that there was a hand on the tiller of the anti-global warming movement. I wish I could remember the /. story when this happened, but there was one particular discussion about climate change when I noticed that out of the blue lots of different people had suddenly found themselves being offended by the term "denier". It seemed so unlikely that so many people would simultaneously become offended that at the time I thought that they must have been parroting a recent show of one of the conservative radio commentators.

But it made me pay attention to how the debate progressed in the ranks of the anti-AGW supporters. I began to wonder whether there was some checklist in the boardroom of a think tank (like Heartland) where they had listed what the next bit of FUD they were going to print in their next newsletter for their eager followers to claim as their own.

The funny thing about the "don't call me a denier" argument is that it is often used by right wing pundits who make a living denigrating their opposing side using labels like lefties, greenies, pinkos, communists, intelligentsia, ivory-tower academics, latte-sippers, chatting classes, liberals, alarmists and (apparently the next new term) "green-shirts". Actually, the last one is not really new; a quick google search on "climate green shirts" shows that it has been used for a few years now.

Still, good luck with your denialist gambit. Now it is true that the literal definition of the term is a very apt fit to what you are (more so than skeptic), and nobody using it was doing so to affiliate you with any other denialists. In fact the only people that bring up the holocaust are people like you.

But now you mention it, the holocaust deniers do share some traits with the anti-AGW supports like being against the weight of overwhelming expert opinion and the uncanny ability to be looking elsewhere when being shown evidence that they don't like.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[SuricouRaven]

I think he was confusing it with the reductio ad absurdium. Not a fallacy, but a term in logic in which a point is proven by showing that its inverse implies something which is evidently false.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[Scareduck]

It is interesting that you mention this in relation to a story about Heartland Institute. It was this exact argument that made it apparent to me that there was a hand on the tiller of the anti-global warming movement.

Is it really so difficult to imagine that people simply do not want to see an enormous government intrusion into literally every energy use decision they make, or are made on their behalves by others?

Implying that somehow this is all a conspiracy theory is unbelievably false.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[JazzLad]

I have aquagenic urticaria, you insensitive clod!



I did an insensitive clod joke, someone please shoot me ...

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[Bartles]

The longer "deniers" get labeled deniers, the stronger their arguments and position becomes. A hundred years from now, deniers will either be proven correct, or if we are to believe what we are told, we will be extinct.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[Jason Levine]

Congratulations, Heartland Institute, your argument is now so depraved that you've reduced yourselves to holding up pictures of Hitler in a public forum while pantomiming your opponents.

Does this mean that Heartland Institute just Godwinned themselves?

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[smooth wombat]

Here's the really fun part; if you wanted to turn the table on Heartland, you could develop an ad using Hitler, saying he ignored the evidence until it was too late, then use the same metaphor for climate change but making a point to include Heartland Institute as the deniers.

Oh the howls that would ensue but it would prevent them from using the folks listed above and force them to come out and whine about being lambasted, thus making them explain how climate change isn't happening and showing them for the shills they are.

They would also have to explain why it was acceptable for them to use Kaczynski et al but not ok for someone to use Hitler as a reference to their denial.

Yeah, I like making people squirm by using their own actions and words against them.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[Gadget_Guy]

Is it really so difficult to imagine that people simply do not want to see an enormous government intrusion into literally every energy use decision they make, or are made on their behalves by others?

Implying that somehow this is all a conspiracy theory is unbelievably false.

That is really outside the scope of the topic that I was discussing. The original poster was simply complaining about the use of the term "denier" and not about the implications of the measures required to solve the problem.

Now you might take issue with big government, and that is quite a reasonable and valid stance to take. But the problem is that the deniers (who can be seen elsewhere on this page) are going further than debating our the response to the problem by claiming that global warming is all a big con by government to give themselves more power. As far as conspiracy theories go, that one is huge compared to anything that I have suggested.

My theory involved a small number of people feeding a script to a group of willing, like-minded pundits who in turn influence the more conservative part of the population who eagerly lap up the tales of the "guv'ment" against them. It works because it is managable and it suits the desires of every participant in the chain.

The other idea, that AGW is a giant hoax, would require the cooperation of virtually every government around the world of all persuasions to corrupt the vast majority of the scientific community to produce false results and theories. It would be a monumental task and a complete house of cards, because all it would take is a few emails to wikileaks to show the evidence to bring the whole crashing thing down.

Which one of these theories would you consider to be unbelievably false? You can say that both are unbelievable if you like, but then you probably would not be considered to be the denier that we were discussing in the first place!

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[sgunhouse]

In other words, they don't agree with you.

Amazing how the trolls don't even see it. There are those of us with legitimate questions, yet all we ever see is "the science is well-settled". Sorry, that isn't an answer. As long as you consider everyone who doesn't accept that on blind faith as a "denier", there is no science.

(Yes, Heartland Institute could be called deniers, or payed shills. But as long as you group everyone who doesn't agree with you into one big "deniers" group you're a troll too.)

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>AGW religion

I can't think of any religion that drills holes in glaciers and launches satellites to test its ideas. But maybe I'm "to[sic] dumb".

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[Gadget_Guy]

Hmm, interesting. You used the word "verily", so it must be a quote from Shakespeare. I didn't know that the global warming argument went that far back!

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[MightyMartian]

When the overwhelming majority of researchers in a field of study say one thing, and you get at best a handful of researchers with anything like the credentials necessary to evaluate the evidence stating the opposite (the rest being a hodge-podge of scientists in unrelated fields, engineers and journalists), is your first assumption that the naysayers must be right? You do realize that in almost every field there is at least one or two people who make claims opposed to the accepted theories; biology (a few evolution deniers), Big Bang cosmology (probably one or two physicists who claim it's wrong), HIV causing AIDS (that's right, still one or two who claim it doesn't), and the list goes on.

Let's face it, the reason YOU accept the skeptics is because it feeds your ideological leanings. You have political motives to deny AGW, and basically are willing to claim that the overwhelming majority of climatologists are either fools or liars to keep believing it. It's anti-intellectualism at its worst, but it's all been seen before.

Here's a news flash. The Universe doesn't give a fuck about Libertarianism, Communism, Capitalism, Pol Pot or your political beliefs. Reality is not defined by politics.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[GameboyRMH]

Every legitimate question raised so far has been answered. It's the re-raising of those old questions that separates a skeptic from a denier.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

...but I have to say that comparing someone I disagree with to Hitler is somewhat more reasonable than doing so with someone I agree with
FTFY.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[Uberbah]

I seem to recall environmentalists doing the same to Bush.

No, you don't. You might not support Heartland, but you do support pulling random assertions out of your ass - just like Heartland.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[pr0fessor]

First anyone who says a statistical theory is a fact makes me skeptical. It is a theory based on statistics from data collected and analyzed and can be very accurate or very inaccurate depending on diligence in the collection of data. Doesn't matter, I still own an electric lawn mower because I know that the exhaust from a gas mower has carbon monoxide which is toxic. (no accidental carbon monoxide poisoning when the kid starts the lawn mower in the shed, I know I'm messing with natural selection). I don't disagree with "save the planet, we might need it later" I just think there are better arguments to be had.
 

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[Uberbah]

There are quite a few people who disagree (which in itself creates that association). And I suspect the people who started use of the term, "climate denier" were deliberately invoking that parallel.

Sure. And some people still disagree with the notion that the Earth orbits the Sun. They're also blabbering fuckwits, so what's the point?

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[Nimey]

These people pop up (usually with brand-new accounts) at Ars Technica every time there's an AGW story. I think there must be a website somewhere devoted to these nutbars and if one of them is on a site that runs a story, they'll post at this place (FreeRepublic or elsewhere) and bring all their buddies.

That or a few of them have e.g. Google News set to show all stories about AGW and go from there.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[Uberbah]

Is it really so difficult to imagine that people simply do not want to see an enormous government intrusion into literally every energy use decision they make, or are made on their behalves by others?

No, I don't think that many people spend much time thinking about red herrings that you just made up out of thin air.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[Uberbah]

First anyone who says a statistical theory is a fact makes me skeptical

Gravity is just as much a theory. That skepticism can easily be tested with your foot and an anvil - no temperature records or satellite data needed!

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[Spykk]

This is exactly correct. Oil and coal are finite. So long as they remain the cheapest source of energy someone, somewhere will continue to burn them. If you aren't operating under the assumption that the vast majority of the world's oil and coal reserves will be burned regardless of politics then you are being naive.
If burning oil and coal changes the climate, then the climate will change. All resources spent on slowing that change are ultimately wasted. The only real options left are devising a power source that is cheaper and as convienant as oil or investing in adapting to the inevitable. The odds of a revolutionary new energy source coming to market before we run out of carbon-based resources approach nil so the only thing left to do is get ready.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[tbannist]

In other words, they don't agree with you.

They don't agree with reality, that's why they get labelled as deniers. For denying reality.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[Uberbah]

What's an even bigger misnomer is that AGW skeptics are often called "climate deniers".

Not in the slightest. Like deniers of Evolution, climate change deniers do so not out of any scientific basis, but out of pure ideology and the quaint notion that beliefs are equal to reason.

it's not enough to call them deniers, but alarmists have to misrepresent

I find your lack of self-awareness disturbing.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[geekoid]

"Every one of the people that do not buy all (or part of) the whole AGW religion have been labelled "deniers" for 10 years now. "
that's because the continue to deny it even thought all the evidence points to AGW. They have no new hypothesis that fits the facts.

That's what makes them, or anyone, a denier. It's not because we don't iike what they are saying,l it's that they are saying nothing but lies.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[budgenator]

Heartland Inst. did that to themselves with those moronic billboards; even Anthony Watts over at WUWT, has been raking them over the coals for that little stunt. OBTW that billboard was taken down 3 days ago after a 24 hr run.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[softwareGuy1024]

Or we could just use the already well developed nuclear technologies that we have now. Granted there are higher startup costs, but it pays for itself in the long run. Developed countries, such as the US, getting 50% electricity from coal is inexcusable.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[pr0fessor]

I'm just saying saying if the media made a huge week long ordeal for every accidental death from carbon monoxide poisoning people would be converting to electric stoves, water heaters, heaters, mowers....

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[Attila Dimedici]

Except that these guys I have seen quotes from all of those guys touting the AGW proponents lines. Notice, they did not use Hitler. They used Fidel Castro, who has said that AGW is a problem that requires international cooperation to solve. They used the Unabomber, who has expressed support for AGW. Charles Manson has also expressed a belief in AGW.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[Attila Dimedici]

There were links between Saddam Hussein and terrorism. Among other things, Saddam Hussein gave a large sum of money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. There was a terrorist training camp in Iraq that agents of Saddam's government worked with (there were claims that it was used by Al Quaida, but I do not know how well documented that was). Saddam Hussein was never an ally of the U.S., the closest he came to that status was when he went to war with Iran and that was more of a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of thing.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[Attila Dimedici]

The reason that people are offended by the term "denier" is that they are aware that term gained currency among AGW proponents as an attempt to lump those that disagreed with them in with Holocaust deniers. The term started being used right after there was a major news story about a group of Holocaust deniers and the first people to use it were explicit in the comparison.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[CptNerd]

http://reno4governor.tripod.com/index-8.html

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[riverat1]

I know this will probably get downmodded (and it probably deserves that) but I have to say it. If some of the worst of the potential effects of global warming actually happen then global warming deniers will have been responsible for far more human deaths than Hitler ever was by delaying action on the problem.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[riverat1]

No, the theory behind global warming is based on physics. The data that is collected and used to quantify exactly what the current climate is is processed statistically but the mechanism that drives climate is physical in nature and is studied in that light.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[khallow]

No, he's saying it's better to be right than to coddle the opposition.

No, he wrote something else which I took the liberty of quoting.

They do not have well reasoned differences of opinion.

Here, we have a tiresome stereotype not based on fact.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[khallow]

Every legitimate question raised so far has been answered.

If only the answers were similarly legitimate.

It's the re-raising of those old questions that separates a skeptic from a denier.

Depends on the quality of the answer. Religion has great coverage of questions. Science tries harder to come up with good answers. Seeing that you are concerned with the coverage, but not the quality of those "answers" tells me that you aren't in the scientific camp, but rather the religious one.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[khallow]

No, the theory behind global warming is based on physics.

In part. It's also based on dubious statistics over complex data sets and unproven climate prediction models. You have the radiative model, you have opaque statistical analysis of "temperature sensitive" paleoclimate data, and you have complex computer projections. These do not mixed together well.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[khallow]

The point is that the association exists, contrary to your assertion.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[Falconhell]

You know the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter?
  Whether or not the US agrees with their actions!

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[gmhowell]

Yeah, but for some reason, certain people have interpreted 'never forget' as either 'never stop thinking about it' or 'never stop reminding others about it'.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[Gadget_Guy]

The term started being used right after there was a major news story about a group of Holocaust deniers and the first people to use it were explicit in the comparison.

This is the first time that I have heard of a specific event. Do you have a citation for this? A date? Who was the person that first used it?

You see, the problem with this theory is that it is the perfectly correct word to use. It describes someone who denies something, in the face of the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. This is not a new term (it is over 700 years old), and it certainly was not invented for use with the people who deny the holocaust occurred.

I have seen other posts on this topic where people have explicitly said that they "deny manmade global warming" and yet in the same post object to the term denier. Hey guys, deny and denier are essentially the same word!

On the other hand, "warmist" is a completely made up word. It does not describe what they do (they don't warm things). It was not a term that could have been arisen except from a single source. It was coined as a derogatory term by people who know the power that labelling things can bring. So it comes as no surprise that these people would also want to force their own choice of labels on others, by insisting that we substitute the term skeptic for denier. It is an attempt to sound like they are taking the reasonable position to speak out against a hundred years of scientific research.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[gmhowell]

Hrm... So you are saying that 'denier' is a blanket term for opposition to all proposed 'final solutions'?

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[Attila Dimedici]

That is a real pithy saying and I bet it makes you feel real good about yourself, but it is not true. A freedom fighter targets the ability of the controlling power to exert control over the freedom fighter's territory. A terrorist targets civilian populations that do not support his cause. Some freedom fighters are also terrorists (although any freedom fighter who is using terror tactics will not implement anything we would recognize as freedom if they win).

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[GameboyRMH]

Here, we have a tiresome stereotype not based on fact.

Here's the problem, you're not entitled to your own facts.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[khallow]

Here's the problem, you're not entitled to your own facts.

The thing is, that's your problem not mine. You make a bullshit stereotype and then claim it's a fact? You're not entitled to your own facts, mister.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[gottabeme]

That makes as much sense as someone saying, "God exists because I say so." And I say that as a Christian.

Your argument is simply, "Reality is what I say it is. Anyone who disagrees with me is a denier of reality."

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[gottabeme]

Red herring. Argument fail.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[gottabeme]

Yes. Please post this more. I'm tired of reading, "The science is settled," when it's simply not. Now that's an inconvenient truth.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[GameboyRMH]

I'm not saying the stereotype is a fact, I'm saying that by definition denialists don't have well-reasoned differences of opinion because they aren't using facts, same as moon landing deniers or flat earthers. If they had well-reasoned arguments based on fact they'd be called skeptics and would not flat-out deny well-established science. They'd try to answer their own questions instead of bringing up dead old arguments that anyone could easily find an answer to.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[gottabeme]

They don't need a new hypothesis--the AGW hypothesis doesn't fit the facts. Many of the "facts" that are cited to support AGW aren't even facts, but extrapolations of data points which are within margins of error.

The lie is that AGW is a fact, and that it's supported by facts. Statistically insignificant data are not facts.

How's that for an inconvenient truth.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[gottabeme]

By your logic, isolationists were responsible for deaths which would have been prevented had the U.S. entered WWII sooner, and those opposed to the Iraq War would have been responsible for those additional deaths which would have occurred under Hussein's regime.

Claiming that any group of people--one which you conveniently oppose--is responsible for a natural disaster of global proportion which has yet to even occur is beyond words.

Shame on you.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[Scareduck]

No, I don't think that many people spend much time thinking about red herrings that you just made up out of thin air.

False. A scheme to prohibit people from generating carbon dioxide would necessarily result in an enormous spy regime. Think of the War On Drugs times ten.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[tbannist]

No where did I say "Reality is what I say it is". However, humans have developed this amazing thing called science. You may have heard of it?

With science and the scientific method we can actually define an objective reality. You are certainly free to claim that you are not bound by that of reality but I doubt anyone will believe you. Although, I can think of many experiments that could resolve the question for you... permanently.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[riverat1]

Oh, it won't take 100 years for the situation to become obvious, more like 20 years. Homo sapiens is unlikely to go extinct any time soon. We are able to live in environments as diverse as the Kalahari Desert and the high Arctic. As long as we can find food we'll be around. But our numbers could be drastically reduced in 100 years.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[Rakarra]

But nuclear is scary.
I mean, look at Japan, a few dozen miles around Fukishima will be unlivable for a hundred years or more.
Same with Chernobyl.

Those two incidents are far worse worse than rising sea levels obliterating small countries, entire US states, and so forth.
What the old story? The key to cooking a live frog is to up the heat gradually -- throw it in a pot of hot water, and it jumps out. Ease the heat up gradually and he doesn't move.

We are far more scared of a couple small-scale nuclear disasters than we are large-scale coal-spawned cancers or eventual sea levels rising.
Instead we deal with pie-in-the-sky (literally!) solar and wind plans that have no hope to ever generate anything close to the levels of electricity we need.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[khallow]

I'm saying that by definition

So when does the definition fit the usage?

I could call you a "fool", but that doesn't automatically make you one. Wouldn't you consider it a bit annoying, if you attempted to correct me, and all I did was talk about the definition of "fool" (maybe even admitting on the side, that well, I didn't have any basis at all for calling you a fool) without retracting the original statement?

I'm not saying the stereotype is a fact

Then you shouldn't be saying it.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[gottabeme]

Obviously, though there is a single truth, interpretations of it vary wildly. You should account for this in your arguments. As I said, your argument boiled down to, "I'm right, I have truth, whoever disagrees with me is a denier of reality." And that's not science--that's just labeling.

It's rather arrogant of anyone to think he can fully understand or predict a system as enormous as the entire Earth's climate. You should be a bit more careful with your claims, lest time prove you wrong someday.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[khallow]

Because for most of us, a "Holocaust denier" is much like an "Earth is Round denier". If they ever run into one, they're considered a lunatic fringe and they move on.

You do realize that there are people in this very discussion comparing "climate deniers" to flat Earthers? I don't buy your claim at all. Remember we're not speaking of a disinterested listener, but of the people who coined the phrase. It's a two word way to compare opponents to the lunatic fringe.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[Uberbah]

False. A scheme to prohibit people from generating carbon dioxide would necessarily result in an enormous spy regime. Think of the War On Drugs times ten.

Making shit up. Again.

Replacing coal plants with wind and solar farms will do what, exactly, to infringe on your personal liberty? Replacing highway sprawl with mass transit and high speed rail would result in an "enormous spy regime" how, exactly?

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[Uberbah]

Conservative butthurt. WATB's can't handle their argument of convenience being challenged!

FTFY. In the meantime, feel free to test that mere "theory" of gravity with your foot and an anvil.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[Uberbah]

That the best you could do? Your link doesn't have anything to do with environmentalism - you just Googled for "Bush + Hitler" and posted the first link you clicked on, didn't you?

Common, you can do some better nutpicking than that. Some environmentalist board where one comment out of 150,000 went Godwin on the former president.

Wont change the fact that you are nutpicking, not finding a actual "Bush=Hitler" meme from actual environmentalists.

Re:They Never Even Said Those Things

[Uberbah]

Were it not for all the scientists who disagree with the notion of "primarily anthropogenic climate change".

You mean all the scientists in other fields or in the employ of climate change deniers like the Koch brothers? Those scientists?

Now, you can blather and bloviate as much as you want, but that wont change the fact that climate change denialists are acting out of ideology, not rational skepticism.

Non sequitur

[mwvdlee]

I dare bet the unabomber, Castro, Manson and Bin Laden all believe(d) in breathing air as well.
Does that make breathing air wrong all of a sudden?

Re:Non sequitur

[hey!]

I dare bet the unabomber, Castro, Manson and Bin Laden all believe(d) in breathing air as well.
Does that make breathing air wrong all of a sudden?

Do you mean *in general*, or as applied to those people *specifically*?

Re:Non sequitur

[geekoid]

A billboard with Bin Laden "That man believed in God, do you?"

Re:Non sequitur

[shutdown -p now]

I wonder, would it be possible to have such a thing and set it up right next to Heartland's ad? If it's doable, I think that crowdsourcing the funding would be pretty easy (I'd personally chip in with a couple hundred dollars if necessary).

And here you are...

[Anonymous Coward]

...giving them free publicity, meaning their "crazy pill" strategy to garner attention worked.

Well done, Slashdot!

Re:And here you are...

[squiggleslash]

I'm fine with it. If everyone knows that the biggest voices against the AGW consensus are so out of arguments that this is what some of them are having to resort to, I think both the Heartland Institute and those who've reported on them are doing the world a favor.

Re:And here you are...

[MightyYar]

Sure he's blaming the AGW antics, but deep down Diageo is just upset that a Democrat implemented the HI health plan.

Re:And here you are...

[GrumblyStuff]

Let's give them some more publicity. Who funds them? Who are they representing?

Re:And here you are...

[awshidahak]

I'm fine with it. If everyone knows that the biggest voices against the AGW consensus are so out of arguments that this is what some of them are having to resort to, I think both the Heartland Institute and those who've reported on them are doing the world a favor.

You'd think so until you look at all the people who tought that Obama was a terrorist basing their information solely off of the fact that Obama sounded like Osama. Now we're going to just get a bunch of crazy Tea Party Libertarians saying "Enviros want to destroy the world with their commie-holocaust." Don't believe me? You just wait and see. Crazy people believe crazy things.

You love cancer...

[Anonymous Coward]

... Fidel Castro hates cancer, so you must love it, or you'll be agreeing with him. Ergo you love cancer.

The reason the backers backed away is because it shows they had no rational argument to the science of climate change. If this was the best argument they could do, then they have nothing.

And?

[HBI]

The word "denier" implies the debate is over. So why not do what the Heartland Institute is doing? Smear the shit out of the AGW believers. It's how campaigns are won, and this one is being won.

How can you even argue that they should be doing anything different, if you assume that they actually believe in what they believe in. The other side is working off of false premises and has been admitting it - not quite openly, but admitting it - for 30 years. All that talk about the emergency not allowing for proper proof. Why not go hardball in the other direction? It's the only thing that's worked so far to move the needle. Otherwise, every time there's a snowstorm or a heat wave, it's AGW causing it.

Did you really think that politicians, an expression of the will of people, were going to let what amounts to a bunch of geeks tell them what to do? Think about it for a moment and realize how ludicrous that sounds. Of course there are Climategates and OBL billboards going up, tarring the AGW believers. This is standard politics, how it's been done since the beginning of time.

Re:And?

[tbannist]

Eventually, I suspect the Heartland institute will be broken by global warming. They are becoming the face of opposition to global warming and when something really bad happens and people blame it on global warming. There's money and prestige in that, but also danger. Eventually, people will turn on them. The Heartland Institute will be dragged through the mud and destroyed. I know if they understand that they are going to be the fall guy on this one. When conservative voters wake up to the fact that global warming is real, the politicians will say "It's not my fault, Heartland lied to us all". Suddenly, they will be friendless and vulnerable.

This type of no holds barred lowest common denominator politics is going to make a lot of enemies, isn't going to win them many new friends.

Re:And?

[PopeRatzo]

So why not do what the Heartland Institute is doing? Smear the shit out of the AGW believers.

Yes, because the Heartland Institute is perfectly capable of smearing themselves with shit, thank you very much.

Re:And?

[HBI]

I'm sure they are. They are from Montana, after all.

Re:Last I knew

[Anonymous Coward]

Only people with a vested interest in selling fossil fuels argue that there is even a debate. Volcanoes emit 300 million tons of CO2 per year, whereas humans emit 30,000 million tons of CO2 per year. The arguers are very loud, so I don't expect most people to know about this urban legend.

Re:Last I knew

[dbIII]

Last I knew, it was still heavily debated

The debate was over by the time a report on global warming landed on President Johnson's desk. I'm not exagerating. There was a report on that subject that was submitted to the President some years after climate scientists observed a trend, had a pile of conferences on the subject and agreed that it was a problem.
For the last decade there have just been self serving idiots like Monckton (call those Jewish kids Nazis) and Plimer (pretend climate science is a religeon and mock religeon - thus including climate science) pretending there is a debate. It's been almost entirely noise for hire. Compare the amount Monckton makes on his travelling roadshow to the most highly paid Nobel prize winner in any science on the planet and you'll see why.

Re:Last I knew

[tbannist]

You should probably check more often, that debate has been over at least a decade. Not that it was ever in much of a debate. While it's true that the natural cycle is larger than human contributions, the natural cycle operates in an equilibrium state. It's kind of like having two big tanks of water with water rushing back and forth between them. If you start pouring additional water into the tanks they will eventually both fill up regardless of how much water flows between the two tanks.

If you want a better understanding of the state of climate change science you should read this big picture overview.

You reap what you sow.

[Anonymous Coward]

Left-wingers act like they are taking part in a justified war.

And a war is what they receive, by someone who considers themselves equally justified.

Wrong Questions

[georgenh16]

They're going about it the wrong way.
You don't want people asking themselves why they care whether the Unabomber believed in AGW.

You want them asking the right questions:
1. Is the planet warming?
2. If yes, by a significant amount?
3. If yes, is it human caused?
4. If yes, by a significant amount? (say >=30%)
5. If yes, can we reverse it?
6. If yes, should we reverse it?
7. If yes, do the risks of not reversing it outweigh:

- taxing your breath
- crippling the world economy
- billions of people poorer, governments richer
- any and all other power grabs and loss of freedom that result

8. If yes, what are the chances we'll make it worse by trying to fix it?

There is a lot of doubt added for each of 1-6 (especially if you're a good scientist/engineer with healthy skepticism), enough that there's not good reason for any politician to even look at #7.
Only 1-5 are actually science/engineering. The rest are political questions.
Anti-AGW people like myself just like to point out that there is uncertainty in 1-6, and even if there wasn't, the answer to #7 is most certainly "NO".
And for #8, here I cite the Aral Sea, the tire reef, solyndra, and the recent article about wind turbines causing warming as examples of wonderful government environmental "successes".

P.S. If you're taking 1-6 as truth with zero doubt, you've got a religion.

Re:Wrong Questions

[GameboyRMH]

LOL plenty of wrong assumptions under number 7. And you don't exhale fossil-sourced CO2. At least I don't.

And the warming around turbines is very localized. They stir up the air around them.

Re:Wrong Questions

[vlm]

And you don't exhale fossil-sourced CO2. At least I don't.

I find that incredibly unlikely. You can argue the numbers but very roughly speaking a pound of "food" requires a pound of crude oil. The range of rational argument for the ratio is from 1/10 to 10 depending on the food, fertilizer, herbicide/insecticide, watering technique and source, shipment of all component parts, energy costs of refrigerated storage, capital investments in the transportation infrastructure (think of the giant blacktop parking lot full of SUVs in front of my local organic store).

You can play enron accountant that if you exhale 1 gram CO2, that gram did technically come from atmospheric sources so it doesn't matter than 10 grams of CO2 was emitted to make it possible for you to eat the food. But thats enron accounting... 11 grams output into the air is 11 grams into the air no matter how you split it up.

Re:Wrong Questions

[GameboyRMH]

I'd say it would be playing enron accounting to say that the CO2 I exhale comes from the carbon used in food production. You could say I shit fossil CO2 when I eat food fertilized with fossil fertilizer but I don't exhale it.

Re:Wrong Questions

[GameboyRMH]

From what I understand from the story the warming was caused by the blades mixing air at different altitudes rather than any slowing of wind (which should be immeasurably small):

But on huge wind farms the motion of the turbines mixes the air higher in the atmosphere that is warmer, pushing up the overall temperature.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9234715/Wind-farms-can-cause-climate-change-finds-new-study.html

Re:Wrong Questions

[Nemyst]

The risks of not reversing it involve the deaths of millions if not billions of people. Your economical bullshit has little weight compared to this.

Re:Wrong Questions

[georgenh16]

Does it mean millions dead?
Are you a fortune teller? How do you know?
I for one can outrun a sea level rise of 3mm / year.
And don't give me crap about hurricanes and flooding. As long as people want to live right on the ocean, they will be killed by bad weather no matter where the shoreline is, or what the temperature is.
And you're missing the point - which is that it could be exactly the opposite, perhaps millions more could be fed if the tundra became arable land.
The economic part is not to be dismissed either. The richer someplace is, the better off the poor are. Just look at the poor in the US with TVs and cars vs. Ethiopia. If we have global taxes and environmental regulations depressing the world economy, that means billions are worse off (and maybe dead, but I won't be as arrogant as you to assert that as definitive).

Re:Wrong Questions

[artor3]

1. & 2. are settled science. There's always some "doubt" in science, but not in the way you use the term. People like you, or more accurately the people who tell you what to think, profit from muddying the waters. Fear, uncertainty, and doubt... it's not just for software anymore!

3. & 4. are irrelevant. Who cares whose fault it is? If it's going to disrupt our lifestyles, we should try to stop it. This is just some religious fundie bullshit. "Oh, there's no way humans could affect God's plan!"

5. That's what we're trying to do, but deniers are fighting tooth and nail to keep us from even trying.

6. Yes, if you believe the science, the consequences would be severe. Not the end of the world, but a drastic reduction in quality of life for billions of people. But instead you've chosen to believe that all the scientists are in a big globe spanning conspiracy.

7. Taxing breath Strawman! Crippling the world economy FUD! Billions poorer, governments richer Bullshit! Do you think the governments are going to make a massive money pit filled with gold coins or something? They're not going to be richer, they're going to immediately turn around and spend that money. So your statement should have been "oil execs poorer, working class richer". And yeah, I'd be fine with that as a pleasant little side effect.

8. "Wind turbines causing warming." That story was revealed to be bullshit in the comments of Slashdot. It was only warming the area immediately around the windmill, not contributing to global warming. But of course, you wouldn't pay attention, because you want to believe all those stupid leftie ideas are back firing. You'll just gleefully go on spreading that lie 'til the end of time.

Re:Wrong Questions

[dkleinsc]

Point 1: That one is pretty near zero doubt: NASA data. There are other sources as well, and even anti-AGW folks usually acknowledge a rise.

Point 2: Too vague to answer usefully, because "significant" is not defined. That means that a pro-AGW and an anti-AGW will see the same data and come to opposite conclusions about whether it's significant.

Point 3: Probably yes - Correlations between change in temperature and human emission of CO2. That's obviously not complete proof of causation, but it's indicative of either a causal link one way or the other or an unknown third factor that just happens to match other factors. An experimentally tested mechanism for CO2 emissions causing change in temperature says that this is a reasonably accurate hypothesis. This is about as close as we'll be able to come to a definitive yes without a couple more planet Earths and a few centuries to test things out more thoroughly.

Point 4: Probably yes (see point 3), but even if not this isn't entirely relevant. If it's caused by something else (cow farts, volcanos, etc), we still need to clean up the mess if we're going to survive.

Point 5: Almost definitely no. The reason is that those with the power to do something about it have a vested interest in not doing anything. In other words, the problem is politics, not science.

Point 6: Most studies on the theorized effects of global climate change on economies give this one a definite yes. Although the sea level thing is the one that's entered popular culture, the problems include desertification of farm land, water shortages, increased number and strength of tropical storms / hurricanes / monsoons, and the political fallout from all of those (starving homeless people tend to do desperate things like start wars).

Point 7: All of your listed actions are pretty much fantasy. What most governments are actually talking about is regulating the emission of CO2 in much the same way that they've regulated the emission of SO2.

Point 8: Fairly high, for the reasons laid out in point 5.

Basically, the way I see it, there's a problem, and we're absolutely screwed because those who might be able to do something effective about it don't want to. There's just too much short-term gain in doing nothing for anyone to really do something.

Re:Wrong Questions

[Uberbah]

Does it mean millions dead?
Are you a fortune teller? How do you know?

How do you know nuclear war would be a problem until we see one? We know the Earth has experienced rapid climate change before. We also know that those changes also coincided with mass extinctions.

Resource wars. Drought. Famine. Disease. More and more powerful typhoons, hurricanes, and tornadoes. Lengthy heat waves that can prove deadly for the young, the sick. and the elderly. All real risks of real climate change.

The economic part is not to be dismissed either. The richer someplace is, the better off the poor are. Just look at the poor in the US with TVs and cars vs. Ethiopia.

Dude. The Randian Kool Aid. You might want to cut down. Cuba has a fraction of the percentage of the wealth that the U.S. does, yet it's populace has universal health care, and despite spending 1/37th per person as much as the U.S., has comparable health care stats.

And of course, that's even supporting the conservative urban legend that mitigating climate change would be a detriment to society, when in fact it would be the greatest economic boon to hit this planet since the post WWII era. Millions of jobs created in building solar, wind and hydro power. Millions more in building mass transit. And of course, saving energy means *saving money*. Even if you want to remain a self-centered troglodyte and continue to use your Hummer as a passenger vehicle, you still want society as a whole to cut way back on the use of fossil fuels, because it will mean cheaper gas.

Re:Wrong Questions

[georgenh16]

1. & 2. are settled science. There's always some "doubt" in science, but not in the way you use the term. People like you, or more accurately the people who tell you what to think, profit from muddying the waters. Fear, uncertainty, and doubt... it's not just for software anymore!

No one tells me what to think. I give you that the planet has warmed is fact, but it's been roughly flat since 1998. #2, it's debatable whether the temperature rise is significant, or alarming.

3. & 4. are irrelevant. Who cares whose fault it is? If it's going to disrupt our lifestyles, we should try to stop it. This is just some religious fundie bullshit. "Oh, there's no way humans could affect God's plan!"

They go to #5. If you assume 1+2, you have to ask whether it's part of Earth's natural climate fluctuations, because if it is, then burying every Hummer isn't going to do squat. Nothing religious at all here, don't know where you got that.

6. Yes, if you believe the science, the consequences would be severe. Not the end of the world, but a drastic reduction in quality of life for billions of people. But instead you've chosen to believe that all the scientists are in a big globe spanning conspiracy.

You're putting words in my mouth, I assume no such global conspiracy. I only ask that there be a rational debate where the pros of a warmer earth be considered also. Could we feed millions more if the tundra were arable? A large chunk of the total dry land is near the poles.

Billions poorer, governments richer Bullshit! ... your statement should have been "oil execs poorer, working class richer".

Do you not understand economics? Oil execs set the price of gas. You pay for gas. Higher taxes means higher prices for working stiffs like you and me. The governments won't mint gold necklaces, but they will take a cut, and distribute the rest to who they see fit, giving them more influence and power.

8. "Wind turbines causing warming." That story was revealed to be bullshit in the comments of Slashdot.

Sorry I didn't have time to read those comments. I'll take you at your word. No rebuttal for all the other government disasters?

Re:Wrong Questions

[Ichijo]

7. If yes, do the risks of not reversing it outweigh: - crippling the world economy

If you believed in negative externalities, you would know that they are what cripple the world economy, and that correcting them, like correcting any other market failure, would be beneficial to the world economy.

So tell us, why don't you believe in them? Perhaps you think you live in a Coasian fantasy world where people bargain without transaction costs to reach efficient allocations. Or you are such a believer in small government that you are willing to live with inferior economic outcomes, such as pollution and congestion. Or maybe you have another reason?

Re:Wrong Questions

[vlm]

11 grams output into the air is 11 grams into the air no matter how you split it up.

...It's a net wash...Net carbon is created in the production of food ... People will seek out foods that have a smaller carbon footprint because they'll be cheaper.

A net wash would be 11 grams out, 11 from corn. What we have is 11 grams out, 10 from crude and natgas, 1 from corn.

Net carbon only created if the food is preserved and buried in a mine. Otherwise its released either from eating or rotting.

The footprint only matters if the govt subsidy is smaller than the carbon cost. Usually, it isn't. That would only work in a free market which we do not have.

Re:Wrong Questions

[hey!]

I like the way you've structured this argument, except for one point: while you correctly identify that acting against AGW if it is possible may have costs, you assume that *not* acting has *no* costs. Except for the "taxing your breath" bit (which is silly), one can easily argue that all the negative results you mention could be caused by unchecked AGW.

Re:Wrong Questions

[georgenh16]

Point 1: That one is pretty near zero doubt: NASA data. There are other sources as well, and even anti-AGW folks usually acknowledge a rise.

Yup, that's a given, but you have to start somewhere, and temperatures have been roughly flat since 1998.

Point 2: Too vague to answer usefully, because "significant" is not defined. That means that a pro-AGW and an anti-AGW will see the same data and come to opposite conclusions about whether it's significant.

Exactly - it's a valid point of debate, that also feeds into discussion of 6, 7, 8 (as opposed to dogma of pro-AGW folks). There is a point, (e.g. 10C/yr) where it's simply fact, but we're not there.

Point 3: Probably yes - ... this is a reasonably accurate hypothesis. This is about as close as we'll be able to come to a definitive yes without a couple more planet Earths and a few centuries to test things out more thoroughly.

My point exactly. It's reasonable, but there's a lot of reasonable doubt here without more Earths and more centuries, and certainly not a validated scientific truth.

Point 4: Probably yes (see point 3), but even if not this isn't entirely relevant. If it's caused by something else (cow farts, volcanos, etc), we still need to clean up the mess if we're going to survive.

It goes to #5 - if it's orbital fluctuations, we probably can't fix it.

Point 5: Almost definitely no. The reason is that those with the power to do something about it have a vested interest in not doing anything. In other words, the problem is politics, not science.

There are many politicians who would love to do something about it, because it gives them more tax dollars, greater authority, and reinforces that feeling that they know better than the peons.

Point 6: Most studies on the theorized effects of global climate change on economies give this one a definite yes. Although the sea level thing is the one that's entered popular culture, the problems include desertification of farm land, water shortages, increased number and strength of tropical storms / hurricanes / monsoons, and the political fallout from all of those (starving homeless people tend to do desperate things like start wars).

It seems to be popular culture these days to theorize on the disasters that could befall mankind. The point is there could be upsides, like perhaps farming in Siberia and Canada that could feed millions. I for one am not arrogant enough to assume that the optimal temperature of Earth is what it was in 19XX.

Point 7: All of your listed actions are pretty much fantasy. What most governments are actually talking about is regulating the emission of CO2 in much the same way that they've regulated the emission of SO2.

Cap and Trade would cost trillions... why do you say I am dreaming?

Point 8: Fairly high, for the reasons laid out in point 5.

Yup - another reason not to monkey with things we don't fully understand.

Basically, the way I see it, there's a problem, and we're absolutely screwed because those who might be able to do something effective about it don't want to. There's just too much short-term gain in doing nothing for anyone to really do something.

Well you've acknowledged (admirably) that there is doubt in some of these things, so I say if there's doubt in the existence of the problem, doubt in the extent of the problem, doubt if it's even a bad thing, doubt in how to "fix" it, and doubt in whether or not or fix would make things worse, I doubt we should be doing anything drastic about it.

Re:Wrong Questions

[geekoid]

answer to 1 through 7 is 'Yes'. ALL the data we have supports that. Can new data change that? yes. However we can not sit around and wait for 'new' data. We need to look and we need to act. All know possible source to date have been ruled out except one: Humans.

"- taxing your breath"
no one is proposing that.

"- crippling the world economy"
Wouldn't happen,. I n fact it would bolster it.

"- billions of people poorer, governments richer"
This make no sense. You do know the government spends money, right? you so know that money goes to people, right?

"- any and all other power grabs and loss of freedom that result "
That too nebulas to comment on. Freedom in the classic sense would not be infringed upon. If by freedom you mean 'I can do any damn thing I want, everyone else be damned. Then, no,. But you never had that. No one ever has.

"There is a lot of doubt added for each of 1-6 (especially if you're a good scientist/engineer with healthy skepticism)"
no, there isn't. It's not 100%, but there isn't 'a lot of doubt' by the experts.

"he rest are political questions."
True, but they are also survival questions. Lets not forget what we are talking about here. Survival of the species. That isn't hyperbole. If we don't reduce substantially, the areas on the earth the protect us be absorbing the heat will not be able to any more. We are talking a couple of hundred years, at best. Since it will take time to get the CO2 lowered, we need to start now. We also need to start on the infrastructure changes that will be needed.

"Anti-AGW people like myself just like to point out that there is uncertainty in 1-6, and even if there wasn't, the answer to #7 is most certainly "NO"."
Well, since 7 is irrelevant and stupid, it doesn't really deserve to be there because it's too damn vague.

"8. If yes, what are the chances we'll make it worse by trying to fix it?"
Oh, so some mistakes happened in the past so we don't try any more? that's you argument? what a dolt.

Here is one fro you:
There are 4 times the cars on the roads in LA then there where in 1970. There's HALF the pollution. There are Many, many times where something was wrong and we made policy changes that helped. Many., many times.

AGW is a fact. Unless you have some new information that hasn't been completely shot down on why spewing 30 billion+ tons of a know green house gas isn't the reason for the temperature increase?

This is why you are a deniers and not an actual skeptic. And Actual skeptic looks at facts and draws a conclusion. A deniers makes up lies, wallows in ignorance and there replies boiled down to logical fallacies. You response might as well be "Oh Yeah"

You, sir, are the one practicining relgion in this discussion, not the people who studied facts and came to the conclusion.

Which bring be to this point:

I have watched and participated in this science to varying degrees for 35 years. All the question still being tossed around where actually legitimacy scientific questions then. They have been looked at studied and discarded when they didn't fit the actual data.

It's like the deniers just came here from the 1970's.

Re:Wrong Questions

[georgenh16]

People are arrogant to think they have the science perfectly right without validating models' predictions on more decades or more Earths.
Arrogant to think humans must be the only cause of problems.
Arrogant to think "woe is me/us"
Arrogant to think they know better than all those little people who disagree
Arrogant to think they know the solution
Arrogant to think their solution will have no flaws / side effects.

Re:Wrong Questions

[georgenh16]

Sorry can't click on the link at the moment, but I have no problem with government regulations to handle negative externalities like polluting your neighbor.
I have a problem when government gets so big they can tell me and my neighbor what to do in any and every minutiae of daily life, and take half of what I earn or more.
Taxing to the hilt that by which all other goods and services are transported is more certain to have a detrimental effect on the economy than a potential creeping up of temperature.

Re:Wrong Questions

[georgenh16]

I can't reply to all of that, but in general, I simply ascribe more doubt to each question than you do, and more downside to the proposed solutions.
I have more doubt because IT IS NOT SCIENCE when you don't make a prediction, validate the prediction, and get independent verification.
The number of questions are not superfluous because at any one of them if the answer is "no", then we shouldn't be doing things like cap+trade.

Re:Wrong Questions

[georgenh16]

I would agree with you if we were talking about an ice age, since not much thrives on ice.
But you have no basis to know any of these would happen, that would not otherwise happen anyways: "Resource wars. Drought. Famine. Disease. More and more powerful typhoons, hurricanes, and tornadoes." And no apparent consideration for possible upsides, like growing food in Siberia, feeding millions that would have otherwise died.

If Cuba is so great, why don't you move there?

As soon as solar/wind/hydro is economical, I'm there with you. I'd love to use all three at my house and go off the grid.

Re:Wrong Questions

[Ichijo]

I have a problem when government gets so big they can tell me and my neighbor what to do in any and every minutiae of daily life...

That's a good example of the "slippery slope" fallacy, but it adds nothing substantial to the conversation.

Taxing to the hilt that by which all other goods and services are transported is more certain to have a detrimental effect on the economy than a potential creeping up of temperature.

Why must pollution be taxed to the hilt? Why not tax it only according to how much it injures the third parties to the transaction? Then it would have no net effect on the economy, if everything else stays the same.

But then faced with paying the true cost of transporting goods, shippers would switch to less polluting methods to save money, and that would be a net positive benefit for the economy.

So no, correcting market failures does not have a detrimental effect on the economy.

Re:Wrong Questions

[georgenh16]

Yeah I jumped to the end of the slippery slope there, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight anything that moves in that direction.

Who determines the third parties injured by externalities? The government.
Who determines the cost of injuries to third parties, especially for something global like this? The government.
Who then would collect and distribute the tax to those parties (while taking their cut)? The government.

Sorry, but their record of "efficiency" gives me zero faith that they could carry this out, or that there would be no detrimental effect on the economy in the process.

Re:Wrong Questions

[rastoboy29]

There is one problem with your point of view--and I think you would agree--which is that supporting pollution of any sort makes no sense.

We should cut back on CO2 pollution just as we should cut back on all other forms of it.

What I fear is that in our anti-agw zeal, we're simply supporting continuing CO2 and all other forms of pollution.

We should try to leave the planet as we found it as much as is compatible with our own welfare, because we depend on it to survive.

Re:Wrong Questions

[Ichijo]

Who determines the cost of injuries to third parties, especially for something global like this? The government.

Or researchers like the ones at California State University-Fullerton who found that dirty air costs the economy up to $1,600 per person annually.

Sorry, but their record of "efficiency" gives me zero faith that they could carry this out, or that there would be no detrimental effect on the economy in the process.

We would have cleaner air, less asthma and other respiratory problems, fewer premature deaths and fewer nonfatal heart attacks, people would miss fewer days of work, and children would miss fewer days of school every year. Surely these things would benefit the economy?

Re:Wrong Questions

[dkleinsc]

The basic problem, in a nutshell, is all in the long-run payoff matrix:

1. AGW is true and a serious problem to the tune of what the scientific consensus viewpoint says:
    A. Humanity does nothing: -$trillions, -billions of people, absolute catastrophe with serious questions about the survival of the human race.
    B. Humanity does nothing effective: -$trillions, -billions of people, absolute catastrophe with serious questions about the survival of the human race.
    C. Humanity does something expensive but effective: -$trillions, probably -millions of people, big mess.
    D. Humanity does something cheap and effective (not likely): -$billions, probably -thousands of people, small mess

2. AGW is false or not a serious problem:
    A. Humanity does nothing: 0
    B. Humanity does nothing effective: -$billions, probably -thousands of people, small mess.
    C: Humanity does something expensive but effective: -$trillians, probably -millions of people, big mess.
    D. Humanity does something cheap and effective (not likely): -$billions, probably -thousands of people, small mess

We only have 1 shot, and we want to hit, in order: 2A, 2B or 2D, 1D, 1C, 2C (1A and 1B are obviously out of the question). The thing is, because of short-termism, regardless of whether AGW is true or false, most politicians and business leaders will choose A and some (e.g. Al Gore) will pick B while pretending it's D. Those that are advocating C aren't suggesting that this is in any way desireable, just that it's less bad than being wrong about picking A or B. Notice also that the scenarios where AGW is false or not a problem are preferable to AGW being true, but whether or not AGW is true isn't a decision we get to make. That means that the optimists among us sure want to believe AGW is false whether or not it really is.

Hence my view that we're likely doomed.

Re:Wrong Questions

[georgenh16]

At least you're starting to do cost analysis, you just left out the "benefit" part.

Also (this might have been your pessimism speaking :-p) I utterly reject that it calls into question the survival of the human race. If in 100 years it is actually a ton warmer and things are actually dire, it will become necessary (and economical) to do something about it, and we will.

Re:Wrong Questions

[georgenh16]

You want to write everyone a check?
So I'm paying $1600 + who knows how much extra in costs passed on to consumers for goods and services due to taxes on businesses, just so I can get some fraction of that back as a check after cuts and transaction costs are taken out? Pretty dumb.

I'm all for clean air, and if LA wants to tackle their smog, go for it. Fine businesses for transgressions of a clean air act until it's economical for them to be clean.
It is quite another thing entirely to be doing something like cap and trade that was estimated to cost trillions, or to have energy policies like the president's where the goal is to have energy prices skyrocket to make people get on bikes or something. Especially when there is doubt in the external cost of global warming.

Re:Wrong Questions

[Ichijo]

So I'm paying $1600 + who knows how much extra in costs passed on to consumers for goods and services due to taxes on businesses...

You didn't read what I wrote earlier explaining why the full cost won't be passed on to consumers. That makes you a good example of how AGW deniers have the uncanny ability to be looking elsewhere when being shown evidence that they don't like..

Or may be you simply didn't understand it. So I'll repeat it: faced with paying the true cost of transporting goods, shippers would switch to less polluting methods to save money. They would start with the low-hanging fruit, the measures that bring the most benefit for the cost. A shipper might spend $400 to save $800 of the $1600 charge, and then pass half of the net savings ($200) to the consumer. So overall, the consumer pays $1400, the shipper pockets $200, and the respiratory patient benefits by $800 in better health plus $800 in reduced hospital fees. So that's $1800 in total benefits for a $1400 cost. Anyone who understand money could tell you that an instantaneous and risk-free 29% return on your investment is a good deal, even if administrative costs lower that number slightly.

It is quite another thing entirely to be doing something like cap and trade that was estimated to cost trillions...

That's a good "straw man" fallacy. Cap and Trade isn't the only way, and certainly not the best, to recover the social cost of carbon emissions.

Especially when there is doubt in the external cost of global warming.

How precise does the calculated social cost of carbon need to be before we should start trying to correct the market failure? Seriously, are you expecting tenths of a cent resolution per ton of carbon? Hundredths of a cent? Get real.

Re:Wrong Questions

[tjstork]

Point 6 isn't settled at all. And while point 7 has silly examples, it is a fair question.

The consequences of eliminating fossil fuels are arguably more poverty causing than the consequences of using them for another 50 years until nuclear power becomes less expensive and fusion becomes available. You assume that increased energy taxes, essentially, aren't going to be consumer neutral - when they are going to be disasterous. A modest increase in gasoline prices in the USA directly caused the financial disaster of 2008, and AGW advocates propose doing that, every year, by design that is utterly insane!

Re:Wrong Questions

[tjstork]

well the problem is that there are negative externalities to fixing global warming too.

all that money increased energy prices translates into a reduced standard of living for everyone. every dollar that would get spent on more expensive energy is a dollar they cannot use for their own investments and as such that represents an -enormous- and incalculable lost opportunity cost.

 

Re:Wrong Questions

[phantomfive]

Keep up the faith man, keep up the faith.

Re:Wrong Questions

[riverat1]

If there were no fossil sourced CO2 in the food chain then I would still emit just as much of it as I do now but none of it would be from fossil sources. So this issue still isn't the CO2 I exhale but the source of carbon that is being added to the carbon cycle.

Re:Wrong Questions

[riverat1]

Yup, that's a given, but you have to start somewhere, and temperatures have been roughly flat since 1998.

Take a look at this. How many other "roughly flat" periods do you see in the skeptical view? And yet the long term trend continues to rise.

Regarding point 2 and what is significant, the cooling that caused the Little Ice Age was approximately 1 degree C. Was the LIA significant? Would you expect a 1 degree C rise to be less significant than the equal cooling that caused the LIA?

Re:Wrong Questions

[Uberbah]

But you have no basis to know any of these would happen, that would not otherwise happen anyways

Other than the fact that many of them have already happened, or have you missed the last couple years with record numbers of tornadoes? Or areas dependent on water runoff from glaciers facing water shortages as those glaciers rapidly disappear?

And no apparent consideration for possible upsides, like growing food in Siberia, feeding millions that would have otherwise died.

That's assuming that this food will quickly be grown and transported to areas suffering drought or even desertification.

If Cuba is so great, why don't you move there?

If capitalism is the response to everything, why doesn't the United States have the best health care in the world while spending the least amount of money?

Re:Wrong Questions

[georgenh16]

Tell me they were recording the number of tornadoes accurately 1000 years ago and you'll have a case.

Growing + transporting food - we're pretty good at that. Gets more expensive if the greenies make gas $10 a gallon. I have no sympathy for someone who chooses to live in a desert.

The US does have the best health care in the world. You don't get that for cheap. Socialized medicine in other countries would be stagnant if not for R&D financed and accomplished by the US.

Re:Wrong Questions

[georgenh16]

I'm seeing nothing out of the ordinary here, looks kinda flat over the last 2000 years. Combine that with this, and I'm not too keen on taxing the world or buying a prius.

The little ice age was significant, but not a catastrophe. Also I've mentioned before that it would seem to me that less things live where it's colder, and global cooling would be a bigger problem considering Earth's (geologically) recent history of real ice ages. The warming that got us out of the little ice age was natural, and a good thing. Even if we were to agree on what is significant, it could be natural, and it could be a good thing.

Re:Wrong Questions

[georgenh16]

I read it, and understood it.
Your whole 29% return hinges on the shipper spending 400 to get 800 off his fee from the government. That may or may not be possible. The fee could be an all-or-nothing kind of thing. If it's not, my taxes have to pay someone to discern the level of compliance with the regulation (also, opportunity for corruption there). And the total cost is more than the 1600 because the government is imposing and administering it. Taxes pay the extra EPA workers, IRS workers, Treasury dept. workers, Transportation dept. workers, etc. needed to enforce the law and hand out checks. And if it's reduced hospital fees instead of a check, it's essentially redistributing taxpayer money to whoever goes to the hospital the most, regardless of how much their sickness is due to the pollutant or their not taking care of themselves. (And if you want to try to determine that ratio, there's another slew of government workers and another opportunity for corruption). So if the 400 for 800 isn't possible, or isn't allowed, 1600 gets passed to the consumer, and I end up spending 1600 + ##00 to Uncle Sam so he can send money to some other guy, or give me back just 1600.

It's not a straw man if it's the major policy goal of people in government concerned about the "problem".

Who's negatively effected by the "social cost of carbon"? The whole planet? Do we all send ourselves $20? Or what if we just send a bunch of money to Fiji cuz we think we're making the seas rise. Is that what you want?

Keep Spreading Your Lies and Uncertainty

[eldavojohn]

Last I knew, it was still heavily debated exactly how much of an effect humans have had on global warming compared to natural causes (IE: volcanic eruptions).

Well, according to the USGS man made CO2 levels for 2010 were 35 billion metric tons while all volcanic activity was estimated at 0.26 billion metric tons. So keep spreading your lies and uncertainty about climate science. Your cheap rhetoric designed to protect your lifestyle is surprisingly effective against individuals who spend their lives studying this stuff and publishing in peer reviewed journals, NASA, etc.

Does it have an effect? Sure. Does it have a noticeable effect? Probably. Does it have a significant effect? Maybe. There's way too many variables to really be sure if humans are speeding up natural global warming by a significant amount (IE: accelerating it from millennia to centuries or centuries to decades).

All that bullshit peppered with weasel words like "probably" and "maybe" without a single citation. Well done. The concensus from the scientific community has been made, the burden of proof is now on you to refute their findings. Not vice versa. Not "probably" or "maybe."

Re:Keep Spreading Your Lies and Uncertainty

[Vintermann]

Hey, didn't you notice his confident, no-nonsense, businesslike tone? "Does it have an effect? Sure. Does it have a noticeable effect? Probably. Does it have a significant effect? Maybe. There's way too many variables to really be sure" ... What's a paltry scientific consensus to first-class truthiness?

Re:Keep Spreading Your Lies and Uncertainty

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter. The mere fact that we're having this debate, on this article, demonstrates that we're screwed. Is the global warming trend theoretically reversible, or even mitigatable? Maybe, I don't know; ask a scientist. Are people going to actually work to reverse it? Ha! We couldn't get that kind of global, coordinated response if space aliens were invading; for something subtle like climate change, we're fucked.

It's time to start thinking about how to deal with the inevitable changes when they happen, rather than continue to push that boulder up the hill while everyone around you pretends that it doesn't exist.

Re:Keep Spreading Your Lies and Uncertainty

[Dr. Tom]

Yes, all that is true, but the fact is, it doesn't matter. There's no point in reducing CO2 levels. Even if we stopped emitting CO2 completely, NOW, down to 0%, no combustion of fuel AT ALL, it would still be thousands of years before CO2 levels reached pre-industrial levels. We've made our bed, now we have to sleep in it. Just get used to a radically altered ecosystem. It's too late now to fix it. We'll adapt, maybe live underground breathing taxable air. For billions of years, this is the way it has been. Hey, if the pre-Cambrian biota hadn't irrevocably polluted the atmosphere with oxygen, we wouldn't even have evolved. Tough luck for them, but we're on top now. Oh, the "conservatives" want to remove CO2 from the atmosphere to preserve the status quo. Good luck with that, conservatives. It's very expensive and produces no profit that you can use to redecorate your huge Central Park West apartment.

Re:Keep Spreading Your Lies and Uncertainty

[will_die]

If you read the indept studies about volcano output you know that all of them are deliberate lies.
Some studies don't count volcano that don't produce a certain amount of output, other don't count certain types of volcanos, others don't count output from volcanos that are under water, others only guestimate on new volcanos erruptions, etc as of last year there was no single report that had the output from all volcanos.

Re:Keep Spreading Your Lies and Uncertainty

[PopeRatzo]

It's time to start thinking about how to deal with the inevitable changes when they happen

It's time to start thinking about how to deal with the global warming deniers.

Aren't there some empty FEMA camps somewhere where we can put them where they won't hurt anyone?

Re:Keep Spreading Your Lies and Uncertainty

[PopeRatzo]

Yes, all that is true, but the fact is, it doesn't matter. There's no point in reducing CO2 levels. Even if we stopped emitting CO2 completely, NOW, down to 0%, no combustion of fuel AT ALL, it would still be thousands of years before CO2 levels reached pre-industrial levels. We've made our bed, now we have to sleep in it.

Do you understand the concept that when you find yourself at the bottom of a hole, first stop digging (unless you plan to be buried down there)?

Just because we find ourselves in a bad situation does not mean we should do nothing and just make the problem worse.

Re:Keep Spreading Your Lies and Uncertainty

[Gr8Apes]

Do you think that scientists or reports would miss volcanic eruption output by 2 orders of magnitude at this point? If they did, then it should be easy to prove that volcanic activity produces at least as much output as man.

Re:Keep Spreading Your Lies and Uncertainty

[medv4380]

But according to MBR measurements we are the center of the Universe.

Re:Keep Spreading Your Lies and Uncertainty

[domatic]

Do you understand the concept that when you find yourself at the bottom of a hole, first stop digging (unless you plan to be buried down there)?

Just because we find ourselves in a bad situation does not mean we should do nothing and just make the problem worse.

The problem is that ALL the major CO2 producers have to agree or it won't work. If the West caps their economies in the back of the head, India and China will gleefully take up the slack. Until everyone capable of Industrial Revolution actually goes through and it and arrives where the West is now, there really isn't much point in directly attacking CO2 emissions.

What COULD work is a viable technological replacement for energy from hydrocarbons. This would have to be something on the order of practical and competitive fusion or efficient and safe fission that has a high degree of resilience in the face of the profit motive. Those are very tall orders. But making either work would do far more good then token reductions in CO2 emission that will be extensively howled over.

And yes, yes, there are wind, solar, geothermal, etc. These means have yet to compete in terms of cost, energy density, and demand at any time.

Re:Keep Spreading Your Lies and Uncertainty

[khallow]

It's time to start thinking about how to deal with the global warming deniers.

Aren't there some empty FEMA camps somewhere where we can put them where they won't hurt anyone?

Why don't you self-report to one of these camps? This sort of psychopathic post is how comparisons to Nazis or murderers get inspired. If your reasoning was strong enough to withstand people who will disagree with you no matter what, then you wouldn't be publicly fantasizing about removing them from society. It's only because you are incompetent in this area, that you see a problem.

The simple solution is that you don't bother trying to persuade someone who will never agree with you. Instead, you use their unconditional disagreement with AGW (or whatever) against them to persuade those who aren't committed. For example, if they claim that global warming doesn't happen, then show that it does. It's not magic.

Instead, I see lots of AGW advocates wasting a great deal of time trying to frame the debate or villainize some opposition, for example, labeling the other side as "deniers" (and rationalizing that claim with some pretty stupid arguments) rather than attempting to persuade anyone.

I recognize that sometimes we have behaviors, such as obsessive hand-washing (or publicly fantasizing about sending people to FEMA camps) that we can't easily stop due to screwy mental machinery, but we do have some ability to mitigate behaviors that are harmful to us.

Re:Keep Spreading Your Lies and Uncertainty

[AlamedaStone]

It's time to start thinking about how to deal with the inevitable changes when they happen

It's time to start thinking about how to deal with the global warming deniers.

Aren't there some empty FEMA camps somewhere where we can put them where they won't hurt anyone?

How about a biodome? Let's see how long it takes for them to become environmentalists then...

Re:Keep Spreading Your Lies and Uncertainty

[MightyMartian]

It was also once consensus that the Earth was the center of the universe. A consensus of people in some places think it's okay to stone adulterers.

Neither were scientific.

Just because a majority of people believe something is true doesn't mean that it is.Bringing that up also doesn't do anything to convince people otherwise anyway. Providing facts and exposing myths without being confrontational is what will do it. You can point out factual errors in another's post without going down the road of "cheap rhetoric" and "buillshit" in your own. Try it sometime.

None of this has anything to do with the science.

Re:Keep Spreading Your Lies and Uncertainty

[PopeRatzo]

For example, if they claim that global warming doesn't happen, then show that it does.

How do you "show that it does" to someone who gets their science information from Rush Limbaugh?

Instead, I see lots of AGW advocates wasting a great deal of time trying to frame the debate or villainize some opposition

Have you even looked at this story? It's about the Heartland Institute comparing proponents of AGW (which happens to be all scientists) with terrorists and Hitler.

I'm just suggesting that it might be better to isolate and monitor people like the Heartland Institute for their own safety and ours. And since we've got all those FEMA camps that Obama built to imprison Christians and gun owners, it would seem the perfect place for them, don't you think?

Re:Keep Spreading Your Lies and Uncertainty

[tbannist]

India and China will gleefully take up the slack.

Actually, if the Republicans sweep the fall elections, the Chinese will be pointing at the United States for the exact same argument. On the books, the Chinese are at about the same place as Americans are in reducing CO2 emissions. In practice the Chinese are finding it difficult to enforce the environmental regulations they do have.

Beyond that, India and China would only be able to gleefully take up the slack if they were allowed to do so. If you put a carbon tax on CO2 emissions, it would simply be foolhardy not to slap an equivalent import tariff on manufactured goods from non-compliant countries. If the EU and the United States agree on a minimum level of carbon tax, they can force China and India to actually adhere to those standards. China will know it's better for them to become compliant and avoid the import tariff than it is to let the U.S. and E.U. collect it indefinitely.

Of course, that assumes that the policies are implemented correctly, but that's a different issue.

As for solar and wind, the crisis the coal industry is facing is that projections indicate that while coal is more economical now, solar has a better than even chance of being more economical than coal by the time they could finish building a new coal plant that was started today. The problem is that investors face the very real probability of never recouping their investment in new coal plants.

Re:Keep Spreading Your Lies and Uncertainty

[strikethree]

What is even more frustrating is that if CO2 is found not to be THE major factor in Global Warming then that becomes an argument to stop worrying about CO2 emissions since they "do not significantly contribute to Global Warming."

I am of the opinion that changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere is a REALLY bad idea right now. Perhaps when we have solved our social problems, bottled air would be acceptable. Perhaps when we can survive indefinitely in space, killing all aerobic life is acceptable. I am not saying that these things are likely in the near future. I do think these things can happen eventually.

Re:Keep Spreading Your Lies and Uncertainty

[khallow]

How do you "show that it does" to someone who gets their science information from Rush Limbaugh?

That's not the group you would try to persuade. Rush has a large audience, but it's not so large as to dominate all discourse in the US.

Have you even looked at this story? It's about the Heartland Institute comparing proponents of AGW (which happens to be all scientists) with terrorists and Hitler.

Yes.

I'm just suggesting that it might be better to isolate and monitor people like the Heartland Institute for their own safety and ours.

And you already received my opinion on your suggestion.

Re:Keep Spreading Your Lies and Uncertainty

[gottabeme]

While we're "isolating and monitoring" people we disagree with "for their own safety and ours," I nominate you to be isolated and monitored.

Fallacies are fun!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Incidentally, I've heard that the late Mr. Bin Laden was a big enthusiast of the right to keep and bear arms...

Re:Fallacies are fun!

[vlm]

Incidentally, I've heard that the late Mr. Bin Laden was a big enthusiast of the right to keep and bear arms...

LOL I've heard it the other way that the RKBA for ALL citizens is not technically Koran compatible, although the RKBA is just barely Koran compatible if it only applies to Muslims (rephrased non Muslim citizen in a Islamic state = civilian gun ownership is technically questionable).

I have no evidence either way, but I do assume its very much like the bible, in that it can be twisted hard enough to claim absolutely anything.

Re:Fallacies are fun!

[Anonymous Coward]

He's probably against homosexuality, and abortion too. Have we finally found Romney's VP, or is the skin-color wrong?

Re:Fallacies are fun!

[H0p313ss]

Incidentally, I've heard that the late Mr. Bin Laden was a big enthusiast of the right to keep and bear arms...

However I've heard he's secretly a Muslim and born outside the US, so your mileage may vary.

Re:Fallacies are fun!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It makes much more sense if you think of them as being competing companies who belong to the same industry trade group, which in turn is sensitive to the concerns of any other industry groups with which it is associated.

By way of analogy, a given rancher would strongly prefer that you purchase his cows, rather than somebody else's. However, in his capacity as a member of his industry trade group, he would likely be in harmony with other ranchers on the matters of chicken, pork, and other inferior meat products. In turn, while the trade group would certainly prefer that you eat delicious beef, they would likely stand shoulder-to-shoulder with their poultry-raising brethren should any unpleasant legislation concerning livestock treatment come before congress or some vegetarian health fad gain public traction.

The christian and muslim fundamentalists are each, of course, extremely interested in ensuring that their salvation goods are the ones purchased. However, they face external competition: they are both radical abrahamic monotheists with a strong patriarchal bent; but there are liberal and moderate counterfeits of their goods being openly peddled, hindu polytheists, apathetic secularists, enthusiastic secularists, etc.

As members of the Old Men with Funny Hats and Invisible Friends Council, they agree on certain essential issues: old men with funny hats and invisible friends are the rightful voices of authority in society, women should know their place, fags are icky, and so forth.

However, while their trade group takes a strong interest in increasing the consumption of fundamentalism, rather than liberalized counterfeits, they can still agree with the moderates on broader issues like fretting about secularists, affirming religion as a valuable moral influence in society, lobbying for the preservation and extension of various state privileges of religious institutions, and similar.

This is why the radicals of various persuasions can't quite seem to decide whether loathing or admiration is a more appropriate emotion when talking about one another(jokingly referred to as 'fatwa envy' when a christian authority figure sound a little too fascinated by the power of some barbarous pronouncement from team Imam), and why various uneasy and slightly comical alliances crop up from time to time(this also applies to their opponents, of course, as in cases like the awkward overlap between the xenophobic hard right and the liberal feminist left on the Swiss minaret controversy).

Re:Fallacies are fun!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

He is strong on the terror issue, though, which is a plus...

Re:Fallacies are fun!

[shutdown -p now]

I don't know about Koran, but historically dhimmis have been banned from possessing dedicated weapons in Islamic states, so there probably is something to it, more likely in the hadith rather than Koran. Here is something of relevance:

"We will not imitate their clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names, or ride on saddles, hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons."

Though that comes from a specific "peace treaty" between the Caliphate and the subjugated Christian populace of Syria, and is not general guidance - but it would still serve as precedent.

That said, I wouldn't call dhimmis "citizens" - giving the limitations on their participation in political life in the Caliphate (historic as well as any hypothetical future one), "subjects" would be more appropriate.

here we go again

[hxnwix]

Another opportunity for Slashdotters to pity themselves for their victimization at the hands of a global scientific conspiracy. "We've been labeled deniers," the Slashdotters will lament, "it's ad hominem!"

"In our view, these billboards just return the favor. It's how politics, I mean science and peer review, works! It's hard ball, and climate-change-anistas are big bully crybabies!"

Indeed, it's reminiscent of how Copernicus, in his deep resentment of the Catholic church, formed the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun and then set about finding evidence of his pre-determined conclusion, labeling those who disagreed "deniers," and proceeded to build "scientific consensus" by using his position to deny grant money and publication to sensible, honest researchers!

Re:here we go again

[fermion]

Copernicus is typically consider pre-scientific process. The way discoveries were made at that time was to observe nature, come up with a hypothesis, and then infomally see if other observations were consistant. Most ideas were based on Occam's Razor. In this case if one maps the path of the Sun, the map becomes much simpler it the sun is at the center rather than the earth. More data showed that this simple model explained much. This is not proof, but rather the formations of model that are so important in science.

This 'Occam's Razor' science then lead to the proto-science of Galileo and then classical mechanics, relativity, and quantum mechanics. In any case, most theories continue to be predetermined and then shored up with real data. Take the assumption that energy is quantized. It solved a problem in the previous model, and then was useful in predicting other phenomena. We can also look at the idea the speed of light is constant in all reference frames. No reason to believe this, but it works.

Some may want to fight the science, but really do so with current data, not stuff that happened 500 years ago. I mean we don't make fun of the Catholic Church because Pope Julius II went around and raped women and had illegitimate children. We make fun of the catholic church because priests go around raping children and the pope seems to have few problems with it.

the beauty of free speech

[TheKnave]

is that it makes the lunatic fringe much easier to locate.

Great Post!

[ggraham412]

And now I'm going over to the Daily Kos to get my morning tech news.

Re:Happens when you call people "deniers"

[jo_ham]

It's different to calling them deniers because that is an accurate description of their beliefs (they deny that AGW exists).

It's not different to comparing them to Nazis or that their houses should be burned down - that is simply not on.

We know how that story goes

[dbIII]

Did you really think that politicians, an expression of the will of people, were going to let what amounts to a bunch of geeks tell them what to do?

If you have a society where the people with a clue are not in a position to tell those in power what to do you end up with basket cases like Maoist China, early USSR or Taliban run Afganistan. Your resident buddy horse judge or a Sentator's catamite is not going to do as good a job as somebody with a lifetime in emergency services for example, and if they refuse to listen to those that do you get disasters turning into catastropies that could have been bettter handled by under-resourced third world agencies.

Re:Don't feed the trolls / Koran burners

[GameboyRMH]

That fucker in Florida? He has a lot of blood on his hands, make his life miserable for me wouldya?

Exxon is an example

[Anonymous Coward]

Exxon mobile, funded a lot of climate denial. They had to *PAY* to get the *DENIAL*, as a bought and paid service.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/campaign-blog/revealed-exxon-secret-funding-of-global-warmi/blog/25605/

Even they gave up on this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020902081.html

This is an oil company paying people to convince them to use more oil, even as it's creating CO2 that leads to global warming. Even they gave up this pseudo science. Even they stopped pretending it wasn't man made.

It's an indication of failure that they did the billboard. Because it was weak. When pseudo scientists were claiming the warming was the result of heat islands expanding to cover where the temperature measurements were taken, that had a ring of plausibilty about it (well until large area satellite analysis showed it was false anyway). But when they started with the "Bobo the clown thinks global warming is real, are you a clown too", which is the thrust of this advert, then it showed they'd accepted the basic science because they hadn't an answer to it.

I always think I've won and argument when the opposition is reduced to insults, and that's happened here.

Re:Exxon is an example

[HBI]

Not really. Who started with the word 'denial' first? Yep. You know it.

Perhaps an analogy will help. When someone invokes Godwin: to continue along with the retarded argument, you must also invoke Godwin.

The AGW believing crew lost this one already and shredded its credibility along the way, the same way any kind of political advocacy shreds credibility. You can blame the other side for smearing shit all over you, but the results were as predictable as the sun rising again tomorrow morning.

Or, to put it another way, if you want to change minds, this isn't how to do it. Economics is a better argument than aesthetics, or crying wolf. The AGW "deniers" win by default.

Re:Exxon is an example

[hkmwbz]

Economics is a better argument than aesthetics, or crying wolf.

So basically, you are saying that you don't care about scientific facts, only the economics? At least you are being honest about your science denial...

Re:Happens when you call people "deniers"

[moortak]

What word would you suggest in place of denial? Skeptic doesn't work, as you you don't actually react to the evidence.

Re:Happens when you call people "deniers"

[slashbart]

No it's bullshit. There are many ways in which people might not believe all or some of the claims on AGW. Believe it or not, there are even climate scientists (Dr. Bas van Geel for instance) who think the current scientific majority belief (IPCC) is wrong. That does not make him a "denier", it makes him a scientist with a dissenting point of view.
Are you really so thick that you do not understand that labelling someone a 'denier' makes the angry !? Call me a skeptic, call me a maverick, call me an obstinate old fart, I don't care, but don't compare me with people that deliberately deny one of the most gruesome slaughters of all time.
So if you don't understand that using this specific label is offensive, then you are either very ignorant, or just an asshole.

Re:Don't feed the trolls / Koran burners

[qbast]

Who did he kill?

Re:Last I knew

[Vintermann]

Apparently, 1985 or something was "last you knew" anything.

Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year.

Doesn't prevent that particular duck being drawn out again and again, no matter how many times it's been pointed out.

Re:Happens when you call people "deniers"

[slashbart]

Ok here's some evidence: fresh of the press: Nature Geoscience One of the co-authors (Dr. Bas van Geel) is actually very skeptical of AGW, because all of the GCM's underestimate the effect of the sun on climate. I tend to agree with his ideas, based on measurements, seems to me more evidence based than the output of computer models.

Hitler!

[wytcld]

As Jon Stewart pointed out last night: Hitler believed an international banking conspiracy threatened to destroy Europe. Today there's an internal banking conspiracy threatening to destroy Europe ... and it's led by the Germans!

Heartland believes there's a conspiracy to falsify science threatening to destroy civilisation as we know it. Today Heartland's conspiracy to falsify science is threatening to destroy civilisation as we know it.

Oh the irony?!

Re:Hitler!

[drinkypoo]

Oh the irony?!

No, irony is when a statement has the opposite of the intended effect, or is a statement about the occurrence of the opposite of an intended effect. These statements have the desired effect.

Re:Hitler!

[khallow]

Today Heartland's conspiracy to falsify science is threatening to destroy civilisation as we know it.

How? Even if you grant fully the research supporting AGW (Heartland's primary target), there's no civilization-threatening problem out there. Even a rather large rise in sea level (on the order of many tens of meters of rise) doesn't end civilization. Slightly more acidic ocean doesn't end civilization. Even a significant shuffling of fertile areas doesn't. Farmers can move to where the food growing currently is. Sure, it's rather inconvenient for most people and lethal for a number of people and species, but these effects aren't that serious.

So where's the civilization-ending threat? Second-hand smoke?

Further, the only real way for a small, podunk organization like the Heartland Institute to have any sort of profound impact is to be right. They don't have a massive advertising budget and this latest fumble indicates that they don't really have the finesse to play the advertising game either.

So when I see overwrought hand wringing like the above, I have to ask. Do you have any perspective or sense of proportion at all?

Re:Hitler!

[MightyMartian]

And what happens when fertile ground moves out of the national borders? What if the grain built starts shifting north and suddenly the US's capacity to feed its population now becomes even partially reliant on Canadian and Mexican farmers?

Will civilization end? Probably not. We're not isolated walled cities in the middle of barbarians like we were two or three thousand years ago. But nations can end, the balance of power can shift, and it can have enormous ramifications.

Re:Hitler!

[khallow]

USA, what will happen to your economic productivity if a percentage of your factory workers develops Dengue fever?

Won't happen unless US society falls apart. Keep in mind that malaria (which has a similar range to dengue fever) appeared as far north as Washington, DC back in the 19th century. That changed because we understood such diseases and how to prevent them. Our understanding doesn't disappear because of climate change.

Re:Hitler!

[khallow]

But nations can end, the balance of power can shift, and it can have enormous ramifications.

And do you have a scenario where the balance of power shifts? I don't see anything up there. As I see it, the farmers would merely move to where the growing regions are and life would continue.

Re:Don't feed the trolls / Koran burners

[TheGoodNamesWereGone]

Indeed. How many planes has he flown into buildings? How many schoolbuses full of kids has he bombed?

Re:Last I knew

[oh_my_080980980]

Not according to scientists. Those are the people I pay attention to...nuts jobs like, not so much.....

Re:Last I knew

[lucian1900]

Seeing as how global warming is a fact and it's quite possible that it is largely human-caused, wouldn't it be prudent to take steps to reduce activity that might have caused it?

Trolls just want attention

[CuriousGeorge113]

The only reason they're trolling is to get some widespread attention. Regardless of the ethics, it works. People are going to see this story, go to their website, read some posts and be influenced by their message.

Usually, trolls get down-voted to (-1 Troll). In this case, however, they made the front page. Not sure how that one worked out.....

Re:Seriusly America

[AngryDeuce]

It seems that way because unlike the extreme left, the extreme right does not own the mass media.

I love how skewed the right has become that they actually still spout that bullshit about the "extreme left" owning the media.

If anything, the media is centrist (which explains why the idiocy of the tea party isn't immediately laughed off the air every time it comes up), it's just the extremely vocal minority of far-right whackjobs with a bullshit persecution complex keep screaming because the rest of the media doesn't echo their nonsense the way Limbaugh and Glenn Beck do. I mean, the very fact that Sarah Palin was treated as a serious candidate, despite what a complete and utter moron she is, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the media is mostly centrist. A "leftist" media would have laughed her stupid ass right off the airwaves after her first Katie Couric interview, when she asked hard-hitting questions like "What do you read?"

Re:Seriusly America

[Psion]

I'll just put this here. It was on the ThinkProgress site for months whereas the Heartland billboard ad was stopped within 24 hours. Heartland issued an apology. ThinkProgress dropped the post silently and pretended nothing had happened.

Re:Don't feed the trolls / Koran burners

[GameboyRMH]

You might have missed the protests he triggered in Afghanistan:

https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=afghanistan+protests+koran+burning+florida+2011&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=jSQ&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&tbas=0&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=7hepT9PyBYec8QSq97we&ved=0CAsQpwUoAA

Re:Last I knew

[slashbart]

Ok here's some evidence: fresh of the press: Nature Geoscience One of the co-authors (Dr. Bas van Geel) is actually very skeptical of AGW, because all of the GCM's underestimate the effect of the sun on climate. I tend to agree with his ideas, based on measurements, seems to me more evidence based than the output of computer models.

Re:Seriusly America

[clonehappy]

Yeah. Here's one stunning example of that, civilized, liberal love.

Re:Come on all you "First Posters" & AC's

[Theophany]

To be fair, if this is Heartland's attempt at trolling, they need to visit 4chan or Mumsnet to see how it's done. Making billboards that could conceivably be attributed to the mentally handicapped is not trolling. In answer to the Futurama image macro (seriously, not been oblig'd yet?) they are not trolling, they're just dumb.

Re:NO Warming for last DECADE

[GameboyRMH]

Oh Jesus no, no *atmospheric* warming for the last decade!?!?!?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif

ZOMG IT IS TEH HOAX!!!

No Worries! Slashdot is READY!

[happy_place]

Luckily Slashdot is prepared for anti-global warming trollers with a whole army of anti-anti-global warming trollers! And we can throw in a few anti-DMCA freedom fighters too.

Re:Don't feed the trolls / Koran burners

[GameboyRMH]

Also Charles Manson and most famous mass-murdering dictators.

Re:Last I knew

[binarylarry]

Anyone who disagrees must be vanquished, heathen!

No one ever suspects.... Anthropogenic Global Warming!

Re:Seriusly America

[squiggleslash]

A "leftist" media would have laughed her stupid ass right off the airwaves after her first Katie Couric interview, when she asked hard-hitting questions like "What do you read?"

Correction: A skeptical, truth-driven, media would have laughed her stupid ass right off the airwaves after her first Katie Couric interview, when she asked hard-hitting questions like "What do you read?"

You didn't have to be left wing to see the problem with Palin. Hell, I personally know people who voted Obama who have voted Republican their entire lives, and frequently come up with racist comments about black neighbors specifically because they were concerned about Palin. Yet the media took her seriously, and, as is depressingly usual, the only serious criticism we saw on television was the comedian set.

Palin, together with the "Torture is not a story", the lack of skepticism when entering Afghanistan and Iraq, the constant smears against the 2001/2005 administration's critics as "unserious" Bush haters, the siding with the right on the "deficit" vs "unemployment" debate, not to mention five years of Clinton's Penis, are all evidence that the bulk of media in the US is far right. The only reason why conservatives don't see that is because they refuse to watch it, preferring to watch Fox News, which tells them, over and over and over and over again, that the media is far left.

Re:Seriusly America

[GameboyRMH]

That strawman just busted through the wall and shouted "OH YEAH!"

The green shirts EXPLODE CHILDREN

[quantic_oscillation7]

now, who's the most radical idiots?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1317079/Richard-Curtis-exploding-schoolchildren-climate-change-video-withdrawn.html

Re:Last I knew

[vlm]

Volcanoes emit 300 million tons of CO2 per year

Every year? Like there is a UN coordinator on a budget? Really bad claims like that are what makes the scientists a target of cranks. Even someone with no knowledge of the topic can laugh, which leads to the public following the crank's political philosophy. Which isn't necessarily bad, in that scientists should be doing science, not supporting anyone's political philosophy, and certainly not whining about it.

How much CO2 would the famous yellowstone super volcano emit if it blew in a single shot? If its a large number of magnitudes more than annual human emissions, that has huge political implications.

Re:Happens when you call people "deniers"

[GameboyRMH]

I tend to agree with his ideas, based on measurements, seems to me more evidence based than the output of computer models.

Because as we all know computers are basically ouija boards.

And you'd have to have your head buried deep in the sand if you think his theory isn't utter horseshit. If you were really a skeptic you'd be skeptical of what you accept.

Well....

[Jaysyn]

I bet they all believe in the Theory of Gravity & use dihydrogen monoxide on a regular basis as well!

Indifferent to the politics

[Karmashock]

That is trolling. I hate the GW issue in general because it's so political.

But indifferent to that, the heatland institute shouldn't have done that.

I mean... I'm sure you can find a pedophile that likes kittens and then make a billboard that says "so and so likes kittens... do you?"...

There are perfectly reasonable ways to make these arguments without resorting to these tactics.

The pro GW factions have legitmately taken some body blows with the IPCC apparently not doing a very good job with the science, the universities and scientists apparently having some elitist ideas about what the public should and shouldn't know... and of course the "everything is caused by GW" meme being disproven abotu as often as it's claimed. The polar bear line was recently disproven in that the polar bears are apparently fine and the whole basis for claiming they were in trouble was specious. The scientist that proposed the notion is either under investigation or was disaplined in some fashion for creating the media circus.

And of course the anti GW groups likewise take a beating on a regular basis because the world does appear to have warmed about 1 degree over the last 100 years and that is very worrying trend. And of course the oil companies keep funding counter studies not unlike the pro smoking studies done in 50s and 60s. So it's very worrying that such biased groups might be influencing the science.

Long story short, it's impossible to trust anyone and it's a big political circus.

This sort of ad doesn't make it better. It makes it worse.

Re:Indifferent to the politics

[Anonymous Coward]

The "Polar Bears are Fine" meme is more trolling, and it's partly based on the increased concentrations of polar bears on the shores of Hudson Bay because they can't go out on the ice. The endangered status of polar bears was reaffirmed by US courts last summer. As of the scientist being disciplined, Charles Monnett was investigated apparently over how grant money was being accounted for. No questions about the quality of his scientific findings have been raised. Any more concern trolling you would like to raise?

Re:Indifferent to the politics

[phantomfive]

I mean... I'm sure you can find a pedophile that likes kittens and then make a billboard that says "so and so likes kittens... do you?"...

It's worse than that, do you know how Osama Bin Ladin felt about global warming? The Heartland institute doesn't know, and doesn't care. They might as well have put Hitler's picture there, because they were making the whole thing up anyway.

Re:Indifferent to the politics

[icensnow]

I'm the parent poster and didn't realize I was not logged in -- sorry about that; I never post AC (on purpose).

Re:Indifferent to the politics

[Karmashock]

Now wait a minute, no they weren't making it up. The man recently was interviewed and in that interview he expressed his belief in AGW. So he does believe in AGW where as it would be making it up to say Hitler did since he didn't even know about it.

You brought up OBL, I think we do have a statement from him in which he said he believe in it as well... let me find that:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8487030.stm

OBL did blame the US for GW which of course means he believed in it.

So the heartland institute isn't making anything up but it's still trolling and they shouldn't have done it.

Again, Hitler liked dogs... do you? It's a classic fallacy.

That said, the pro AGW is addicted to ad verecundiam so there are fallacies on both sides.

People need to just make the argument respectfully on both sides and stick to facts without resorting to insults or logical fallacies.

Re:Indifferent to the politics

[phantomfive]

Again, Hitler liked dogs... do you?

Oh yes, I do. Me and Hittly are best buds. I mean, forget I said that.

You brought up OBL, I think we do have a statement from him in which he said he believe in it as well... let me find that: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8487030.stm [bbc.co.uk]

lol good find.

Re:Indifferent to the politics

[Karmashock]

No, it's not really a good find. This was all over the press at the time.

I actually heard the Manson interview shortly after it was made and he also expressed his belief in AGW. Which is weird but it doesn't matter. A scientific hypothesis doesn't become more or less credible because a psychopath believes in it. If we very carefully divorce our notions about the validity of something from the person that said it we should get closer to talking about the actual facts.

The pro AGW faction has a lot of good science on their side and the anti AGW faction has some very relevant counter points and questions.

Lets talk about that indifferent to the political bullshit without name dropping or saying "all scientists agree" or "the science is settled"... that just pisses people off and doesn't accomplish anything. It's as pointlessly inflammatory as pointing out that Manson and OBL were AGW supporters.

Re:Indifferent to the politics

[phantomfive]

True. Hitler was on their side, nonetheless. I know because I asked him.

Re:Indifferent to the politics

[Karmashock]

I didn't say that. I said manson and OBL are on their side and that's a fact because they made public statements to that effect.

Hitler liked dogs... so... he's with those dog lovers... which we could fallaciously argue means dog lovers are nazis...

AGW supporters have nothing to do with OBL or manson. Guilt by association is wrong just as virtue by association is wrong.

A person isn't good or bad based on their friends.

Re:Indifferent to the politics

[phantomfive]

I know. I didn't say what side Hitler is on either. You'll have to ask him yourself. O_o

Re:Indifferent to the politics

[Karmashock]

In the words of Socrates... "whatever"...

Re:Indifferent to the politics

[phantomfive]

lol I remember when he said that!

Re:Don't feed the trolls / Koran burners

[ArcherB]

You might have missed the protests he triggered in Afghanistan:

https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=afghanistan+protests+koran+burning+florida+2011&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=jSQ&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&tbas=0&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=7hepT9PyBYec8QSq97we&ved=0CAsQpwUoAA

I'm sorry, but are you mad "people" acted violent because he called people violent.

Re:Don't feed the trolls / Koran burners

[qbast]

I did not miss them. I just don't believe he is in any way responsible. Let's say I take offense to your post and kill my neighbors in protest. Does it mean you have blood on your hands now? He may be a nutjob, but he did not order or even suggested that bunch of crazies to ransack UN offices. This is just type of moral blackmail - do anything that offends our delicate sensibilities and we will kill some innocent people (aka 'you made me do it!').

Re:Don't feed the trolls / Koran burners

[GameboyRMH]

He knew what would happen, it was culturally inevitable for the people of Afghanistan. That doesn't say anything good about them, but he knew what he was doing would likely cost lives and he did it anyway. He's at least as bad as those who physically did the killing, he lives in a first-world country, the FBI even came to him and described the implications, he wasn't some religiously brainwashed bronze-age illiterate goat farmer.

What do you expect?

[J'raxis]

So long as the politicians keep trying to use climate change theory to shove new taxes, regulations, and laws down people's throats, people are going to defend themselves by whatever means they can, including trying to discredit the science in the first place.

Keep the state out of science, just like we learned to do with religion centuries ago, and people will stop trying to corrupt science.

Re:What do you expect?

[geekoid]

Keep the state out of science? that make sno sense. Have you been paying attention?

The Heartland institute is trying to influence policy with lies.
Actual scientists who specialize in this area of expertise as saying "These bad things are happening, here is the MOUNTAINS of proof, make policy to reflect that."

" regulations, "
of course. X causes people to die,. jump in temperature, and poisons are water. Of course you make regulations to limit that. What the hell else do you do? AS has been proven, the market won't fix it.

" including trying to discredit the science in the first place."
if it comes does to that, then they are wrong. When you argument is to make lies about the science You Are Wrong. its time to stop and change your position because You Are Wrong.

If a comet was going to hit the earth in 10 years, would you lie about it because it will cost tax money to divert?

Re:What do you expect?

[J'raxis]

Keep the state out of science? that makes no sense. Have you been paying attention?

Why? Because some people believe doom and damnation is coming if we don't do something? Devout religionists assert that belief in their religion is the difference between damnation and salvation, too. So the State should get back involved in making sure people's souls are saved?

Of course you make regulations to limit that. What the hell else do you do? AS has been proven, the market won't fix it.

Really. Read this article on free-market solutions to water and air pollution. Here's the pertinent section:

[T]he American courts, during the late -- and as far back as the early 19th century made the deliberate decision to allow property rights to be violated by industrial smoke. To do so, the courts had to -- and did -- systematically change and weaken the defenses of property right embedded in Anglo-Saxon common law. Before the mid and late 19th century, any injurious air pollution was considered a tort, a nuisance against which the victim could sue for damages and against which he could take out an injunction to cease and desist from any further invasion of his property rights. But during the 19th century, the courts systematically altered the law of negligence and the law of nuisance to permit any air pollution which was not unusually greater than any similar manufacturing firm, one that was not more extensive than the customary practice of fellow polluters.

The article goes on to provide a few examples of specific cases, including one that eliminated the ability of collective victims (e.g., residents of an entire city) to use the common-law class-action process to enjoin polluters.

Does that sound like market failure to you? Or does it sound like the government itself caused the problem we now face, by passing laws and judgments giving immunity to polluters decades ago, and now the government wants to solve this problem---of its own making---by doing the only thing it knows how, passing more laws and regulations?

When you argument is to make lies about the science You Are Wrong. its time to stop and change your position because You Are Wrong.

The "argument" here isn't on the science---it's what the government is trying to justify doing to people by using the science. When a person is trying to defend themselves against coercion, it's perfectly natural that they might resort to lying. If a victim of an inchoate robbery is able to ward off the thief by lying to him, don't you think that's a perfectly moral course of action?

If a comet was going to hit the earth in 10 years, would you lie about it because it will cost tax money to divert?

One, why are you so sure it would cost tax money to divert?

Two, this question isn't an analogy to climate change. A more accurate question would be along the lines of "If a comet had a one in three chance of hitting the Earth, and then those odds were reduced to one in 1,000 only after comet-impact advocates had spent decades hyping the threat..." Climate change may be true; I'm not disputing that. But its ultimate effects are far from certain, and even some of its own proponents are now admitting the certain disasters they were predicting are overblown.

Would I lie about it? No. I try to get people to concentrate on the crux of the issue: The immorality of thieving from people to support issues others feel are important. But if some people want to defend themselves against that theft using other tactics, such as lying, that's their business.

Re:Last I knew

[Joce640k]

Volcanoes emit 300 million tons of CO2 per year

Every year? Like there is a UN coordinator on a budget?

Nope, that's an average. If you want a particular year you you can look it up if you want to.

It won't change the fact that you sound like a buffoon when you post stuff like that as an 'argument'. Is that really how you justify your position to yourself?

Yes, You Would Have to Go that Far Back

[eldavojohn]

It was also once consensus that the Earth was the center of the universe.

But it wasn't published in peer reviewed journals. I dare say at the time there was no "scientific community" and that nationality determined which intellectual circles you could run in. Although I do agree that, to compare the state of where we are today, you would need to go back to pre-Renaissance times.

A consensus of people in some places think it's okay to stone adulterers.

Yeah, a consensus of people who were not scientists. Who were not using statistics or science at all ... who were basically calling themselves judge, jury and executioner. Again, what these strange archaic Puritanical concepts have to do with modern scientific consensus is well beyond me. I link you 18 scientific associations' assertions on global warming and you refute it with some ancient lynching. Apples to oranges.

Just because a majority of people believe something is true doesn't mean that it is.

It's really weird that when the top minds of physics postulate that black holes exist, we're not adverse to it. But when the top minds of climate science agree on something, suddenly we are the armchair scientists who are better than those who have studied this most of their lives and have compiled samples from decades past from around the world. And the key difference seems to be that you don't want to face the consequences. You're okay with no longer using CFCs, you're okay with trying to wrap our minds around the existence of black holes and could you tell me why now you choose to shove your fingers in your ears and scream "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU."

You can point out factual errors in another's post without going down the road of "cheap rhetoric" and "buillshit" in your own.

This befuddles me the most. The original post I replied to said:

Last I knew, it was still heavily debated exactly how much of an effect humans have had on global warming compared to natural causes (IE: volcanic eruptions).

So I provide a citation and hard numbers on man-made CO2 versus volcanoes. And you label that "cheap rhetoric" and "buillshit"?

The Cherry Blossom festival happened sooner than ever in its history this year in DC and NASA says it's not just cherry blossoms but all plants (published in Nature's May 2nd issue, a peer-reviewed journal). Of course, this natural basic indicator of the state of the climate doesn't have an immediate perceived threat to mankind's existence so you're free to keep your fingers in your ears. At some point though, it's going to become annoying, then problematic for third world countries, then it will slowly climb the chain up to the protected Americans. And then, and only then, will we be willing to do something about it. When it's too late.

Re:Yes, You Would Have to Go that Far Back

[khallow]

It's really weird that when the top minds of physics postulate that black holes exist, we're not adverse to it. But when the top minds of climate science agree on something, suddenly we are the armchair scientists who are better than those who have studied this most of their lives and have compiled samples from decades past from around the world.

It's not magic, eldavojohn. Black holes, whether they exist or not. require nothing of you. A number of proposed solutions to AGW require substantial changes in human behavior and create large costs and sacrifices for society. When there's more at stake, then the science gets questioned more.

And need I state the obvious here? When there's more at stake, the burden of proof is higher.

Re:Last I knew

[hackula]

The first legitimate slippery slope argument!

Re:Seriusly America

[PopeRatzo]

Have you read anything written by an average left-winger recently?

Yeah, I read Paul Krugman's column this morning. He's making a lot more sense than the Heartland Institute's new billboards.

Of course, he's got an advantage in that he's not shit-your-pants insane like your average right-wing "thinker" or provably corrupt like the Heartland Institute.

Re:Don't feed the trolls / Koran burners

[GameboyRMH]

If I knew you were a religiously brainwashed nutjob who would kill your neighbors if I, say, burned a picture of FSM, and the FBI came to me and explained that, and I did it anyway, I would be as responsible for the killing as you are.

Here's another one, say a street is being covered by a crazy sniper killing anyone wearing red. If you are unaware and I put a red jacket on you and send you into the street, am I innocent?

Re:Happens when you call people "deniers"

[s-whs]

Ok here's some evidence: fresh of the press: Nature Geoscience One of the co-authors (Dr. Bas van Geel) is actually very skeptical of AGW, because all of the GCM's underestimate the effect of the sun on climate. I tend to agree with his ideas, based on measurements, seems to me more evidence based than the output of computer models.

Your style of posting is of a denier, one dissenting scientist does not make an argument, in fact his case of the sun's influence being large was as far as I know based on local studies, then from that he thinks global climate change depends largely on the sun. This is already moronic but then he says that some solar amplification effects must exist which can't be modelled. That's just ludicrous.

However, it's long been known from lots of modelling that the sun's influences are minute. So what has he offered to counter that? Nothing? Indeed. And when you say that you agree with van Geel, what does that mean? Surely you mean 'He says something I want to believe', as you are not up to a scientific analysis of this stuff yourself...

See also: http://klimaatverandering.wordpress.com/category/bas-van-geel/ (Dutch).

But slashbart can at least read that. I already knew from slashbart's username and his style of writing before looking at his 'Homepage' that he is Dutch.

You're probably a believer of the insane 'groenerekenkamer' liars aren't you? And it wouldn't surprise me either if you are a VVD voter (= antisocal a-hole party of the Netherlands).

Re:Last I knew

[MightyYar]

That is interesting data, and I'm sure if the method can be verified it will get incorporated into the models.

Re:NO Warming for last DECADE

[GameboyRMH]

Of course there's no atmospheric warming for the last decade (I never said otherwise, are you seeing things?). If you think that has any implications for global warming theory you're an idiot.

Re:Happens when you call people "deniers"

[tbannist]

There are many ways in which people might not believe all or some of the claims on AGW.

If you don't believe any of the evidence on AGW, you're either ignorant or a denier. The evidence is overwhelming.

Believe it or not, there are even climate scientists (Dr. Bas van Geel for instance) who think the current scientific majority belief (IPCC) is wrong.

Ironically, your post was the top result when I googled "Dr. Bas van Geel" and "denier". Maybe you're the only one who's calling him a denier?

Are you really so thick that you do not understand that labelling someone a 'denier' makes the angry !? Call me a skeptic, call me a maverick, call me an obstinate old fart, I don't care, but don't compare me with people that deliberately deny one of the most gruesome slaughters of all time.

You're called a denier because you deny the evidence. You're not a sceptic because you are only sceptical about one position. You're not a maverick, you're the status quo. You deny reality and evidence just like the people who deny that world is round, or deny that smoking causes cancer, or deny the Holocaust happened. If that makes you angry, too bad. Maybe you should stop acting like the people you abhor.

Just like a Holocaust denier, you seem to have a political reason to pretend the evidence doesn't exist or isn't conclusive. Maybe you should ask yourself why you deny something that every major scientific organisation in the world has accepted as fact? Climate change researchers are 97% in agreement that global warming is real and caused by human activity. That's an astoundingly high level of agreement among the experts. The level of agreement is somewhere around 80% when extended to active scientists in unrelated fields.

It seems to me that you're offended because you know the comparison is accurate and you're ashamed that you're stooping to the same level but you can't bring yourself to stop so you lash out at the people who call you on your irrational denial of the evidence. You know that you're engaging in the same reprehensible selective thinking for equally specious reasons. However, it's up to you to stop acting like the people you hate.

Re:Last I knew

[SJHillman]

Never denied that, just said that it's still up to debate how much is caused by humans.

Fools

[shoehornjob]

Go ahead... bury your head in the sand. Only then will we truly see that a bunch or buttheads you are.

Re:Don't feed the trolls / Koran burners

[ArcherB]

He knew what would happen, it was culturally inevitable for the people of Afghanistan. That doesn't say anything good about them, but he knew what he was doing would likely cost lives and he did it anyway. He's at least as bad as those who physically did the killing, he lives in a first-world country, the FBI even came to him and described the implications, he wasn't some religiously brainwashed bronze-age illiterate goat farmer.

I agree that he shouldn't have done it, but I'd hardly blame him. I know every day when I get on the freeway that if I look at the person driving the car next to me, they might shoot me. If I look at someone and they shoot me, am I just as guilty as the shooter? He had a point to make and radical Islamist proved him right.

These people were not mad because he burned a Koran. They were already mad. All he did was give them an excuse and bring them out from the rocks they've been living under. His burning of a Koran had no effect on their lives, whatsoever. They CHOSE for it to have an effect and they chose what effect it would have.

Again, he probably should not have done it, but I won't say he has blood on his hands. That title is reserved for the people that actually got blood on their hands.

Re:Last I knew

[Gr8Apes]

Last I knew, it was still heavily debated exactly how much of an effect humans have had on global warming compared to natural causes

Among scientists, yes there is still debate.

...about how much of an effect - all warming or only 95% of warming? I'm pretty sure the base statement about man causing warming is no longer in question.

Re:Happens when you call people "deniers"

[slashbart]

Going into the meat of the article: the article shows clearly that the suns changes as logged via cosmic ray modulation via the suns magnetic field in Be-10 isotopes have a profound effect on climate. No one really knows how this occurs, maybe it's Svensmarks hypothesis, or maybe something else (as suggested in the article).
All IPCC consensus science works with GCM's that assume the only relevant solar variability is in TSI, and since the changes in TSI over time are very small, the models have to include large (ca. 6) amplification factors to map a link from CO2 to average planetary temperature.
The article shows that other mechanisms are active, and make it likely that the current GCM's are off.

Re:Happens when you call people "deniers"

[drinkypoo]

don't compare me with people that deliberately deny one of the most gruesome slaughters of all time.

Just for a moment imagine that the people you call green-shirts to deliberately conflate them with people who spied and snitched on their neighbors for a paycheck are right, and AGW is about to roll around and fuck us all really hard. How gruesome do you think that would be? It'd make the holocaust look like funtime at Chuck E. Cheese. So if you don't understand that the comparison is consistent, then you are being disingenuous, or you're just an asshole.

Re:Happens when you call people "deniers"

[slashbart]

Which is the typical reaction of any AGW believer; personal attack. Oh by the way I've never voted VVD, but I have voted SP, and typically vote for the 'Animals Party'. Oh, and I'm a vegetarian.
...

Re:Happens when you call people "deniers"

[jo_ham]

Wait, you think this is directed at you? Or at scientists who have dissenting opinions?

Hold on here - I'm talking about the Heartland Institute. They are quite demonstrably *not* the same as a scientist or a member of the public, or you (well, unless you're a member too, in which case I'm so, so sorry that you're that deluded).

They are not scientists, and they have no legitimate arguments - as seen by their need to go for "scare" tactics by equating their opponents to the Unabomber, Castro and Bin Laden. It's the equivalent of saying "anyone who doesn't believe what I say is gay!". Interestingly enough, the boogeyman that they tend to go for is usually the thing that they fear to be called most, so it speaks more to their own psyche than anything else.

There is not more accurate description of the Heartland Institute than "AGW deniers" - it is their sole mission. They set up with that goal in mind (ie, predetermined outcome and agenda to push, regardless of the actual facts at hand).

There certainly are some scientists who believe that AGW has been overstated, but they usually come to that opinion via a scientific approach. I may not agree with them (I don't) but I can argue with them about their method and interpretation of the data. You can't argue with the Heartland Institute, since if you don't agree with what's written in their propaganda then they simply dismiss you or tell people you're the same as Osama Bin Laden. It's hard to really get a handle on how that debate is supposed to go, other than "your argument is silly".

I will argue with people who disagree with me - the science surrounding AGW is complex and extremely broad, and we're still learning as we go. What I won't do is argue with an institution who have been paid handsomely to attack the character of anyone who disagrees with their employers.

"Denier" here is not meant to be offensive, simply accurate. How else would you describe the Heartland Institute succinctly? It cannot be "skeptical" since that implies that they have the capability to look at the argument rationally and form an opinion based on evidence. It is clear they have no intention of doing that. They're not really mavericks either, and I'm sure they're not all old farts.

My aim is not to be offensive, (even in the face of being equated to Osama Bin Laden and the Unabomber), it is to point out that categorising them as "deniers" is not the same. Calling for their houses to be burned down or equating them with Nazis *is* the same as what they're doing and is absolutely wrong and offensive - as I pointed out initially.

Re:Happens when you call people "deniers"

[slashbart]

However, it's long been known from lots of modelling that the sun's influences are minute.

If you'd actually READ what Bas van Geel has found, measuring paleo-climate data, you'd probably be more skeptical of the modelling.

Re:Don't feed the trolls / Koran burners

[GameboyRMH]

I agree that he shouldn't have done it, but I'd hardly blame him. I know every day when I get on the freeway that if I look at the person driving the car next to me, they might shoot me. If I look at someone and they shoot me, am I just as guilty as the shooter? He had a point to make and radical Islamist proved him right.

This is a completely wrong analogy in many ways. First you're not an outside party putting innocent bystanders at risk. Next, your chance of being shot on the freeway of LA for looking at so is infinitesimally small, while the chance of violent riots resulting from a burned Koran was near-certain.

These people were not mad because he burned a Koran. They were already mad. All he did was give them an excuse and bring them out from the rocks they've been living under. His burning of a Koran had no effect on their lives, whatsoever. They CHOSE for it to have an effect and they chose what effect it would have.

The people of Afghanistan are religiously brainwashed, how much choice did they really have in the matter? They don't know modern concepts of secularism and tolerance, only the religion that was disrespected as horribly and publicly as possible.

He had a point to make and radical Islamist proved him right.

He caused the death of innocents, including Americans, to prove a point we already knew. Swell guy, no blood on his hands.

Nuclear

[Anonymous Coward]

and putting more money into fusion. There, didn't tax your breath or cripple the economy. Just put the money somewhere different. Wonk wonk wonk on the rest of your list: that stuff happens all the time.

Re:Happens when you call people "deniers"

[neurophil12]

The Heartland Institute, and those they target, are deniers, not skeptics. There are certainly some climate skeptics out there, but most people I have ever seen, heard, read on the subject made the same tired arguments that have been refuted time and again. Those people are deniers. Read here for an engaging and thoughtful article on the distinction and tell me where you come out:
"What traits distinguish a rational, pro-science "skeptic" -- who has honest questions about the AGW consensus -- from members of a Denier Movement that portrays all members of a scientific community as either fools or conspirators?"

Partial skim:
"Skeptics first admit that they are non-experts in the topic at hand. And that experts tend to know more than they do."
"Skeptics go on to admit that it is both rare and significant when nearly 100% of the scientists in any field share a consensus-model, before splitting up to fight over sub-models."
"Deniers glom onto an anecdotal "gotcha!" from a dogma-driven radio show or politically biased blog site."
"We cannot say too often that, just because nearly all of experts are in consensus, their paradigm might still turn out to be wrong. Still, the Skeptic admits this is rare in science history."
"[The skeptic] openly admits who the chief beneficiaries of the current status quo are: those who spent two decades delaying energy efficiency research and urging us to guzzle carbon fuels like mad."
etc

The second to last section is entitled "So what's a sincere and enlightened skeptic to do?".

Re:Happens when you call people "deniers"

[slashbart]

So even if your figure of 97% is correct, the other 3% are politically motivated? Those 3 % (dozens or hundreds of scientists) are all paid by the oil industry? They are all status quo (Nir Shaviv with his zero-energy house)?
I'm a denier because I'm right wing? I'm not actually, I typically vote Dutch Animal Party, and have even voted SP.
I wish this ridiculous antagonism would stop, I really do...

Re:Don't feed the trolls / Koran burners

[SuricouRaven]

Quite a good argument, actually. He wished to show the world that very devout muslims were easily inspired to violence, and he did it by performing an action which had no direct impact on them and would be dismissed as trivial in the west, but which he knew would inspire them to violence and thus prove his point.

Re:Happens when you call people "deniers"

[GameboyRMH]

Well using science, the best we know so far, mainstream global warming theories are supported and the theory that the sun's role is underestimated appears to be wrong. So what magical data do you have that's better?

Re:Don't feed the trolls / Koran burners

[drinkypoo]

He caused the death of innocents, including Americans, to prove a point we already knew.

If you fail to build a bridge properly and it collapses, you cause the death of innocents. If you point at a bridge and say "it is not built properly" and it collapses, should you be punished since you pointed it out, and all the times no one had noticed that it was failing, nobody died?

Americans shouldn't fucking be in Afghanistan if they don't want to die. I don't fucking go to Compton, either.

Re:Don't feed the trolls / Koran burners

[GameboyRMH]

Another completely messed up analogy. It's more like saying "that bridge will collapse if you drive a truck over it. I'm going to drive a truck over it, watch what happens." Then an engineer says "we know, we're working on it, we have signs up to not drive trucks over it, so please don't do it OK?" and then you drive a truck over it and lots of people die.

He didn't just say "Afghanis will riot and kill if I publicly burn a Koran." He then proceeded to do it, even after the consequences were spelled out, and surprise surprise, people died.

Re:Happens when you call people "deniers"

[Bongo]

There are many ways in which people might not believe all or some of the claims on AGW. Believe it or not, there are even climate scientists (Dr. Bas van Geel for instance)...

One way is that the precautionary Principle says you should act before you have sufficient evidence, just in case, for some objectively calculated and totally impartial measure of "sufficient" /sarc. So people can say it is science, but the PP says the science can be quite incomplete. Not 99% incomplete, not 95% incomplete, but just some feeling for how much you'd like to believe you have the answer. An answer about the future of a complex system which behaves chaotically in the short term but is assumed to behave predictably on a long term average, and assumed that the bits we don't understand are not that important (cloud cover) and assumed that the feedbacks drive in one direction and not the other (CO2 -> water, not water -> CO2), and so on. Anyway, the biggest thing to disagree over isn't the science -- science is self correcting and that's why we tend to trust it, although self-correcting can take decades -- the biggest issue is the response to the perceived problem, and that's where it becomes intensely political. That's where you see that what the "deniers" are really "denying" is the notion that you can globally regulate the planet and its people in some sort of quasi-magical order that will make it better for everyone. If the answer to global warming was less regulation the right nuts would be all over it. But the "answer" is for some reason, always posed as being about more regulation, more control, reducing consumption, "reducing greed" as one environmentalist put it to me, and THAT is a political ideology and that's where global warming becomes political, and not about "The Science". That is where it becomes "religious" (reduce greed! it is a sin!) and that is where other countries that don't have the Western notion of Original Sin won't really be too keen on taking a colonialist attitude towards their own development, thank you very much. The only politically adept strategy I can think of personally is about flexibility, adaptability, and technological progress which tends to drive social progress. If the climate is changing for ANY reason, it is changing and hankering for a quiet cabin in the woods living off of solar panels and sustainable local vegetable gardens is not going to fix that -- if you are under 6 feet of snow all year. The world is staggeringly complex, and I'm sorry but "sustainability" as it is often described is just a naive and simplistic notion which is too braindead to cope with -- it denies -- the complexity of the modern world, which is changing far faster and in more ways than ever.

Re:Don't feed the trolls / Koran burners

[GameboyRMH]

Too bad about those people who had to die (including Americans) as part of his little demonstration, right? Can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs I guess. I'm sure it was worth it.

Re:Seriusly America

[clickclickdrone]

I love this bit:
"Although Breivikâ(TM)s conspiracy theories are insane, they are in line with mainstream opinion among American conservatives."

Re:Seriusly America

[pavon]

Heartland issued an apology.

No they didn't:

“This billboard was deliberately provocative, an attempt to turn the tables on the climate alarmists by using their own tactics but with the opposite message," the latest statement claims, going on to say, "We do not apologize for running the ad."

Heartland: a policy advocacy group, not science

[Geoffrey.landis]

Shills for the oil industry.

Well, they are funded by the fossil fuel industry (not just oil; that includes coal), or by billionaires whose money comes from in the oil industry. (For this campaign, anyway; they also work on other issues.) Whether this makes them "shills" is a value judgement.

What we learn the billboard, however, is simply this: the Heartland Institute is a policy advocacy organization, not a science institute. They are no longer even pretending to have any interest in actual science. Their only interest in science is to attack it in order to make policy points.

They have stated this before-- Joseph Bast, the president of Heartland, stated that the Heartland Institute's focus is "commitment to a free market policy agenda," and that the main motivation for the Heartland Institute being involved in this debate is to "prevent the U.S. government from adopting policies that favor renewable energy," which he claims would cause an "economic disaster for the country."

But, despite clear statements that their agenda is related to policy, not science, people have been taking their attacks on science seriously.

Some links:
http://rockblogs.psu.edu/climate/2012/01/ethical-analysis-of-the-climate-change-disinformation-campaign-introduction-to-a-series.html
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201107070016

Re:Heartland: a policy advocacy group, not science

[SlippyToad]

Whether this makes them "shills" is a value judgement.

Uh, no that is the definition of "shill."

shill [shil] â
  Example Sentences Origin
shillâ â[shil] Show IPA Slang .
noun
1.
a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc.
2.
a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.

3. See also Heartland Institute, cf.

Re:Heartland: a policy advocacy group, not science

[rtb61]

In this case simply a shill that failed ie

'EVEN' Ted Kaczynscki believes in Global Warming are you crazier Ted and still believe that a billion cars can't pollute the planet, are you blind to smog, do you even know what fresh clean air smells like, well, 'EVEN' Ted Kaczynscki isn't crazy enough to believe global warming doesn't exist, so how crazy are you?.

So simply a very bad in fact stupid ad that can be viewed either way. You can see why anyone with even half a brain (just the greedy half) backed away, in this case they are associating themselves with what is publicly viewed as a crazy person and in a message that can be interpretative as them be crazier for disbelieving.

You can see how rapidly and damagingly the whole thing can be turned around. Remember the M$ dinosaur ad and how regardless of the intent it was readily twisted leaving M$ portrayed as the dinosaur.

Where is the News for Nerds?

[bhlowe]

By all accounts, "its too late to stop AGW" -- it can be slowed a few decades by implementing drastic, techno-economic killing solutions. (Reduce consumption of power, transportation, A/C, etc. Essentially spend trillions with the advance knowledge that a small decrease in CO2 output won't do squat. )

Unless Slashdot writes about a technological breakthrough that can truly make a difference, such as Defkalion's LENR, it doesn't really fit in with the theme of News for Nerds.

Re:Don't feed the trolls / Koran burners

[qbast]

If there is a crazy sniper, then rational response would be to deal with that sniper. Not leave him where he is and ban red shirts instead. You are treating Afghans as if they were children or mentally ill. They are neither - responsibility for their action is theirs, just like for any other adult. Killing UN personel also made them murderers and now it is up to court in Afghanistan to punish them. 'Poor goat herders', 'crappy childhood' or 'religiously brainwashed' is no excuse unless you are willing to use similar excuses in US courts.

Re:Don't feed the trolls / Koran burners

[ArcherB]

He caused the death of innocents, including Americans, to prove a point we already knew. Swell guy, no blood on his hands.

No, we didn't already know that. Every day, I hear that Islam is a religion of peace and the people saying this actually believe it. This guy proved them wrong. If everyone could agree that Islam tends to incite violence among its followers much more so than any other religion, he would not have found it necessary to burn the Koran.

Re:Don't feed the trolls / Koran burners

[GameboyRMH]

Islam is a religion of peace in the same sense that Christianity is. Do Timothy McVeigh or Anders Behring Breivik make Christianity a religion of war? Would it be a religion of war if there was some middle-eastern country full of Christian fundamentalists?

Re:Don't feed the trolls / Koran burners

[GameboyRMH]

I consider them mentally ill. Maybe we'll have to disagree on that point.

What are the roots of anti-science politics?

[Geoffrey.landis]

One thing I'd like to know is this: for the last few decades there's been a concerted campaign to make conservatives distrustful of science....

So here's what I want to know:

1. Why? Why target conservatives specifically with anti-science propaganda? Why aren't liberals being targeted too? (Arguments like "Conservatives are more gullible" will be ignored for obvious reasons.)

This is an interesting thing that I've noticed. It's a very significant change from the world I grew up in, where liberals were classically distrustful of science, and conservatives very much pro-science. Through the Reagan era, being pro-science was associated with conservatism, but somehow after the end of the Reagan era, the conservative movement made a sharp turn away from science.

My hypothesis is that it comes from the conservative politicians discovering in the 90s that they can tap into the power of religious fundamentalists. The fundamentalists came with an anti-science agenda and distrust of science, preferring belief-based reasoning in the form of their advocacy of creationism, and have spent decades fine-tuning their anti-science arguments that they have been using in the war against evolution. The mainline conservatives seem to have picked up their specific arguments, without even explicitly recognizing the overall tenor of them as being anti-science.

Re:What are the roots of anti-science politics?

[Darinbob]

In the Reagan era, science meant high technology and the US was riding high on its scientific and technological superiority in many ways. Science supported many "conservative" views (these simplistic labels have changed meanings since then though), it was science that was going to help the Strategic Defense Initiative, it was science that put us ahead of the Soviet bloc countries. Science was a friend.

Over time though, science is no longer a friend. Science tells us to conserve and that worries economic free market "high growth" people, that oil is going to run out, that we might be in for some bad times if we don't change behavior, etc.

Basically when science has evidence to support one side then that side promotes it, when science has evidence that undermines one side then they oppose it. Science isn't political.

Re:Don't feed the trolls / Koran burners

[ArcherB]

Islam is a religion of peace in the same sense that Christianity is. Do Timothy McVeigh or Anders Behring Breivik make Christianity a religion of war? Would it be a religion of war if there was some middle-eastern country full of Christian fundamentalists?

Ah! There it is. The moral equivalency argument. First, McVeigh and Breivik were not "Christian fundamentalists", and did not do their crimes in the name of Jesus. Even if they had, it would obviously be against the teachings of Christ. Christ, for example, never waged war or led an army. Mohammed did. Also, you don't see Christians rioting and killing people in mass every time a Bible is burned or someone makes a cartoon of Jesus. Hell, Southpark has Jesus as a recurring cast member. He plays a talkshow host and super hero who looks at porn. And while I'm sure SouthPark's advertisers may have been threatened with a boycott or something similar, no one rioted and no one died.

In other words, your moral equivalency argument is bullshit.

Hypocrisy

[Artemis3]

Goes on to show their hypocrisy. If they are going to mention Castro, how about mentioning American backed terrorists? Castro did not blew a Jet Liner, Posada Carriles living happily in Florida did (and confessed it). He is also responsible of planting bombs in Cuba and central America, killing an Italian tourist in the process. He is protected by the US gov. over a CIA pact for doing anti-communism dirty jobs.

Yes, the USA is infringing their own counter-terrorism UN resolutions by protecting the likes of him (and Orlando Bosch among others, sentenced in US soil but quickly pardoned by Bush father), also living happily directing the nice Cuban lobbyists...

Re:Don't feed the trolls / Koran burners

[GameboyRMH]

The middle eastern hellholes that contain uneducated, backwards people happen to have Islam as the dominant religion. Therefore, Islam must be a religion of war. Congrats, you win.

Re:Don't feed the trolls / Koran burners

[AlamedaStone]

It's more akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater. He isn't directly responsible, but he undoubtedly has blood on his hands according to social convention in the US.

Re:Don't feed the trolls / Koran burners

[lysdexia]

Well, that kind of depends. Is it a really *nice* red jacket? Does the cut flatter qbast's shoulders and waist? Is it lined with D30 and Kevlar? Now if it's just some sort of "Thriller" knock off from the 80's *that* would be totally irresponsible.

Extremely good question

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

In the Barry Goldwater era conservatives supported research. For decades conservatives talked about objective reality while academics played with deconstructionism and "different ways of knowing".

At a guess, it's the nature of the issues today. If science had proven that civil rights laws caused cancer, then liberals would be prey to anti-science propaganda.

Re:Extremely good question

[goldstein]

If we go back to the late 1950s, the Soviet success in being first to orbit a satellite served as a powerful wakeup call. The risk of being placed in a position where we would be virtually powerless against a deluge of Soviet ICBMs was too much to contemplate. In hindsight, Goldwater did have a pragmatism that would now be viewed as treasonous by many current Republicans. Among other things, he made the following astute observation: "Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them." ( http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Dean ) . It is really strange that, although I thought he was a lunatic at the time he was running for president, I now find myself in agreement with many of his views.

When the RW is caught with pants down...

[bodland]

They reach over and try to yank the shorts off liberals and scream "Look they don't have pants on either!"
RW proponents argue that liberals do the same thing, decry lack of "balance" and impariality...the RW defenders shift focus away from the original post exposing the lies.
I've seen and heard the same backpedaling weasley douchbaggery over and over again. The fact is the Heritage Foundation is a FUD maker. Bought and paid for by assholes who want to preseve the "Wealthy American" way of life for themselves.

"You have to apply the same rules to both sides if you are truly understand the answers to you questions Frankly, neither should be trusted.....Fraud has been proven on both sides. "

Re:When the RW is caught with pants down...

[Attila Dimedici]

Which explains why, after a group of AGW proponents were caught conspiring with each other to conceal evidence which did not support their theory, another AGW proponent fabricated documents that purported to show an organization that opposed governments taking action on the basis of AGW was guilty of doing the same thing.

Viewed as a political issue

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

What to do about it is a political question. "Roll with the punches" is an option. "Industrial growth will do more for human welfare than climate stabilization" is an option. Both are "conservative" in the sense of not changing things. Why don't conservatives fight on the battlefield of policy, not science?

Not to mention that conservatism includes harm avoidance and a cautious approach to experimentation, so that if there's even a small chance that our current uncontrolled experiment with CO2 could cause harm, conservatives should be against continuing it.

Re:Viewed as a political issue

[Genda]

The problem is that the neocon isn't a true conservative. (S)he is a someone co-opted from a population who's social and religious views trump all other ways of thinking. They've been co-opted by a cynical corporate based political party pandering to their love of "Family Values" and their fear of change and technology. The saddest and most ironic thing is that the worse things get, and the more devastating the changes, the harder they hang onto the ideology and the party responsible. Literally, drowning people hanging onto a boat anchor.

By the way, if by this description you think, I find the party that calls itself Democratic, any more palatable, you would be sadly mistaken. American politics has been an accelerating race to the bottom for so long, what's left is barely fit for human consumption.

Yes, an attack on civilization as we know it

[Geoffrey.landis]

Today Heartland's conspiracy to falsify science is threatening to destroy civilisation as we know it.

How? Even if you grant fully the research supporting AGW (Heartland's primary target), there's no civilization-threatening problem out there.

Heartland is making an argument against proposed policy responses to global warming by attacking the science. Their attack is to support and amplify the voices of critics who are shouting out assertions that scientists are liars, con men, hoaxers, crooks, and frauds.

If the "I-don't-believe-in the-greenhouse-effect" crowd were merely saying "climate scientists are well intentioned, but are misinterpreting key data that shows we should hesitate before drawing conclusions," that would be a different thing. But the attack is using phrases like "criminals" and "corrupt" and "conspiracy to defaud the public" and "should be put in jail."

Since our society is based on science, yes, I'd say that a campaign to instill the attitude that science is fraudulent and scientists are liars and should be put in jail is an attack on civilization as we know it.

Re:Yes, an attack on civilization as we know it

[Geoffrey.landis]

Heartland is making an argument against proposed policy responses to global warming by attacking the science.

But of course. That is how scientists debate such things.

No, actually it isn't.

Scientists do not attack the science because in response to the science some politicians have proposed a policy they don't like. If this happens, scientists would attack the policy, not say that the science must be wrong. The science is right, or wrong, regardless of the policy implications

Since our society is based on science, yes, I'd say that a campaign to instill the attitude that science is fraudulent and scientists are liars and should be put in jail is an attack on civilization as we know it.

And if that attack should be accurate in its accusations, then what does that say about our civilization?

Well, so far, the attacks have not accurate in their accusations. The science is not fraudulent, and scientists are not liars.

Troll is a Troll

[sycodon]

Whether it's on a billboard or a scientific conference.

Re:Seriusly America

[Psion]

The full statement is:

"This provocative billboard was always intended to be an experiment. And after just 24 hours the results are in: It got people's attention.

"This billboard was deliberately provocative, an attempt to turn the tables on the climate alarmists by using their own tactics but with the opposite message. We found it interesting that the ad seemed to evoke reactions more passionate than when leading alarmists compare climate realists to Nazis or declare they are imposing on our children a mass death sentence. We leave it to others to determine why that is so.

"The Heartland Institute doesn't often do 'provocative' communication. In fact, we've spent 15 years presenting the economic and scientific arguments that counter global warming alarmism. No one has worked harder, or better, on that task than Heartland. We will continue to do that -- especially at our next International Conference on Climate Change in Chicago from May 21 -- 23.

"Heartland has spent millions of dollars contributing to the real debate over climate change, and $200 for a one-day digital billboard. In return, we've been subjected to the most uncivil name-calling and disparagement you can possibly imagine from climate alarmists. The other side of the climate debate seems to be playing by different rules. This experiment produced further proof of that.

"We know that our billboard angered and disappointed many of Heartland's friends and supporters, but we hope they understand what we were trying to do with this experiment. We do not apologize for running the ad, and we will continue to experiment with ways to communicate the 'realist' message on the climate."

You're right and I stand corrected. Well, actually sit at the moment, but you're still right.

Re:Seriusly America

[AlamedaStone]

I think if "The Media" can be said to have a broad bias, that bias would be a corporatist one, not on the conservative-liberal spectrum at all.

Re:Read the article

[MightyMartian]

It's a variant the Gish Gallop, invented by (in)famous Creationist Duane Gish, whose chief means of winning debates was to throw so many things at an interlocutor that there was no way to deal with it in the time allotted. So many of the pseudo-skeptics tactics are pretty much based on the pioneering rhetorical games of the Creationists. In this case, you troll journals and repositories and look for anything that faintly looks like it might be anti-AGW and throw it out there, even when it turns out that the authors certainly do not make that case. You see, the amount of energy it takes to just throw articles out there is small compared to having to read through all the articles and references, thus it becomes a sort of rhetorical economics.

The other tactic that links in to this is to ignore when you've been shown the article in question doesn't falsify AGW, and then just keep throwing it out there anyways. This is pretty common, and why you will see some pseudo-skeptics throwing out long-debunked claims as if they were somehow still relevant.

Re:Happens when you call people "deniers"

[YouWantFriesWithThat]

the connection between AGW denier and holocaust denier exists only in your head. other people should not have to change their use of language because of your misinterpretation of a commonly used word.

Re:Don't feed the trolls / Koran burners

[jxander]

"Brainwashed into insanity" is probably a better descriptor, but you are correct: a very large portion of the civilian population over there does not have the basic mental capacity to say, "I disagree with you, but that's ok. I don't want to kill you for it."

Big companies LOVE Big Government.

[SuperKendall]

Curious to know what well funded entities are paying money to people to have them make up stuff that would encourage people to want "Big Government".

The insurance industries got Obamacare.

The LARGE banks all got huge bailouts.

The Unions got to avoid any cuts whatsoever with GM being bought by the feds.

BP donated a huge amount of money to Oabma so they could play fast and loose with regulations around offshore drilling.

Look around you fool. EVERY giant corporation wants big government, because they can play regulations against smaller companies that would otherwise threaten complete domination. There is no shortage of vast sums dedicated to propping up every larger expanses of government as a firewall between what they want to do and the desire of the people.

Re:Big companies LOVE Big Government.

[Uberbah]

The Unions got to avoid any cuts whatsoever with GM being bought by the feds.

Other than the massive concessions in pay and benefits they were forced to make in return for the bailouts? Concessions none of the bailed-out banks or bankers had to make....

And of course, the auto bailout was a few hundred billion. The bank bailouts...over $16 trillion.

Re:Yep: Wrong Questions

[georgenh16]

#6 was intended to invite us to think about the possibility of it actually being a good thing, and what the optimal temperature of Earth is, irrespective of political consequences.

I contest that spending power has gone up due to free markets, the more government interferes, the slower this goes up.

Good moral argument about Spaceship Earth - I agree we can't be screwing it up irretrievably. I don't think we are doing so. While Earth isn't a 100% closed system, it's not like we're bleeding off our atmosphere into space - the carbon will still be here in 500 years in the air or in the ground. If it becomes economical to sequester it at that time, then future peoples will do so.

Powerful Statist governments killed >100 million people in the last century. I see this as a more immediate and real threat to us, our children, our grandchildren and theirs, so I fight anything that moves in that direction (left).

Troll Right Back

[h4x0t]

Don't look up actual studies on global warming produced by any reputable organization on the planet.

Go about your business and pretend it isn't happening.

Sheep.

Intellectual dishonesty

[TapeCutter]

Why wasn't the science good enough for him?

Institutionalised anti-science groups foisting policies the directly conflict with something as important and well researched as the pentagon's annual threat assesments upset most scientists and skeptics in the same way as shoplifting upsets shopkeepers. In my book deniers are intellectually dishonest people who cannot be swayed by reason and evidence, the exact opposite of what it means to be a skeptic or a scientist. Yes, it really is THAT simple, some people still live and die by their principles other's sell them for whatever they can get. No grand conspiracies, no scientists living the highlife on the taxpayer's dime, no NWO, no reputable journals playing the role of Pope Urban VIII. Just a loose group of 50-odd "think-tanks" all headquareted within a mile of K-street and all selling the same (surprisingly cheap) product - tailor made anti-science propoganda and face to face access to the likes of senator Inhofe.

I can understand why honest, descent people sacrafice things to try and shut these morally bankrupt institutions down, especially when 'the people' are supporting their FUD factories via a tax free charity status. What I can't understand is how easily their obvious propoganda convinces literally millions of otherwise intelligent people that someone like Lord Monckton is anything but batshit insane and/or a compulsive liar for hire.

Re:Intellectual dishonesty

[khallow]

with something as important and well researched as the pentagon's annual threat assesments

You need to understand the limitations of those threat assessments. The Pentagon doesn't assess the likelihood of such an event (such as a shutdown of the Gulf Stream), but the consequences of such events to the US and other countries. Keep in mind that the Pentagon occasionally does threat assessments for alien invasions, asteroid impacts, and other low likelihood events too.

I can understand why honest, descent people sacrafice things to try and shut these morally bankrupt institutions down

I don't. This guy went from being a respected scientist to a loon who admitted committing one or more federal crimes just to get at a rival group. That kind of sacrifice is foolish to laud.

What I can't understand is how easily their obvious propoganda convinces literally millions of otherwise intelligent people that someone like Lord Monckton is anything but batshit insane and/or a compulsive liar for hire.

That seems to be a common problem. I can't really help you there.

Re:Intellectual dishonesty

[TapeCutter]

You need to understand the limitations of those threat assessments. The Pentagon doesn't assess the likelihood of such an event....Keep in mind that the Pentagon occasionally does threat assessments for alien invasions, asteroid impacts, and other low likelihood events too.

Nonsense of course they asses the likelyhood when it is possible to do so, as is the case with mass migration due to rising oceans and an expanding sub-tropical desert zone, border disputes due to resouces becoming accessible in an ice free artic summer, the list goes on... They have to make such judgements in order to state the priority of the threat, without that the report would just say, "here's some fanciful senarios, if congress would be so kind as to throw the budget dart, we will spend a trillion dollars on whatever it hits".

Protip: Look up and listen carefully to Rear Admiral David Titley on youtube, he's one of the grown-ups your taxes are employing.

Re:Intellectual dishonesty

[khallow]

Nonsense of course they asses the likelyhood when it is possible to do so

Well there we go.

They have to make such judgements in order to state the priority of the threat, without that the report would just say, "here's some fanciful senarios, if congress would be so kind as to throw the budget dart, we will spend a trillion dollars on whatever it hits".

This is SOP for the US military and US Congress. I really don't understand why you're pushing this particular report. The approach has the problems which you outline above.

Re:Intellectual dishonesty

[ebvwfbw]

Interesting. Let me start by saying that I believe things are warming up. For some reason people on /. seem to think that if you disagree with the CO2 part, you disagree with GW entirely. Not sure why.

Out of curiosity have you ever read about the Scientific Method? It's here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method Skip down to the elements part. Look at that cycle. So we have the theory that CO2 is causing warming. Predictions were made, even published by the UN. 5 of them to date. That's because the previous 4 failed. They fail because as anyone who bothers to look at the data can see, the CO2 in relation to temperature doesn't work. May help to mention that the warmest decade in the 1900s was the 1930s. Check out the historical graphs going back millions of years. You'll see spikes in temperature, then a corresponding spike in CO2. Going back to the scientific method one must conclude that CO2 has nothing to do with the temperature rise. It's something else. CO2 is probably a symptom of warmer temperatures. Not the cause.

Think I'm wrong? Tell me why. I'm open to scientific constructive comments.

Re:Intellectual dishonesty

[TapeCutter]

Well done, I havent seen that many thourougly debunked talking points into one post since the 1990's.

Re:Intellectual dishonesty

[ebvwfbw]

...thourougly debunked talking points

Dubunked? Talking points - as if that somehow means something? Do tell. What thouroughly debunked "talking points"? The scientific method? The fact that the UN is on their 5th model? The fact that CO2 is clearly behind the heat curve?
Ok, Scientific method - Go ahead and try to debunk that one.

UN's 5th model - yup, it is. More depending on how you count. How can you debunk fact? Each time it was revised down. Here's a rundown from the first one - http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/the-ipcc-1990-far-predictions-were-wrong/ .
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274.html?&grcc=99999&mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion . How the crazy MMGW crowd has been wrong time and time again - http://www.c3headlines.com/bad-predictions-failed.html (not for faint of heart. If you want the truth, it's there.)

CO2 is clearly behind the curve? Just look at the graph. How can you debunk what you can see with the naked eye? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg . That's the plot they don't like to show you. Ok, say you don't understand that, it's related. Then look at this real life plot with temperatures and CO2 - http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0168e65ad371970c-pi . Tough to be a true believer in mmgw if you know the facts.

Lastly, I have yet to read or hear anyone that was able to explain how from 1992 to 1993 Global warming went from something that is happening to Man is doing it? No scientific note, not even a foot note. It was just inserted in by Mr. Strong. If you want to even pretend that you have a point, explain how we get a conclusion like that without any scientific fact? Try as you might, you won't find why in that report.

Clearly not what I expected as a response from you. As I said and still say - if I'm wrong explain why. You don't have to do it directly. Just show me where they show that CO2 actually "traps" as they call it - Heat. Keep in mind "It's obvious" isn't scientific. Neither is anecdotal evidence. Science demands reproduceable, definitive results from an experiment. All doubt would go away at that point. Good luck with that, you'll need it.

Re:Seriusly America

[Dr. Hellno]

The Austrian school of economic thought is not the only one with claims to legitimacy, so hold your horses. Keynesian economics is at least as legitimate, even if you personally can't believe it. If government spending kickstarts the economy, then it's worth paying the (very low!) interest on debt and then repaying the principal somewhere down the line. The question is, can it fire the economy to that degree? Well, no one can agree, but Krugman isn't "shit-your-pants-insane" for thinking so.

Here's another point Krugman makes that I think is pretty good: Without some inflation, businesses and individuals just sit on tremendous amounts of capital, since that's the safest thing to do. If inflation was higher, you wouldn't see companies sitting on cash reserves billions of dollars thick- they'd be investing that money in economic activity, hopefully job creating activity. Obviously there's such a thing as too much inflation, and we can quibble about where that is. But the conservative position- that 4 or even 5% inflation would mean the apocalypse- neglects the fact that companies are holding on to their cash right now, and that hurts growth.

And for what it's worth, austerity can and does hurt the economy in all kinds of ways. Maybe it also helps in some ways, but here's the thing(s): public healthcare saves money, via preventative care, so long as the poor won't be left to die otherwise. Police forces save money (if they're working right) by preventing property damage, theft, and ensuring the safety of those engaged in commerce. Coherent public education strategies create money by preparing the workforce to be productive. Cutting these programs *costs* money, and it may cost more than it saves.

If you disagree with me and you want to counter-argue, that's great. I only ask that you recognize I'm not "shit-your-pants insane" or "beyond help" to think any of these things.

Re:Seriusly America

[tomhath]

The extreme anything will usually be composed of nutjobs. Left, right, religious, socialist, whatever.

However, to say that these people make other extreme groups look sensible is absurd.

Re:Seriusly America

[Nimey]

Yes. Given the years of consolidation so that the media outlets are generally owned by large companies with other interests to protect, it's inescapable.

They aren't real conservatives

[QuincyDurant]

People who support radical change have hijacked the word "conservative" just as those who support extremism in religion have hijacked the word "Christian."

  Many, perhaps most, of the engineers and scientists I know are instinctively conservative. They want to build on the past, not toss it out. As Edmund Burke wrote, they have the disposition to preserve but the ability to improve.

True conservatives also want to conserve the earth; it is no accident that the word is closely related to "conservation." And when science comes in conflict with religion or traditional belief, the first instinct of conservatives is to defend the old order, but after science prevails, as it did by 1926 in the matter of evolution, conservatives defend the new "old order." They do not seek to return the 21st century to the time of the robber barons of the 1800s.

The problem is that true conservatives--the ordinary people you live and work with--have allowed extremists like Limbaugh run the so-called conservative agenda because they see these loudmouthed firebrands as helping them hold back too-rapid change. In this, they resemble the Junker class in Germany that despised Hitler but supported him because they thought that he and his own brand of firebrands would hold back socialism.

If the stranglehold that extremists have on today's U.S. Republican Party is ever to be broken, it must be broken by true conservatives in the tradition of Burke, Churchill, Eisenhower, and the first President Bush. Until that is done, they have no real choice except to stay home or vote for the Democrats.

Re:Happens when you call people "deniers"

[krouic]

> If you don't believe any of the evidence on AGW, you're either ignorant or a denier. The evidence is overwhelming.

The evidence is that according to some measurement methodology, mean temperatures are higher now than they were decades before, by fractions of degrees.
The other evidence is that, according to some measurement methodology, the relative proportion of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is higher that it was decades before.

Whether the augmentation of greenhouse gases is due to human activity, whether the augmentation of temperature is corellated to that of greenhouse gases, whether this augmentation of temparature will continue and whether it will have negative consequences is NOT evidence, but the results of statistical analysis, physical and computational models.

So while refusing to accept facts can be called denialism, being skeptical about theorical models and extrapolations should not. Labelling AGW critics as shills paid by big oil companies will not help the cause either - this tactics usually comes from conspiration nuts.

Seriously, I don't get all this AGW/Non-AGW racket

[Qbertino]

In all honesty, I don't get all this AGW/Non-AGW racket. Is this an US thing?

AGW by caused by humans using fossil fuels for cooking, heating and driving their cars does sound resonable to me. But even if details need to be debated, I personally do not need any further hypothesis about how and in what speed AGW is going to come into effect. I believe it allready has, but that's just belief.

What I *do* know however is this:

1) We have 7,2 Billion people on this planet, the number is growing and the growth rate is increasing.

2) Most of these people heat and cook with fossil fuels. This is a problem that would be next to trivial to solve, somewhat in the way the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is giving toilets to a bazillion people and doctors going around asking the villagers in 3rd world countries to store their drinking water in PET Bottles on the roof in the sun for three days as to eliminate 99,999% of all patogens in it before drinking it. Along that alley solar cookers and basic tips on isolation could case simular changes on a huge scale in the 'fossil fuel wasting dept. - and people would be glad not having to scavange for wood or burn poisinous plastics. And even if it only is to improve local climate and save some woodlands. That's a reason more than good enough - AGW one way or the other.

3) Germans spend 4.7 Billion man-hours per year in traffic jams. 4 point 7 fucking Billion man-hours per year! Sorry folks, I do not know about you, but I do not need any more info on AGW or cartraffic CO2 output in Germany to know that that number adds an entire new level to 'insane' and it would be best for all Germans and their quality of living to invest 20 - 40 Billion Euros in further ICEs even better public transport and - if we so desire (i think'd be tres cool) - a Transrapid (German Maglev) loop throughout the republik. Quality of life would get another boost, Germans would have time to have kids again and we could quit subsidizing cartraffic via tax-breaks (yeah, some real shit going on in that dept. over here ... don't even get me started) and we could quit plastering our already scarce untouched countrysides with more 6-track Autobahnen.

Bottom line: This AGW/Non-AGW racket is a silly roadshow to distract from clear issues at hand that need no scientific debate to be recongised as problems that need solving. Now. But I guess officials just want a heated debate to happen and nothing to be done. It's called Mass Distraction.

My 2 cents.

It's like the

[geekoid]

heartland institute was created to secretly teach us all about logical fallacies.

Unindicted Co-conspirators

[ThatsNotPudding]

Science cannot compete with cheap and nasty PR, especially when a large chunk of the population is scientifically illiterate.

The main selling point of HRI in particular and the Right Wing in general is this: You and your family don't have to ever change your lifestyle or even think about the devastating environmental, financial, or human rights effects of said lifestyle.

Even on a subconscious level, being absolved of ones' sins is very alluring. Praise Jesus and turn up the A/C!!

Re:Unindicted Co-conspirators

[Darinbob]

You don't even have to ask What Would Jesus Do. Those sorts of questions would just confuse the average voter. Just trust us when we say that Jesus would drive a Hummer and throw his McDonald's bag out the window when he's done with his supersize fries. Remember, when we win the election it is because it is God's Will, but when they other guys win the election it's because they're cheating crooks trying to steal your liberty.

Re:Unindicted Co-conspirators

[strikethree]

You and your family don't have to ever change your lifestyle or even think about the devastating environmental, financial, or human rights effects of said lifestyle.

Hm. A vehicle is a very common polluting thing a person/family has. I am seeing no solutions to the transportation problem so personal vehicles kind of have to stay regardless of any damage. Drive less?

Homes. Homes use lots of electricity. Server racks, grow farms, air conditioning, etc. I suppose being exposed to a wide variety of temps will not kill most folks even if it is uncomfortable. Run fewer servers?

The majority of polluting is outside of any individual's control. It is the source of the electricity and the source of the motive power that are changing the makeup of our atmosphere. Both problems can be solved if "we" generated electricity in a manner that does not spew chemicals into the atmosphere.

There are a few technologies that do provide such benefits: Solar, Wind (another form of solar), geothermal, and nuclear. It seems pretty clear that nuclear will have to be one of the technologies because of how much energy is needed to power human endeavours.

Re:Unindicted Co-conspirators

[TapeCutter]

Indeed! One of the biggest con jobs that these people have successfully pulled off was the one that convinced middle America that this issue was all about the kind of car you choose to drive. Peabody coal must be delighted with their propoganda vendor. Nuclear should certainly be part of the solution, I'm far from an expert on on nuclear reactors, I have a grasp of the physics and the different types of reactors but what I don't understand why pebble bed reactors (invented in the 1940's)are all but ignored, AFAICT they are cheap, can use the current nuclear waste we don't know what to do with as fuel, disposable, scalable, and it's physically impossible for it to melt down no matter how many earthquakes, tsunamis, irresponsible operators, and corrupt builders you throw at it.

A beautifull engineering idea is both simple and effective. In this layman's eyes the PBR appears to be an extremely simple solution to a number of very complex problems. I've read the critisizims section of the mandatory WP page but from both a utilitarian and public saftey POV I still don't understand why huge LWRs that can take decades to plan, build, and commission, are built in preferance to modular PBRs. Are we really waiting for materials science to come up with the perfect pebble coating?

Incorrect

[pastafazou]

The problem is people like you who claim "The science is settled". The science is never settled, stop using this false claim to shut down opposition. If the science was so concrete, their predictions would have come true. But the sea levels aren't rising anywhere near as fast as they originally claimed. The temperature hasn't risen nearly as much as they claimed it would. And next year is the year they predicted for the Arctic to be ice free, and I doubt that one's coming true either. Therefore, they got something wrong. So go back, study some more, examine some more, find the mistakes, and try again. But don't tell me the "science is settled" and demand I pay double the current rate for electricity when all of your predictions about what will happen are turning out false.

Re:Incorrect

[riverat1]

Your problem is you're not paying close enough attention to what the actual scientists are saying. Sea level is rising faster than any predictions from before about 2005, temperature rise has been within the margin of error on their projections and IIRC one scientist speculated in 2007 that at the rate things are going the Arctic could be ice free by 2013 but most cryologists didn't believe that.

Saying the science is settled is maybe a bit of hyperbole but when scientists in a field no longer spend time arguing about a point and a consensus is developed to the point that it would take and astoundingly revolutionary new finding to change it then I think you can say the science is settled as much as it is ever going to be. In climate theory the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is not debated; the fact that CO2 levels have increased at an accelerating rate is not debated; the fact that human emissions of CO2 are responsible for the vast majority of that increase is not debated. Given that it would be astounding if we did not get global warming. The scientists have moved on to filling in the details.

Re:Incorrect

[hkmwbz]

But the sea levels aren't rising anywhere near as fast as they originally claimed.

[citation needed]

The temperature hasn't risen nearly as much as they claimed it would.

[citation needed]

And next year is the year they predicted for the Arctic to be ice free, and I doubt that one's coming true either.

[citation needed]

Re:Incorrect

[hkmwbz]

in this video an MIT professor of metereology shows that even a supporter of AGW theory admits that the data on sea level is inconclusive

That video shows Richard Lindzen. He's a known denier who ignores his own research (which has not countered the consensus position) when making public speeches.

Where is his research on sea levels? He's an atmospheric physicist!

Why are you referring to someone who is making statements that are demonstrably false, and who hasn't even published any relevant scientific papers on sea level rise?

Correlation does not equal causation.

So? Who claimed that it did? Your ignorance is amazing. You really have no idea what the science actually says, do you? You really think the science says "correlation equals causation"?

Re:Incorrect

[hkmwbz]

I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but Al Gore is not a scientist. What he says is irrelevant to what the actual science shows. Bashing Al Gore to attack the science is insane, but is of course exactly what one would expect from a denialist.

You seem to be unable to tell the difference between politics and science. You even mention claimed comments from the media and seem to think that it somehow disproves the science! Completely unable to tell the difference. Once again exactly what one would expect from a denialist.

Do I think someone must publish a paper for something to be true? I think someone must publish a scientific, peer-reviewed paper in a reputable journal to have credibility. The wilder the claim, the more important that it is properly published.

And as a typical denialist, you think just looking out the window makes you a climate expert. LOL.

Re:Incorrect

[pastafazou]

no, citations aren't needed douchebag. It's all there in the various IPCC reports. Their initial predictions, their revised predictions, and current data that's freely available on the internet showing even their revised predictions are off. I've done my homework, you can do your own. If you don't want to learn the facts yourself, you can go on believing whatever Gore and the IPCC wants to sell you. I don't give a rats' ass one way or the other.

Re:Incorrect

[hkmwbz]

Yes, citations are indeed needed. Claims were made. Those claims require proof. "Some IPCC report" is not a citation. Stop stalling. Put up or shut up.

Re:Incorrect

[hkmwbz]

Claim: "But the sea levels aren't rising anywhere near as fast as they originally claimed."

Please point to these original claims with a specific reference. Please point to your source for the actual sea level rise.

Claim: "The temperature hasn't risen nearly as much as they claimed it would."

Please point to these original claims with a specific reference. Please point to your source for the actual temperature rise.

Claim: "And next year is the year they predicted for the Arctic to be ice free, and I doubt that one's coming true either."

Please point to where it was claimed that the arctic would be ice free next year with a specific reference.

If you can't fulfill any of these requests, I have hereby proven you to be a dishonest, lying denialist science-hater.

Re:Incorrect

[pastafazou]

This isn't Wikipedia douchebag. I don't need to cite where I get my information. If you disagree with me, you're free to disagree. You're also free to pull up the various IPCC reports that have been released over the years, look up their estimates on sea level rise, and then compare it to the actual record. Again, do it yourself, I'm not doing your homework for you. If you're too lazy, go ahead and believe what you want, I don't care.

Re:Incorrect

[pastafazou]

You haven't proven anything, and neither have I. But I have looked at the differences between the IPCC predictions and what has actually happened, and found them to be very different. I don't hate science, I simply expect that the theory and observations match. When they don't, there's a problem. Now fuck off douchebag.

Re:Incorrect

[hkmwbz]

I don't need to prove anything because I didn't make any claims. You made claims, so you need to come up with your sources.

What IPCC predictions are you referring to? Link please. What actually happened? Link please.

You hate science, because if you didn't you would want to provide sources for your claims.

Re:Incorrect

[hkmwbz]

Of course you need to cite where you get your information. Otherwise anyone can just make up whatever claims they want. Like you are obviously doing, because if you weren't you would be more than happy to post your sources.

Do my homework for me? I'm not the one who made the claims, so it's your homework to provide sources for your claims.

Re:Incorrect

[hkmwbz]

So what if Florida is not under water. Why would you point out the obvious fact that Florida is not under water? Did actual scientists claim that it is under water? You are not making sense.

Please point to your sources for this alleged lie by scientists.

You think local cold weather disproves global warming? Ignorance is bliss indeed.

Re:Incorrect

[pastafazou]

Do Your Own Homework Douchebag

Re:Incorrect

[gottabeme]

More labeling. In this thread you even kick it up a notch from "denier" to "denialist." What's next, "denialism"? I thought this was supposed to be about the science, about the facts. Why the ad hominems?

Appealing to consensus is appealing to popularity, which is a logical fallacy--not science.

Actually a lot of the argument for AGW is that CO2 levels increase when temperature increases--which is that correlation equals causation. However, there is evidence that CO2 levels lag behind temperature changes, in which case it would be an indicator, not a factor. Lindzen explains this in his video. You haven't addressed this issue, you just attacked Lindzen.

Another issue is that the predictive models exaggerate the amplifying effect of other greenhouse gases in order to force the models to match observations; then those flawed models are used to extrapolate into the future. Lindzen also explains this in his video. You also haven't addressed this issue, you just attacked Lindzen.

Another issue is that the GATA fluctuations are within the margins of error--they are statistically insignificant, and therefore prove nothing. Lindzen also explains this in his video. You also haven't addressed this issue, you just attacked Lindzen.

Another issue is that the data on sea levels may not be sufficient for analysis. Lindzen also explains this in his video--he even quotes a fellow MIT professor who has published on sea levels. You also haven't addressed this issue, you just attacked Lindzen.

Finally, humans only produce 6% of the CO2 produced annually. Six percent. I've read that that is within the margin of error of the natural sources' production. If so, that further casts into doubt the significance of human CO2 production.

I'd be happy to read your responses to these five issues, but only if you address the facts and logic--I've no interest in labeling and personal attacks. If your science and logic are sound, you need not do anything but state them.

Re:Incorrect

[hkmwbz]

You made the claims. It's your homework to support the claims you made. Of course, you are now proving that your claims were blatant lies. Otherwise you would have come up with actual sources.

Re:Incorrect

[hkmwbz]

Why would I not label something as what it is?

I am not appealing to consensus. I am pointing out that Lindzen's research has failed to refute the consensus position.

You are too clueless, so please search for "CO2 lags temperature" at skepticalscience.com to educate yourself.

It's a blatant lie that models are exaggerating anything. Please stop lying.

Lindzen is clueless about sea levels, and he should shut up about things he is clueless about.

The argument "humans produce only X% CO2" is completely idiotic. How about you try a swallowing tiny drop of strong poison. Surely you would be willing to do that, because surely small thinks can't possibly affect big things?

You are a clueless denier. That's all.

Re:Incorrect

[hkmwbz]

Have you never heard of "An Inconvenient Truth?"

Yes, but I have never watched it, and I never will. It's irrelevant. It is not a scientific paper. It is not peer-reviewed. You are an idiot if you are attacking science over what some politician said.

Actual scientists were consulted about what to put in that movie.

Sources, please. Don't just make up claims like that. Come up with proper sources and citations. I already exposed several of your lies, so you are clearly not trustworthy.

So, cold weather means its getting warmer too?

If you really think global warming means that every spot on the surface of the earth is getting hotter each day, you are an idiot. At least educate yourself before spouting nonsense.

What about another Ice Age?

What about it? The planet is warming.

Ignorance is bliss if you refuse to use your brain and substitute govt. propaganda.

You are an ignorant fool. You are spewing lies and denialist talking points. You should educate yourself instead of spewing lies.

And again: Please point to your sources for this alleged lie by scientists. And you think local cold weather disproves global warming?

Re:Happens when you call people "deniers"

[tbannist]

Being sceptical about theoretical models and extrapolations will not get you labelled a denier. But if you question whether global warming is due to human activity, you're questioning a lot of evidence that goes far beyond theoretical models. There are 13 separate lines of evidence that indicate that global warming is man made. The deniers have no credible alternative theories and can't even agree on which scapegoat to blame.

It's a fact that global warming is caused by humans, we know the mechanism that causes it (greenhouse gases) and we know we're the ones increasing greenhouse gases (industrial measurements and radio-isotope analysis), it's time to accept the truth on that count. There are other things you can question, like exactly how fast temperatures will increase, and what specifically the effects of a warmer climate are. But you need to accept that scientific facts established 30 years ago which have stood up to every question thrown at since aren't going to crumble before your non-expert opinion.

Re:Happens when you call people "deniers"

[geekoid]

Because a denier is some who flat out denies,. A skeptic look at the data and draws conclusion. \More data later may change that conclusion, but based on all the data we have, the current global warming is being cause by people.

I haven't heard an original argument from the deniers in 20 years. The arguments they bring up have been shown to be incorrect. This is all they have, lies.

Before 20 years ago, yeah, they where great scientific question. The needed to be looked at. Sun activity, solar wind, natural releases, wtc.. They where looked at.

SO the make up lies and shout about taxes and loosing freedom. Even though none of that is remotely needed for the policy change that need to take effect.

Re:Seriusly America

[geekoid]

Except for the fact that it works. As evidenced by history.
Corporate and government economics are not the same as home economics. Not that you can understand anything bigger then yourself.

You know why I like Paul Krugman? before I knew who he was other then an economist I read his past blog post. He pretty much called it. The Bush situation, the economic fall out. SO why you have a long history of being right, I pay attention. I may not agree, but I stop and listen and think and research.
You should try it.

" you should double down and spend your way out of debt? "
  corporation successfully do this all the time.

Re:Seriusly America

[PopeRatzo]

Are you talking about the same Paul Krugman that believes when you run out of money and nobody will lend you more, you should double down and spend your way out of debt?

That's because Keynsian economics is the only system that has been actually proven to end serious recessions, unlike the Austrian school economics, which has never improved anything, anywhere, ever.

Why do you think suggesting something that has worked well in the past is insane? Isn't that preferable to something that has failed every single time?

Heartland Institute == mass murdering terrorists

[WOOFYGOOFY]

Yeah this si bunch of mass murdering eco-terrorists determined to set off the civilization deconstrcuting bomb they built called "global warming".

It's the Pol Pot theory of political reconstruction-

1) kill everyone (especially the academics) and destroy society as we know it.

2) Make sure you and your buds are the only ones left alive.

3) Start society over, your way this time.

4) Profit

an endless series of hobgoblins

[GlenRaphael]

governments rule by fiat, by and large, and if they have a thing they feel they need or want to control, they can.

No. In the short run, maybe. But longer term, even the most dictatorial government needs some buy-in from the citizens; democratic ones need this more. And one sure way to get popular support is to encourage the populace to be panicked about stuff. H.L. Mencken probably said it best:

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

Our politicians are constantly encouraging people to be scared of something - maybe this year it's global warming but in earlier years the exact same role has been filled by: Iraq, Libya, muslims, "terrorists" of any variety, "glue-sniffing", "crack babies", "flag-burning", "GM crops", Alar, the "population explosion", "state militias", "killer bees", "christian fundamentalists", "cop-killer bullets", and many other topics. And yes, a few of these topics might even have been worthy of some concern, but you can't deny the overall dynamic has a consistent form: some faction of politicians (on the left or the right, it doesn't matter which) thinks that they can win elections by whipping voters into a frenzy about some scary new thing that will kill us all unless we put The Right People in charge. That faction seeks evidence to support claims of ruin and disaster; the opposing faction seeks evidence that the first faction's claims are specious.

Whichever factions are in power use the state's influence over science to encourage funding that is likely to produce results that make their side look better. results that make their side look worse will be ignored. There's also a Baptist/bootlegger component; some industries that benefits from the scare help pay for it. (in the case of the war on Iraq: defense contractors. In the case of global warming: various parts of the energy industry. For instance, oil companies that hope to profit by selling carbon credits, that have ties to "green energy", or that have especially good political connections such that they can hope to use new laws to get their own operations grandfathered in while hobbling their competitors.)

In short: Governments do generally benefit from scares such as catastrophic AGW whenever these scares can be used to justify giving more money, more votes, or more power to the political class. They benefit from raising alarm over global warming in exactly the same way they benefit from doing so in the War On Some Drugs and the War On Terror.

I honestly can't get into your head where it's easier for everyone disagreeing with you on every forum on the planet is part of a massive conspiracy being easier to accept than the possibility that atmospheric composition affects planetary cooling rates[emphasis added].

Right, there's your problem: What makes you think skeptics don't accept the possibility that atmospheric composition affects planetary cooling rates? The main disagreement at this point is over things like feedbacks - whether they are (and will continue to be) net-positive, how high they might be, how much harm that might cause over time interval X, how certain we can be about all this, what alternatives we have available to us, whether the cost of pursuing these alternatives outweighs their benefits (both now and in the foreseeable future), and basically whether we should be panicking yet or whether we can reasonably afford to wait and learn more. You also don't need to posit a "monstrous conspiracy" where mere publication bias suffices: scary results are easier to publish and make for better press releases than non-scary ones. "It's worse than we thought!" makes a good headline; "It's not quite as bad as we thought" does not. :-)

Re:an endless series of hobgoblins

[i kan reed]

Right, there's your problem: What makes you think skeptics don't accept the possibility that atmospheric composition affects planetary cooling rates? The main disagreement at this point is over things like feedbacks - whether they are (and will continue to be) net-positive, how high they might be, how much harm that might cause over time interval X, how certain we can be about all this, what alternatives we have available to us, whether the cost of pursuing these alternatives outweighs their benefits (both now and in the foreseeable future), and basically whether we should be panicking yet or whether we can reasonably afford to wait and learn more.

You also don't need to posit a "monstrous conspiracy" where mere publication bias suffices: scary results are easier to publish and make for better press releases than non-scary ones. "It's worse than we thought!" makes a good headline; "It's not quite as bad as we thought" does not. :-)

That is not what "skeptics" have been saying and you damn well know it. I don't feel up to dealing with a flagrant liar right now. If the debate were actually centered around such useful details, there'd be a hope for progress, but no, it's "accepting global warming makes you a serial killer". Remember the subject of the thread? No?

Re:an endless series of hobgoblins

[sycodon]

I thought it was "being a skeptic means you are mentally ill".

Re:an endless series of hobgoblins

[GlenRaphael]

Read Heartland's press release; they're clearly focused on believers in catastrophic global warming, people who believe not just that warming is possible or exists or has happened but also that it constitutes a crisis which demands immediate action. Those are all separable claims and it's bad rhetoric to conflate them.

I claim that "skeptics" generally do accept the possibility that atmospheric composition affects planetary cooling rates. In particular, I claim this with regard to the following people commonly regarded by outsiders as "skeptics": Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Anthony Watts. I think you will find it very difficult to find some "skeptics" who do not "accept the possibility that atmospheric composition affects planetary cooling rates".

But if you really think "skeptics" have been claiming it's not possible for atmospheric composition to affect planetary cooling rates, it shouldn't be hard for you to name a couple specific skeptics who have done this. In short: name two.

The people that someone at Heritage picked (unabomber, castro...) to claim "I believe in global warming" in ads didn't simply mean by it that "atmospheric composition affects planetary cooling rates". When these (and other!) alarmists say "I believe in global warming" what they believe is that global warming is a crisis that demands immediate action. But to see it a crisis, you need to think that net feedbacks are strongly positive. Otherwise it's just an interesting curiosity.

The standard line among the denizens of ClimateAudit.org is that yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas but the litany overstates the case for strong positive feedbacks and the case that current temperatures are "unprecedented".

Re:an endless series of hobgoblins

[i kan reed]

Then why did their billboard not say so? I think you know why.

Re:an endless series of hobgoblins

[GlenRaphael]

Sure I know why:

(1) Billboard messages need to be terse and use familiar phrasing or they don't work at all

(2) The ad designer was trying to spark a little controversy and saw it as a fight-fire-with-fire, no-publicity-is-bad-publicity sort of situation.

I agree with you that something like "I still believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming" would have been closer to the intended meaning, but few would be able to parse and understand that (or similar attempts to convey more subtlety) while driving 60 mph. :-)

It's also worth noting that Heritage was told to knock it off by its own featured speakers, including the previously-mentioned Ross McKitrick. Ross threatened not to come to the conference and posted his letter to Climateaudit, where many skeptics read it. Meanwhile, Donna Laframboise (creator of NOconsensus.org) actually did withdraw from the conference, also posting the reasoning to her blog. You might want to read both those links before assuming that skeptics in general are fully behind the campaign.

Re:Burt on climate change

[gregOfTheWeb]

Yup.

Burt kicks the crap out of the warmists arguments. But you try and educate them and they plug their ears and keep saying "naaaa, naaa, can't hear you, naaa, naa"

Re:Seriously, I don't get all this AGW/Non-AGW rac

[gregOfTheWeb]

Just a little point. The Growth rate is decreasing and has been for most of the last 50 years. Go to the UN Population site and see for yourself.

Depending on your baseline for the average decrease in growth rates the Eartth will max out at anywhere from 8-10 Billion and the range of years is 2047 to 2092. It all depends on your assumptions.

Re:Don't feed the trolls / Koran burners

[drinkypoo]

He didn't drive the truck over the bridge. He did something he knew would make the driver of the truck want to drive over it, but he still didn't drive the fucking thing. Was it irresponsible? Maybe. Does he have blood on his hands? Fuck no. And until The People rise up then The People are going to have more of it to deal with than he is.

Re:Seriusly America

[shilly]

Wow, just wow! Have you not noticed that the US has had a period of modest economic growth through a Keynesian set of policies as compared to EU states like Greece, France, Spain and the UK which have had hideous economic prospects driven by a bonkers set of austerity policies?

Do you really believe that thinking in terms of how you balance your checkbook gives you meaningful insight into appropriate macroeconomic policy? If so, for god's sake why?? Scale matters, and a national economy does not work the same way as a household budget. You can indeed spend your way out of recession. You still need to pay down the debt, but the best time to do that is counter-cyclically, ie once growth is established. Sovereign governments can tell bond markets to piss off, and frequently have done in the past -- debt defaults are common and surprisingly effective. Sure, they are painful, but not as painful as austerity. Spanish unemployment is running at 25%.

Re:Don't feed the trolls / Koran burners

[budgenator]

Well I have my doubts as well, but it doesn't make much sense to use the actions of illiterate Goat Herders whose culture is stuck in the 13th century as proof one way or the other.

Re:Don't feed the trolls / Koran burners

[shilly]

Are you seriously doubting that there is any historical record of Christians killing in the name of Christianity? My dead ancestors would like to have a word with you, but they can't because they were killed in pogroms by Christians.

But AGW is a political issue!

[tjstork]

Here's what the proponents of radical action to stem greenhouse gasses do not get, is that all science has with it some element of uncertainty and that uncertainty is balanced against cost. It is not 100% certain what the effects of greenhouse gas emissions will be. Let's say, it is 99% certain, and then, as you drill down to locality, the certainty is reduced even more, until, you get to where you simply can't say what Delaware weather will be like in 5 years unless we just stop using fossil fuels.

Sure, if the cost of AGW remediation was like a few billion bucks, then, given the science that is out there today, its good enough to roll with. But the cost isn't a few billion dollars... it's -trillions- of dollars and ultimately a reduced living standard for most of the people on the planet earth. It's simply enormous, and while AGW proponents like to bandy about "unrealized costs", they also seem to neglect "unrealized or lost opportunity costs" that factor in that tax an increased energy foot print has, and its enormous. Like, how many more people will die, because they are pushed into the poverty well from increased energy prices. There will be less food, less transportation, less of everything, including drugs, and you can't fix that by cooking up some tax on the rich because all of their businesses are going to get hosed to... it's a self imposed dark ages..

So yes, some decisions need to be made. Why we aren't doing the smart thing and just rolling with modern nuclear power plant designs, and researching the hell of fusion, is utterly beyond me, and the fact that AGW advocates are more willing to wait for solar and wind technologies to supposedly come on line, tells me that the problem isn't as urgent as they say...

Re:Happens when you call people "deniers"

[hkmwbz]

I notice that you failed to address any of his points. Personal attack? No, he pointed out how your arguments are bogus and wrong.

Re:Happens when you call people "deniers"

[hkmwbz]

So even if your figure of 97% is correct, the other 3% are politically motivated?

I'm not sure, but I know about one specific example: Dr. Richard Lindzen. While his public position is one of skepticism towards the consensus, his actual research has failed to weaken the consensus position. So while he speaks up against the consensus in his political speeches, he has no support for that position in the research he carries out. I have no idea why he does not pay attention to the science when making public statements, but he does.

Censor the Heathen Deniers

[approachingZero]

Let's be brutally honest. The only real solution is to shut these deniers up once and for all through a pogrom of state sponsored censorship. Once this is accomplished we can move on to more forceful measures. It is hardly practical to crucify all members of this 'heartland institute' - but the political upside of crucifying one or two can't be ignored. In the name of science (of course).

Re:The climate has always changed...

[Falconhell]

Yes the AC talks out of his ass and denies reality. Pretty much the denialist way. It mazes me how every single so called point of the deniers has been comprehensively proven wrong, but they still roll out the same old lies over and over.

In regards to the polar bears

[Karmashock]

Not really, the guy that made the claim is going through a process not unlike a lawyer disbarment or a de-licensing of a doctor.

If you really want to hitch your wagon to that, then so be it. But it looks like he scammed people. Choose your battles carefully. This is not one you'll win. That doesn't mean AGW is wrong. Merely that that one claim was wrong.

Re:Happens when you call people "deniers"

[slashbart]

Sigh...
Read the whole article, try to understand it, and then disagree with him or me....

everybody seems to be trolling

[khipu]

I suggest you search for "global warming" on Google Images and look at what tendentious images come up from global warming activists: the planet in flames, scorched earth, etc. Both sides, both climate alarmists and climate change deniers, are guilty of gross distortions of facts and fear mongering.

Re:Seriusly America

[khipu]

I love how skewed the right has become that they actually still spout that bullshit about the "extreme left" owning the media. ... If anything, the media is centrist

No, the media isn't centrist, it is commercial. Their primary interest is to make money, and that trumps all other interests. Making money translates into advertising dollars, and that means making their sponsors happy and getting viewers/readers.

Having said that, stories published by media tend to be slightly left leaning on average. But that really doesn't matter a great deal. First, that might b to stir up controversy. Second, there are so many media outlets to choose from that such a bias really need not have any practical effect.

Re:Seriusly America

[khipu]

That's because Keynsian economics is the only system that has been actually proven to end serious recessions,

Really? Like Obama's stimulus ended the current recession?

Witchhunts and "science"

[gottabeme]

What you said is simply not true. The body of evidence is not ridiculously overwhelming. For you to compare AGW to specific theories of Relativity or Evolution, and then to entire fields of study such as chemistry and biology, is dishonesty on your part--that or ignorance.

To top it all off, you call anyone who disagrees with you irrational. How ironic.

It reminds me of witchhunts--someone saying, "We all know she's a witch--the evidence is ridiculously overwhelming, and everyone in town agrees it's a fact. Holding out belief on the hope that at the last minute some impossible new truth that nobody ever considered is going to overturn the truth we all know, is at best magical thinking. It just doesn't have any rational basis and shouldn't be compared to rational thinking." All because a woman had a birthmark or something.

For just one example of how the scientific evidence is not conclusive nor overwhelming, look at this, which was posted earlier in the comments: http://youtu.be/-sHg3ZztDAw An MIT professor of meterology explains quite clearly how the scientific "evidence" that's claimed to support AGW is not even statistically significant! He even speaks against the president of MIT while working for her--he's not afraid to tell it like it is.

He also shows how authorities like the IPCC are misquoted and misrepresented by other authorities, and how it all trickles down. There's even a book by a man who's a proponent of using the "myth" of global warming as a rallying point for ideas and "characters and projects"--he said that we should ask "what global warming can do for us," and that it "transcends the science"! This politicising of AGW has been going on for 40 years, and the snowball is now big enough to be noticed by the population at large.

In the end, it becomes "accepted" or "common knowledge" by people like yourself--meanwhile, the truth is, at best, unknown. And having no scientific basis for their position, supporters of the "facts" fall back on peer pressure, bandwagoneering, ad hominems, labeling, and name-calling--saying that "deniers" are crazy. Actual rational thinking will see through such transparent manipulation.

Yes, sadly there are anti-AGW groups who use similar tactics--and shame on them as well. They obviously have their own agendas which are unconcerned with the truth--they merely would benefit from different outcomes, so they support the opposing view.

Both groups are irrelevant, however--what matters is the truth.

So my question to you is, what is your agenda? What is AGW doing for you? Is it helping you push your projects or desires? If AGW isn't true, do your goals stand on their own merits? Have you been brainwashed, or are you just dishonest and using the ends to justify the means?

Can you refute Lindzen's claims about the data and methods and models? That's the science--and if you can't refute what he said, then you can't support your own view.

"Science"

[gottabeme]

We are saying...that GW is accepted by most informed people as fact, verging on irrefutable fact.

An unsupported assertion.

Even if true, it is logically irrelevant and not an argument in support of the conclusion of AGW.

How ironic is it when someone who claims that science supports a theory and that dissenters are unscientific makes an unscientific argument?

Burden of proof

[gottabeme]

You're suffering from a burden of proof fallacy. This is one of the fundamental fallacies of the entire AGW movement.

Re:Burden of proof

[hkmwbz]

On the contrary, he made specific claims about what the science says and what actually happened. I want sources for his claims about what the science says, and sources for his claims about what really happened.

He made the claims. His burden of proof. Stop trying to dishonestly distort the discussion, denier.

Re:Burden of proof

[hkmwbz]

Again, he claimed that the science said something. I want citations. I then want the data he's basing his claim about what actually happened on.

As a denier, you do not understand the difference between local temperature and global mean temperature. You do not understand the difference between climate and weather. Basically, you are extremely ignorant.

I want those citations. Enough silly excuses. Put up or shut up.

Scientists did not warn about a coming ice age in the 70s. Your ignorance is exposed again.

Re:Burden of proof

[gottabeme]

"As one who disagrees with me, you do not understand why I am right. You do not understand reality, but I do. Basically, you are an idiot."

FTFY.

You should stop labeling, attacking, and insulting. It doesn't help your case. Let your arguments rest on their merits. Otherwise it looks as if you have an agenda other than the pursuit of truth.

Re:Burden of proof

[hkmwbz]

Again: Citations. Put up or shut up. And stop spewing lies. If you don't want people to call you out on your lies, stop lying.

Re:Burden of proof

[gottabeme]

I need to cite your labeling, attacking, and insulting? It's in your own post. I'm not lying about it: it's right there in your own post. Who are you talking to?

Re:Burden of proof

[hkmwbz]

Once again: Citations. Put up or shut up.

Re:Burden of proof

[gottabeme]

I guess you're trolling--or maybe you're a Wikipedia editor who's brainwashed himself into saying "citation needed" rather than arguing the issue. :) In saying "citation needed" over and over, when I already pointed out your post which I am referring to, you're confusing the burden of proof--or maybe you're just trolling.

But here, I will quote you and itemize it for you:

"As a denier, you do not understand the difference between local temperature and global mean temperature. You do not understand the difference between climate and weather. Basically, you are extremely ignorant."

1. You label him as a "denier." This is, in effect and intention, an ad hominem and a sort-of reverse appeal to popularity. Instead of arguing the issue logically, you simply label him as a member of the opposing camp, which, of course, "everyone knows" is simply a bunch of ignorant people, and therefore wrong.

2. You make assumptions about his understanding and knowledge. This is also a logical fallacy, because you do not know him--these are unsubstantiated assertions.

3. You conclude by calling him "extremely ignorant." This is simply an ad hominem, and an unfounded one, at that.

In conclusion, your post fails to argue logically. Your assertions are unsupported and your conclusions are unreasonable. You have not discussed the issue itself, nor have you advanced the debate in any way--on the contrary, your personal attacks and divisive labeling and name-calling are one of the biggest problems in the AGW debate. You are acting as part of the problem, not the solution.

Ok, I put up--and now I will shut up. :)

Re:Burden of proof

[pastafazou]

This is his standard practice. Go back through the history of his posts. He attacks ad-hominem, never posting a valid argument, never posting any relevant data to back up his claims. He demands citations from anyone who dares to question AGW, but when he makes claims himself in support of AGW, he can't cite any data. Should you bother to post data that doesn't align with his beliefs, he attacks the source, claiming them to be "kooks", "oil industry shills", "deniers", etc. There's no point trying to debate this guy with facts. He's not interested in debating facts, he's a fanatic.

Labeling and generalizing

[gottabeme]

Part of the problem is labeling and generalizing, as you do here--the us vs. them thinking. It divides, when we need to unite. It puts people on the defensive, which makes rational discussion difficult. It distracts from the real issues, and makes the issue one of politics.

Just stop it, will ya?

Re:Don't feed the trolls / Koran burners

[gottabeme]

"Modern concepts of tolerance"?

Re:Last I knew

[gottabeme]

And so you beg the question of whether we're sliding toward a pit, a question of which the answer cannot be known.

Re:Last I knew

[gottabeme]

I have no such interest. I argue that there is a debate.

For example, according to this page:

"In 2010 humans produced 9 gigatons [of CO2], but ocean output was between 90 and 100 gigatons and ground bacteria and rotting vegetation was between 50 and 60 gigatons according to Dr Dietrich Koelle."

By those numbers, humans produce merely 6% of total CO2 which, "is within the error factor for the amount of CO2 from at least two natural sources."

If that is true, then even measurement of human CO2 output is statistically insignificant, and therefore irrelevant to the debate. If that is true, then it would seem to invalidate the entire AGW hypothesis.

Are those numbers true?

Re:Last I knew

[gottabeme]

The debate is over? Are you lying or just ignorant?

Re:Last I knew

[gottabeme]

You're lying about the debate, and you're oversimplifying the science. What's your agenda?

Re:Last I knew

[gottabeme]

http://drtimball.com/2011/whether-it-is-warming-or-climate-change-it-cannot-be-the-co2/

According to the IPCC, who produce the original numbers, humans produce approximately 9 gigatons of CO2 per year. This is within the error factor for the amount of CO2 from at least two natural sources. Estimates of CO2 from natural sources are very crude as evidenced by the large error factors. Reports with headlines like, "Forests soak up more CO2 than thought" and "Old-growth forests absorb CO2 too: study" keep appearing. In 2010 humans produced 9 gigatons, but ocean output was between 90 and 100 gigatons and ground bacteria and rotting vegetation was between 50 and 60 gigatons according to Dr Dietrich Koelle. Spread the human annual production across the planet and it doesn't even show on the world map. The pattern confirms this because it reflects natural sources.

Are these numbers true? If they are true, what do they mean?

Re:Last I knew

[tbannist]

You're lying about the debate

Really? We've known for over a decade that volcanoes represent approximately 1% of human emissions and I provided evidence to back that statement up and all you can muster is "You're lying"?

you're oversimplifying the science

As for "oversimplifying" would you care to explain the crucial error in my example? I doubt it, because you have no interest in actual discourse.

What's your agenda?

Informing people. You agenda appears to be making accusations. If you can't behave better than 3 year old throwing a tantrum, please feel free to leave.

A shake of the head

[dcvchicago]

The truly sad part of all this is that the issue has become highly politicized on both sides. The pros spin their science, and the antis spin theirs. They engage in an emotional battle for hearts and minds, to the point where the issue resembles a religious debate, far more than a scientific discussion. On both sides, people take a position and look for whatever evidence supports it. And the media lines up behind the junk science on both sides--their only interest is in stirring the pot and keeping folks tuning in or logging on. Those of us who are genuinely concerned, but who have serious scientific doubts about both sides, are left to shake our heads and try to sort out the overwhelming junk, pro and con, from the paltry scientific evidence that actually exists to try to arrive at some reasonable conclusion. So long as the spin and the name-calling goes on, public discussion of this important issue will remain little more than a circus sideshow.

Re:Last I knew

[riverat1]

You didn't read it very well, did you? From the summary:

A shift in atmospheric circulation in response to changes in solar activity is broadly consistent with atmospheric circulation patterns in long-term climate model simulations, and in reanalysis data that assimilate observations from recent solar minima into a climate model.

Does that sound like he's saying GCM's underestimate the effect of the Sun?

Re:Seriusly America

[purpledinoz]

In her defense, that question was loaded. The answer was obviously "nothing".

Re:Last I knew

[riverat1]

The numbers don't sound right to me. Lately human emissions have been in the 30 gigatonne range. Because of the carbon cycle natural emissions are in the range of 20 times that of human emissions but natural absorption is in the range of 20 times human emissions as well. So the natural processes of the carbon cycle produce a net emission of essentially zero CO2 from year to year.

Re:Seriusly America

[Magius_AR]

He pretty much called it. The Bush situation, the economic fall out. SO why you have a long history of being right, I pay attention.

Then lookup Peter Schiff, a polar opposite in economic view, who also "pretty much called it" as well (probably prior to Krugman's predictions even)

Re:Last I knew

[riverat1]

That 9 gigatons figure must be referring to carbon only, not CO2. The CO2 numbers are around 30 gigatonnes per year.

As I pointed out in another answer, educate yourself about the carbon cycle.

Re:Don't feed the trolls / Koran burners

[Rakarra]

Do Timothy McVeigh or Anders Behring Breivik make Christianity a religion of war?

Timothy McVeigh was not Christian, he explicitly listed himself as agnostic. In prison, he claimed "science is my religion."

Re:Don't feed the trolls / Koran burners

[Rakarra]

Christ, for example, never waged war or led an army

Many Jewish kings revered in the Old Testament did, however, and the Jesus didn't call them out.

Re:Don't feed the trolls / Koran burners

[Rakarra]

He knew what would happen, it was culturally inevitable for the people of Afghanistan

Then the blame lies with the people of Afghanistan. Period.
The pastor is a total dickweed, but the burning of a Koran could never, ever justify physical violence and looting. A culture that approves of that sort of thing is a truly inferior culture.

Re:Last I knew

[dbIII]

No, just awake enough for long enough to see what was a simple situation hit politics and then get deliberately clouded as the money got fed to the PR agencies.It's depressing that somebody that has been conned has been so confused that they are then calling others that have not ignorant :( Unless of course it's just part of mindless cheering for a policial team that has the PR lie as part of their propaganda.

Re:So it's ok for the left to do it, not the right

[riverat1]

Anders Breivik explicitly stated in his writing that he thought global warming was a scam.

Re:Last I knew

[toddestan]

Even the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal relegates that drivel to the opinion section. Are you an idiot?

Re:Happens when you call people "deniers"

[hkmwbz]

You still failed to address his points.

Re:Last I knew

[gottabeme]

You think I'm conned and confused and mindless--I think you're naive. This has never been a simple situation. The politics and money machines have been building this up for 40 years. Climate change has never been an issue of determining the truth and then determining a course of action. It's been set up as a vehicle for carrying agendas, regardless of the truth and the science. Just look at the book, "Why We Disagree About Climate Change." "The myth transcends the science," and we should ask "not what we can do for climate change, but what climate change can do for us."

I think you are the one who's being conned.

We should be good stewards of the environment--conservationists. That doesn't mean that:

a) humans are causing climate change; or
b) humans are causing dangerous climate change; or
c) climate change could be averted; or
d) climate change should be averted; or
e) humans are bad while plants and animals are good; or
f) that the action necessary to make a difference, if possible and if wise, would do more good than harm.

I think someday, years from now, people will look back and laugh at the knowledge and understanding we think we have. The earth and its climate are enormously large and complex. We might be right, we might be partially right, or we might be wrong. Time will tell.

In the meantime, rationally pursuing the truth is the answer--not labeling, stereotyping, and attacking while blindly pursuing an agenda that might not be wise or necessary.

Re:Last I knew

[gottabeme]

He says on that page, "According to the IPCC, who produce the original numbers, humans produce approximately 9 gigatons of CO2 per year." Is he lying or confused or...? Are his or your sources wrong? Is there a unit conversion problem?

Re:Last I knew

[gottabeme]

You have not comprehended the argument. Whether that's due to dishonesty or a mistake, only you can say.

OP: "Last I knew, it was still heavily debated exactly how much of an effect humans have had on global warming compared to natural causes"

You: "that debate has been over at least a decade . Not that it was ever in much of a debate."

Me: "You're lying about the debate"

You: "We've known for over a decade that volcanoes represent approximately 1% of human emissions"

That's a strawman argument. The debate in question--the OP's--is not how much CO2 volcanoes emit, but "how much of an effect humans have had on global warming compared to natural causes".

That is the entire point: we do not know for certain how much humans have affected the climate. Logically, it's not possible to know that for certain without an alternate universe to refer to. Anyone who says that it's possible to know for certain is not telling the truth--whether due to ignorance or lying to pursue an agenda.

If you can't behave better than 3 year old throwing a tantrum, please feel free to leave.

If you can't behave better than making ad hominems, please feel free to do whatever you want, because this is the Internet.

Re:Last I knew

[riverat1]

I think he must be talking about gigatonnes of carbon, not carbon dioxide. The carbon atom in CO2 is about 27% of the weight of the molecule. 9 gt of carbon translates to 33 gt of CO2.

Re:Last I knew

[dbIII]

I think you're naive

Sorry kid, there's no point just trying to shout an accusation back at somebody if you don't like it being applied to yourself. Look at the article to see what lengths and depths are being plumbed to influence the naive.
Such influence is dragging you down - here's your ideal:

not labeling, stereotyping, and attacking

And here's what the PR has got you writing in opposition to that fine ideal:

Are you lying or just ignorant?

Since I'm in another country I haven't been exposed to that expensive PR to the same extent as yourself until relatively recently, which is why I can see clearly that you have been conned. I was also reading Scientific American long before anybody in politics took up the issue (including back issues older than I am), and there have been a few easily readable articles on the topic in that over the years.

Another thing

[dbIII]

Let's change one word of the above:

X has never been an issue of determining the truth and then determining a course of action. It's been set up as a vehicle for carrying agendas, regardless of the truth and the science

Sadly X can be just about anything once parasites get hold of it for a free ride - the carbon trading wet dream for economists that the USA slapped onto Kyoto is one example that has pointlessly siphoned off money, muddied the water and even now makes some people think economists are climate experts!
Whether there is something good, bad, true or false there are people that will attempt to get unfair advantage, but that doesn't mean the vehicle they use is the problem.
Note that I'm not calling the scientists parasites, it's a sobering comparison that no scientist on the planet gets paid as much as even the Sudoko puzzle writer Monckton gets for his travelling climate denial roadshow.

Re:Another thing

[gottabeme]

Whether there is something good, bad, true or false there are people that will attempt to get unfair advantage, but that doesn't mean the vehicle they use is the problem.

You're being illogical again. Your argument is basically, "Since anyone can misuse any cause for their own personal gain, the possibility that someone could be misusing this one is irrelevant." That makes no sense whatsoever.

The fact is that people are misusing this cause, they have been for a long time, and they were preparing it for such before it became popular. This necessarily calls into question all of their claims--it calls for very strict, logical examination of their claims and the facts--it calls for skepticism and distrust (of course, logic demands this of every viewpoint). Yet what I perceive from the AGW movement is largely blind trust--which falls right into the traps of those who are in it for their own gain.

But you call me the naive one.

Conclusion

[hkmwbz]

After all this, the conclusion is that pastafazou is lying through his teeth. He has spent a lot of time explaining that he refuses to post his sources. Why did he not spend this time to post them instead? It's because he doesn't have them. He's making stuff up. He's lying. Typical denier/creationist/etc.

Re:Conclusion

[pastafazou]

Your opinion only. Every post you've submitted to slashdot has been to label someone a "denier", without ever posting a single piece of information yourself. If you're so absolutely sure of yourself, I challenge you to go through the IPCC reports yourself, look at their projections for what will happen, and see how close or not those projections are. Or maybe you can google James Lovelock, since he just recently said the exact same thing about how wrong and alarmist the global warming predictions were (and which he had a hand in crafting). As I've stated numerous times, it's not my job to do your homework. You're nothing but a fanatic, attacking anyone and everyone who has questioned the theory, but without posting a single fact to back up your position, while insisting everyone else provide facts for theirs. I'm not going to play your stupid game, because I've seen it a million times before. The sources of the facts get attacked, because they're not provided by a "climate scientist", or they're a "shill for the oil industry", or a dozen other excuses to ignore them. You've convinced yourself, and no amount of facts are going to change your opinion. You try labelling me a creationist, yet it is you who behaves most like a devout religious believer.

Re:Conclusion

[hkmwbz]

That's a lot of text to make up excuses for not posting any sources. Why are you spending all this time to avoid posting your sources? It is obviously because you have no sources, and are lying through your teeth.

Lovelock is a kook. No one cares what he has to say, and he is not a climate scientist.

Re:Conclusion

[pastafazou]

As predicted, you have dismissed anything Lovelock has to say because he is not a climate scientist. And you do this despite the fact that he's been actively involved on atmospheric projects with NASA, and despite his long list of accomplishments in this field, including the discovery and measurement of CFCs in our upper atmosphere. You will do this with any source I post, so what is the point? You are a fanatic, whose opinion has no basis in fact. You will find an excuse to dismiss any facts that don't fit your beliefs.

Re:Conclusion

[hkmwbz]

Indeed, I have dismissed Lovelock because he is not a climate scientist. And in addition to not being a climate scientist he has a poor understanding of the subject. He was considered a fringe kook even back in the day.

Re:Conclusion

[pastafazou]

He has a better understanding of it than you apparently. He was able to look at the predictions, and then the current data, and come to the conclusion that the predictions were way off. What's your excuse?

Re:Conclusion

[hkmwbz]

It doesn't matter whether Lovelock has a better understanding than me. I am not an expert. What matters is that those who do have a good understanding of the subject think Lovelock is a kook, and that he has always been one. He never was an authority on the subject.

What specific predictions were way off, and what is the claim that they were way off based on, specifically?

Re:What if science wasn't for sale?

[Falconhell]

Not one citation in your post of these so called serious scientists, you know the 3% of loonies who actually deny irrefutable evidence and simple verifiable fact. The cognitive dissonance in the AC post is stunning. The hubris of deniers is plain stupidity.

Re:Last I knew

[gottabeme]

You make many irrational, unsubstantiated assumptions about me. As far as you can reasonably know, I'm just some words on a screen--but you think you know who and where I am and all about the media that's influenced me throughout my life. You seem to think reading a journal makes you an impartial expert. You think you know things that are, by definition, unknowable. You've conned yourself.

This kind of illogical thinking is the crux of the problem with the AGW movement.