That’s one scary urinal cake.

I might just take my business off to the woods, is what I’m saying.

Setting myself up for crucifixion…here goes.

The acceptance of human causation of global warming is a massive scientific fraud.

There is not a shred of good science present in the current theory.

Science is a discipline of observation and replication, neither of which is in any way present in the theory in its current form.

The earth, its climate and its ecosystems are vast in a way we cannot possibly understand with our current knowledge base of fewer than 500 years scientific observation of a 5 billion-year-old planet.

There have been so many drastic global warmings and coolings with so many causative factors that it is impossible to say with any certainty that the current warming phenomenon is not completely natural and independent of human origin.

This being said, it is crucial that we develop every conceivable green technology, because it is entirely possible that the warming that we are experiencing is in fact of entirely of human origin and therefore could be reversible by solutions of human origin.

Again: this could be our fault. Evidence suggests that it probably is.

There is no reason not to undertake every effort to stop it happening.

But it is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that it has been proven that humans are solely responsible for the current warming trend.

Setting myself up for crucifixion

No I think we’ll just ignore you.

Tintin, that’s a terrible thing to do to a poor, unsuspecting, innocent urinal. You ought to be ashamed.

Fuckin’ elitist bastards. Their reliance on reality is completely out of touch.

But it is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that it has been proven that humans are solely responsible for the current warming trend.

Keep it up, you’re doing great against that strawman.

As an elite, I readily admit I’m out of touch with the half-wit, redneck, Jesus-worshipping morons and their kooky and irrational belief systems.

So what?

But it is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that it has been proven that humans are solely responsible for the current warming trend.

Nice straw man there…the only person suggesting proof is you. You are not cognizant of how science works. Science doesn’t prove things. Please read “The Demon Haunted World” by Carl Sagan.

That was supposed to read “5000 years scientific observation of a 5 billion-year-old planet.”

“Nice straw man there…the only person suggesting proof is you. You are not cognizant of how science works. Science doesn’t prove things. Please read “The Demon Haunted World” by Carl Sagan.”

I have, and you just beautifully illustrated my point

The current theory claims absolute proof.

Science can prove little outside of gravity and the inevitability of death, and even gravity has its skeptics.

500 years scientific observation of a 5 billion-year-old planet.

Who is this liberalfascist elitist telling me that the earth is more than 5000 years old?

Fuck you, egghead. And look:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-07-evolution-debate_N.htm

Two-thirds in the poll said creationism, the idea that God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years, is definitely or probably true.

Am I right or am I right? Huh? Eat that, elitists.

Global warming has been definitively disproven by a Gallup Poll.

Cripes, that was easy! What do we even need those pointy-headed elitist “scientists” (<–said in a Homer Simpson voice) for anyway? Think they’re better than everyone just ’cause they’ve got a degree and years of academic education and stuff! Watch Mikey now go do brain surgery, since obviously since he has one (mayyyybe) he’s a fucking EXPERT on the subject. Wheeeeee!

Just remember – common sense is what tells you the Earth is flat.

The current theory claims absolute proof.

[Shaking head] You’re doing it wrpng!

The current theory claims absolute proof.

Science can prove little outside of gravity and the inevitability of death, and even gravity has its skeptics.

Oh boy. There’s like four errors packed into these two sentences.

You assume there’s one monolithic body proclaiming that anthropogenic climate change is true, you think they actually say it’s absolutely true, the fact that science doesn’t deal in proofs is a feature and not a bug, and nobody’s “proven gravity”.

even gravity has its skeptics

Works well enough to hit a moving object several tens of million of miles away with another moving object. Maybe there’s quibbling about the details but the theory works well enough for practice.

The current theory claims absolute proof.

Well, no. But you yourself said it’s probably true that man has an effect on the environment, which is exactly what most scientists in that field say. Stop acting like you know better than them.

The current theory claims absolute proof.

Must. Wank. Harder.

Setting myself up for crucifixion

Troll tell. English translation: everything you read after this is worthless.

I’m not going to click that link, because what Baroney whips out is rarely anything other than bullshit, but I’m guessing he served up his old standard that global warming = the left’s religion.

Oh what the hell, I clicked. And sure enough.

I think there’s something else at work here. For liberal elites, belief in gun control and global warming has taken on the character of religious faith. We have sinned (by hoarding guns or driving SUVs); we must atone (by turning in our guns or recycling); we must repent (by supporting gun control or cap and trade schemes). You may notice that the “we” in question is usually the great mass of ordinary American citizens.

Yes, Baroney, we get it. You’ve said it about a billion times already.

Comsymp @15:12,

Please read “The Demon Haunted World” by Carl Sagan.”

I have

But not for comprehension, obviously. Try it again. You’ll probably find that moving your lips helps.

“You assume there’s one monolithic body proclaiming that anthropogenic climate change is true, you think they actually say it’s absolutely true, the fact that science doesn’t deal in proofs is a feature and not a bug, and nobody’s “proven gravity”.

Wrong on all counts.

There is in fact much dissension on the reliability the current theory by differing scientific bodies

There is also in fact zero dissemination of this and it is presented to the public as a unified theory of fact ergo it is fact along the lines of the WMD lie.

Science cannot deal in proofs because we cannot create another earth and observe its functioning and replicate the results. We merely go on what we observe and have observed in the past and draw conclusions, most of them in the history of science erroneous, and go from there.

Finally, I believe gravity has been proven, and have stated so.

I just noted that there are those, most of whom guided by the superstition of religion, who believe that it is untrue and that the earth is the center of the universe and flat.

For liberal elites, belief in gun control and global warming has taken on the character of religious faith.

Shorter Michael Baloney:

“Theocracy is only good if Jesus is in charge”

comsympinko said: Science is a discipline of observation and replication, neither of which is in any way present in the theory in its current form.

You should look up “historical sciences”. For example, evolutionary biology and geology. It is difficult to replicate processes that take millions of years or involve complex systems like climate. So the best that can be done scientifically is create and refine models that most closely approximate the natural processes.

The acceptance of human causation of global warming is a massive scientific fraud.
Why would thousands of people risk their reputation and carrier on defrauding the world on something they gain no personal benefit from??

Science cannot deal in proofs …

Finally, I believe gravity has been proven

You can’t have it both ways.

There is in fact much dissension on the reliability the current theory by differing scientific bodies

Yeah, “differing” if you mean “fact-based” as opposed to “making shit up to bolster an ideology-based”.

Under that definition there;s plenty of “dissention” on the subject of evolution as well.

Tintin did a post on global warming back in September, and comsympinko sounded perfectly rational in the comments. I call shenanigans.

Since right wingers pretend like they hate elites so much, and don’t want to hear from no damn fancy pants ackademickals, why is it they always moan and groan about the Khmer Rouge purging the cities to make people work in the fields? You’d think they’d support that sort of thing, I mean, in fantasy retrospect, given that they’re mostly lazy cowards who won’t even serve in the military, much less actually work on a farm.

I call shenanigans.

Not necessarily. The point being argued is a fine one. Is there *some* human contribution. Absolutely. Is it significant? Who knows? But it doesn’t really make a good god damn either way.

He also has a point about gravity – the mechanism remains unclear (remember, everybody “knew” ol’ Issac had it right until the little patent clerk took it to the next level).

And in conclusion, PENIS.

There is also in fact zero dissemination of this and it is presented to the public as a unified theory of fact ergo it is fact along the lines of the WMD lie.

Ugh. No. You don’t know how science works. Hell, you don’t even know how English (or Latin) works. Please quit with a little dignity intact.

There’s every bit as much science in current theories on human contributions to global warming as there is in many other fields. Absurd statements about “science is” usually miss what science actually is — for example, no one seems to have much of a problem with computerized simulations in many, many other fields where it works — from cosmology to nuclear detonation physics.

And however much we’re striving, the main problem with saying that the case for industrial fossil-fuel-related deceleration of the rates of release of longwave outgoing infrared photons from the top of the atmosphere to space is too weak and unproven is that there do not appear to be any serious rival theories and the industrial fossil fuel use theory is serving very, very well.

(And actually, Newton’s theories of gravity were certainly accepted as functioning, but they were severely opposed by the natural philosophers who thought Rene Descartes’ ‘mechanical philosophy’ which explained natural systems in terms of discrete particle actions and collisions without needing invisible powers was better than Newton’s resort once more to invisible, inexplicable ‘forces’.)

“The current theory claims absolute proof.”

Dude, your tinkertoy version of the philosophy of science is a joke.

No scientific theory claims *proof* including climate science. All that means is that all findings are corrigible given any future conflicting evidence. But that doesn’t mean they don’t have data and don’t have theories that explain that data better or worse than other theories.

If climate science were as obviously unscientific as you have been brainwashed to believe then scientists in other hard fields like physics woudl be pointing to climate science and calling it astrology. But they’re not doing that. Only geniuses like you and Michael Barone and George Will are doing that.

You are what Paul Krugman was talking about when he described “cranks” in one of his recent books.

Predictably, most of the reaction to my post has been negative.

Negative in the same fashion as those who are religious and have had their faith questioned.

That’s why I preluded with a crucifixion analogy: those of much faith will do anything in their power to silence those who speak out against the orthodoxy.

The science of 500 years from now will not resemble in any way the slipshod, policy-tenure-money driven culture that currently permeates the discipline.

Science today is done for public consumption and approval and has little resemblance to what came before and will inevitably come again.

For all you out there whose visceral reaction to the questioning of the human causation of the very real global warming trend, ask yourself this question: “Why does this challenge to my orthodoxy cause me so much anguish?”

My guess is that the answer will be because you have invested so much of yourself in this belief in the current orthodoxy that the revelation that there may be a different, entirely plausible way of looking at things makes you question your system of values and indeed, your identity.

Just because you adhere to the principles of science makes you no less faithful than the tongue-speakers and snake-handlers; vastly better informed but no less credible.

Do you still believe in geocentrism? What about humors or spontaneous generation?

What is truly fascinating is that I plainly stated that human causation of the current global warming trend is possible and even probable, and that these problems need to be solved by way of human ingenuity if such a solution is possible

But because I have challenged the “facts,” I am on the cross.

So be it.

At least I have caused you to think a little more deeply about your faith, and I have nothing more to say because what I have to say has been said.

Just remember this: “E pur si muove!”

the mechanism remains unclear

Well, the mechanism of electromagnetic propagation (particle model vs. wave) is still unclear as well, but in that case don’t put up with ID-type wankers whining about how “there’s dissention in the ranks” and therefore some bible-based blah blah firmament blah ether yadda ectoplasm flibberty-floo.

@cranksympinko

There’s nothing more dangerous than someone with a little bit of knowledge.. And I want to emphasize “little bit”.

But because I have challenged the “facts,” I am on the cross.

Tell me, was it hard driving the nails in your hands yourself? I can see how you got the first hand nailed down, but how’d you manage the second one all by yourself? The power of wank that powerful?

For liberal elites, belief in gun control and global warming has taken on the character of religious faith.

Hmm, global warming. Al Gore versus the same folks who told us Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons and that occupying Iraq would be a cakewalk that would last six months and pay for itself. I’ll go with Al.

But gun control? Seriously? When was the last time a Liebrul DemonRat failed to be photographed hunting some hapless creature with a shotgun? Much less mentioned the words “gun control”?

Wait a minute; that’s it, isn’t it? Haupt-Leutnant Obamamessiah Mao-Hitler-Stalin X wasn’t photographed “hunting” during his campaign, was he? That’s why the rubes are panic buying. Silly rubes.

The science is perfectly familiar to anyone with a couple semesters of chemistry, and some basic general knowledge:
1. Humanity produces assloads of carbon dioxide.
2. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen significantly since we’ve been doing that.
3. Carbon dioxide’s interaction with IR radiation is well-understood.

Which part are we disputing, exactly? Yeah sure natural cycles blah blah blah. What, do those annual 27 billion tons of CO2 somehow magically disappear?

I can see the value of a poll that asks people how they’ll vote, but what’s the point of asking people’s opinions?

You could ask five people if Tiger Woods is good at golf. If three of them said no, would that prove he’s a shitty player?

comsympinko: You’re not some fucking revolutionary questioning anybody’s faith. You’re making weak, shitty points, and acting like some brave martyr. Either make your arguments and make them well or shut up. Don’t fucking moan and groan like you’re some brilliant dissident voice heading into the mean old libruls who can’t stand the sunshine of your dissent. Make an argument and try not to be a stupid prick.

Troll tell.

Overused word is overused. And not applicable in this case.

You could ask five people if Tiger Woods is good at golf. If three of them said no, would that prove he’s a shitty player?

Depends on how mad it made liberals.

(And actually, Newton’s theories of gravity were certainly accepted as functioning, but they were severely opposed by the natural philosophers who thought Rene Descartes’ ‘mechanical philosophy’ which explained natural systems in terms of discrete particle actions and collisions without needing invisible powers was better than Newton’s resort once more to invisible, inexplicable ‘forces’.)

Hell, Newton claimed that he didn’t even need a theory of gravity because the mathematical laws that he had worked out were sufficient demonstration of gravity.

But because I have challenged the “facts,” I am on the cross.

Excuse me, sir; that’s not a cross, it’s a telephone pole you keep walking into. Let me pull your hat up off your nose. There! Isn’t that better?

comsympinko-

I cordially invite you to my University where we can show you some of the raw data sets.

Better yet, come to the University bar where you can see the climatologists getting shitfaced because the time limit for reversing the damage of our short-sighted myopic dependence on fossil fuels and massive inhalation of corporate dick keeps getting shorter if it hasn’t passed by already.

On the plus side, Russia is thrilled. To them, they have high mountains and Siberia will start becoming a plains region, plus not very many of their most important cities are in coastal regions.

America on the other hand is fucked.

There is not a shred of good science present in the current theory.

There’s more proof for the theory of global climate change than there is for electricity.

Yet, here you are, on the Internet…

“Why does this challenge to my orthodoxy cause me so much anguish?”

No. That’s not it at all. It’s the stupidity that causes us anguish.

It’s three decades of you fuckers denying, misrepresenting, arguing in bad faith, going to bat for energy companies, all the while demonising scientists and environmentalists.

Three decades of watching the proudly ignorant obstruct sensible energy policies by demanding proof down to the last molecule even as they counter with nothing but opinions and bias.

When was the last time a Liebrul DemonRat failed to be photographed hunting some hapless creature with a shotgun? Much less mentioned the words “gun control”?

In fairness, Obama did talk about “clinging to their guns” last year.

You know what’s really interesting in a please god stop hurting my brain sort of way?

Let’s assume they are right. Humans have absolutely no affect of climate change, Jesus’s power wang will correct any and all ill effects and Katrina, the expansion of the deserts, and the collapse of major ice bridges are all isolated incidents.

The changes that prevent climate change are still good fucking ideas. Oil and coal are limited resources and produce just regular old normal level pollution that, even if it was completely harmless, smells like shit and reduces quality of life wherever they are used/harvested. Similarly, reducing pollution by companies reduces the amount of smelling like ass and darkening city skylines.

I mean, even if it all was a giant evil conspiracy to make us like solar panels, it would still give us more efficient, cleaner, sustainable means to continue our hyper-industrialized way of existence.

Even if the stupids were right, the best thing to do is still implement the changes of those nasty old scientists, because it’s a better system just on that level.

But I suppose recognizing that is beyond the ken of people who even now disbelieve in catastrophic climate change.

When pressed, even the most ardent of global warming deniers will admit to the things that Cerberus pointed ou. But will continue to argue for the status quo despite this. I also, when discussing this with wingnuts, point out the old TERRORIST angle. After all, what makes a better terrorist target? A large oil,coal, or NUCULAR power plant or a hundred thousand scatterred buildings with solar panels on the roof.

Science can prove little outside of gravity and the inevitability of death, and even gravity has its skeptics.

So does death.

Cerberus said,

May 11, 2009 at 17:03

Amen.

To be honest, I think the function of the AGW deniers are there in order to distract the public as the gigantic corporations get in line to make sure that (a) they are not the ones to suffer economically in order to pay for the necessary changes, that we taxpayer schlubs will, and (b) that they are the ones to profit from the additional spending for conversion.

This is so utterly obvious that I’m frankly embarrassed for would-be revolutionaries like Alexander Cockburn couldn’t recognize it. If they were really leftist revolutionaries they’d be discussion (a) and (b), but instead, just being pompous loudmouth ignoramuses on this issue, they see it all as a fake conspiracy by Algore.

There are rational people who disbelieve in climate change. Alexander Cockburn, to cite one example. I happen to think that he’s just being an iconoclast, as he’s wont to be. Myself, I’m inclined to believe the overwhelming majority of scientists, always with the caveat that they’ve been spectacularly wrong in the past.

Hell, Newton claimed that he didn’t even need a theory of gravity because the mathematical laws that he had worked out were sufficient demonstration of gravity.

Fair enough, I was loose with the terms. But at the time plenty sure saw the implications of an apparently spooky force at a distance.

Wow, what a coincidence El Cid. See my comment for a possible explanation for Cockburn’s views.

But at the time plenty sure saw the implications of an apparently spooky force at a distance.

And yet, religion and astrology…

To be fair, Cerberus, I believe CSP actually conceded that driving toward more sustainable energy sources was a good idea regardless.

And I HATE being fair.

There’s more proof for the theory of global climate change than there is for electricity.

“Yet, here you are, on the Internet…”

Priceless.

Nom de Plume: I think Cockburn’s error is more serious — he’s not doing a proper Marxist class interest analysis. He has chosen to ignore for the moment Marx’s fundamental principle that it is nature which sets the terms through which capitalism may act. He has knee-jerked a response to an apparent liberal-elite consensus without going any further.

Further, such leftist denialism ensures that the left is pretty much slashed from having input on the core issues of (a) who will pay for the adaptions that economies that will be necessary, and (b) who will benefit from those new investments.

And yet, religion and astrology…

I’m going to give Rene Descartes a huge amount of leeway regarding his separation of the mechanical philosophy from the ‘ghost in the machine’ view of the human spirit or soul — given what had happened to Giordano Bruno, whether or not Descartes would have seen anything differently without church repression.

Barone does prove one his points, some elitist opinions are worthless.

And rebuttal does not equal crucifixion.

even gravity has its skeptics

I stopped flying around the room only long enough to type this.

Coincidentally I was asked by my 88-year-old father last night to track down an old classmate on Google. I found him. He had been a productive, innovative scientist during the Eisenhower administration. Apparently he has since become a hired gun for corporations like the tobacco companies. Those who argue against human-caused global warming point to this 84-year-old with a doctorate in physics (earned in 1948), who retired from teaching physics in 1994 at the age of seventy, as an important voice speaking out against human-caused global warming. I’m sorry, but there aren’t many people in their eighties who are on the cutting edge of their disciplines. If there were, my father wouldn’t be asking me to do google searches for him.

I see the link didn’t work

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

Gregory: “We are clinging to the surface of this planet as it spins through space at nearly a thousand miles an hour. Held only by the mystery force known as gravity. Now alot of people, when you tell them this, they panic and they just fall off. But I see you’re not falling of. You’ve got the hang of it, you’ve got…”
Susan: “Natural ability!”
Gregory” “Yeah.”

Sirius Lunacy-

I love you for quoting one of my favorite movies.

So Barone wants to live in a world where the best treatment for a heart attack, or the best way to repair a bridge, or what items should be included on a checklist for determining the airworthiness of an airplane, are determined by public polls? We shouldn’t listen to nasty expert elites who make snooty, elitey recommendations based on stuck-up knowledge and experience. Just go and ask the man/woman on the street for an opinion.

He is blowing some weaponized stoopid around in that column.

Oh, look. AGW troll popped off a few incredibly stupid moron-wads, then ran way with his tail tucked into his PENIS.

Science is a discipline of observation and replication
FAIL.

So Barone wants to live in a world where the best treatment for a heart attack, or the best way to repair a bridge, or what items should be included on a checklist for determining the airworthiness of an airplane, are determined by public polls? We shouldn’t listen to nasty expert elites who make snooty, elitey recommendations based on stuck-up knowledge and experience. Just go and ask the man/woman on the street for an opinion.

Hey, don’t knock it. It’s working out so well as a way to define torture. Just think, we could trim government spending by getting rid of the TSA. Just have all the passengers boarding a plane fill out a poll on wether they think there are terrorists among their fellow passengers. If the poll says you are a terrorist then you are shipped directly to Gauntanamo. Everybody else travels safely and no need for exspensive trials, the polls have spoken.

the best way to repair a bridge is to hire a right-wing troll who went to a good school.

Hmmm, I’m not sure trolls and bridges go so well together.
Now, where’s my billygoat?

As I see it, there are enough other good reasons to stop burning so much goddam fossil fuel that anthropogenic global warming doesn’t even matter. I am a traitor to my class (engineers) because I don’t understand the science and yet I’ll take the scientific community’s word.

Want to know what 2 + 2 equals? Ask a hundred people and take the average of their answers.

anthropogenic global warming doesn’t even matter.

I mean, doesn’t matter as a reason to stop burning so much goddam fossil fuel.

@ comsympinko:

I feel your pain. When you try to get into the science of it, liberal people who normally are your friends and allies go apeshit and start crucifying/lynching/dragging you behind a car/horse. Here’s the real deal. While human inputs to global WARMING remain disputed, and the effects of that warming debated, one thing is clear: Humans have caused global climate change, and it ain’t the feel-good Obama kind.

The Earth’s climate is a very complex system, and we are fucking it up by introducing all sorts of new variables. We have no way of knowing how it’s all going to play out. Some effects have been seen and tracked (e.g. Katrina) and we know how they happened, but that’s hindsight. The overall effect on the overall system is unknowable and very scary. Therefore, we really shouldn’t cut down the forests and poison the waters, because no one knows what the FUCK will happen. There might be some good effects even, but we will have no predictive ability to use them for our benefit.

Also, since this is a comedy blog, POOP.

While human inputs to global WARMING remain disputed

Carbon is sequestered as hydrocarbons in fossil fuels and lay dormant for millions of years, happily bonded to hydrogren and oxygen.

Humans discovered fossil fuels and burn them incompletely.

Carbon in the atmosphere goes up.

I think that is not in dispute.

happily bonded to hydrogren and oxygen

Not that there’s, you know, anything wrong with that.

True, actor, but the effects of that carbon in the atmosphere could be even weirder and more dangerous. At the moment, we probably usually associate global warming=Bangladesh drowns. What if at the same time Western Europe gets a six-year winter because the fucking Gulf Stream can’t get it up? ‘Suck it liberals, where’s your global warming now?’

I’m just saying, don’t pull a South Park. When you confront wingnuts on this shit, I have a most worthy tome: Jared Diamond’s Collapse. Climate change and environmental degradation can ruin your world in many ways other than the fucking thing getting hotter.

Heretic,

I had that same argument with a friend a few years ago. The guy is actually a fairly intelligent man who couldn’t work out in his head how we could have global warming AND an ice age…

Mr. Barone’s got his apples and oranges mixed into a fruit salad.

“For liberal elites, belief in gun control and global warming has taken on the character of religious faith.”

Somehow, science, societal engineering and faith in the unprovable are all the same to him. The trouble, I suspect, is that his dinner is made of regurgitated talk radio nonsense and that, undigested, is spewed out again in an even less inviting form.

@ comsympinko:

I feel your pain. When you try to get into the science of it…

Except there’s no science in his/her arguments, just strawmen and epic wankery. This may be a comedy bloggie thingie, but we have standards to maintain and traditions to be aware of etc etc

At least the wingnuts will have their smug sense of superiority left when the tornado hits the trailer park, and they’ll have their guns to shoot scavengers when the exurb is leveled by a category 5 hurricane.

“Liberal elites” are what wing-nuts call people on the left who are competent and correct, especially in cases in which people on the right have been proven wrong.

“Elites” seeks to undermine or challenge, not their correctness (which has been proven objectively), but their influence. “Okay, well, they may technically be right,” whines the w.-nut, “but they have a bad attitude. They think they’re better than you.”

Essentially all “conservative” discourse, at this point, seeks to prod emotion and stimulate anger, indignation, and resentment *irrespective of truth.* Facts, or the honest disagreement about what might actually be true, have nothing to do with it. It’s what Rove/Bush did with science itself: politicize everything, make attaining political power the only end for which debate, discussion, analysis, interpretation, and rationality are the means.

Just like the Commies used to, in fact.

Intellectually there is nothing more corrupt than that.

Maybe there will be a diorama about this at the Bush Library.

comsymwhatever makes some very bold claims that go well beyond asserting that AGW is not correct:

The acceptance of human causation of global warming is a massive scientific fraud.

There is not a shred of good science present in the current theory.

“Fraud” entails willfull deception, rather than merely being wrong. The burden of proof falls to the accuser to show evidence that scientists or persons unknown, somewhere are willfully perpetrating a false idea for some as yet undetermined reason.

Not a “shred” of good science? So every ice core and temperature reading is garbage? Every carbon concentration reading is falsified? I’m guessing you’re just engaging in some hyperbole to make your point, but there is a hell of a lot of science that goes into the AGW consensus, it is a bold claim that it is all bad. I’m pretty certain if you dig into the details of various climatology findings, that members of other disciplines have been able to draw on that work for their benefit. I’m sure there must already be spin off benefits, discoveries by other disciplines made possible by our improving climatology knowledge.

Oh great, now I have to pay $20 to an undercover cop just to take a leak.

A little something for dear Prudence Goodwife

A little something for dear Prudence Goodwife

Man, that Claire Grogan was something, wasn’t she?

I’m guessing nobody from Gallup polled those people in Bangladesh watching their homes & farmland wash away … or the soon-to-be-refugees in Micronesia … or the Inuit up in the rapidly deteriorating Arctic. But hell, they’re just a bunch of ignernt savages – what the fuck do THEY know about global warming anyways, amirite?

After all, why should anybody buy that AGW hooey when you’ve got a bunch of crazy left-wing pot-smoking hippies like The Pentagon losing their shit over it?

comsympinko,

Having someone disagree with you is, in fact, a kind of torture. Just like crucifixion. Thank you for bringing attention to your plight.

I don’t believe in the Greenhouse effect, either. That’s why I oppose legislation preventing people from locking babies in cars during the summer. It’s essentially a thought crime that the liberal nanny state made up.

But we know better, don’t we?

After all, why should anybody buy that AGW hooey when you’ve got a bunch of crazy left-wing pot-smoking hippies like The Pentagon losing their shit over it?

Or every frikkin’ insurance company on the planet.

“Fraud” entails willfull deception, rather than merely being wrong. The burden of proof falls to the accuser to show evidence that scientists or persons unknown, somewhere are willfully perpetrating a false idea for some as yet undetermined reason.

Yeah, that’s pretty much the assertion that set me off, given it’s 99% likely to be followed by some sort of right-wing pro-industry wankery and assertions about more CO2 making more plants and lil’ animals and nothing’s wrong so shut up and let the nice megacorps do what they want to and nobody’ll get hurt (except for our ancestors and fuck’em, they’re not making us any money anyway).

If [he] honestly had an arguement about climate change beyond that tired shill of YR OTHODOXY LET ME CHALENGE IT [he] could have picked a much less inciteful way to express it.

So, did someone name-jack comsympinko? Someone suggested that up-thread, and I don’t remember CSP being a wanker of this order before this thread. Jus’ wondering.

Also, calling it global warming is misleading, and with people who are not clowns about it, that phrase is D-U-N and it’s now referred to as climate change.

Also, also, I’m too lazy and pretending to work right now, but deniers/skeptics should take a look at historic levels of carbon dioxide and report back on how today’s levels compare to levels throughout the history o’ the planet.

Also.

There have been so many drastic global warmings and coolings with so many causative factors that it is impossible to say with any certainty that the current warming phenomenon is not completely natural and independent of human origin.

poor csp, this is called “arguing from personal incredulity.” It means, “I can’t understand it, so therefore, nobody else can?”

To wankers and loooosers, it seems like such an airtight, high-fiving argument.

S’not.

Violates of Second Law of COnswervation of Teh Energy !11!!1eleventyunonedos!!@

It’s correctly called global warming, because the average global temperature is indeed warming. That is the whole point.

It is only called “climate change” because of epsilon minus sub morons keep saying:

“But teh ice is still at the souf pole !!!”

and

“But it got snow on the driveway, wattaboutdat???”

It’s global fucking warming.

I don’t understand how the second half of the No-Global-Warming argument is supposed to follow from the first half, particularly since most of the arguments I’ve read don’t deny the warming trend, just its causation. Part 1: “Climate change is natural and not man-made.” Part 2: “Therefore, we shouldn’t change anything we’re doing.”

Shouldn’t the logic be that the less we cause the change, the more we need to do things differently in order to impact the change? For example, if your famliy history suggests a genetic susceptibility to oral bacteria, your dentist doesn’t tell you to hell with flossing because it’s out of your hands — she tells you to clean your teeth twice as often.

Does that make sense to anyone but me?

‘Suck it liberals, where’s your global warming now?’

No, really? You don’t understand that the average temperature across the globe can go up while parts of northern Europe freeze? I mean you really don’t understand that? I mean, really?

Also, poop.

Wow, this is like, twelve different kinds of wrong, and a dozen dozen kinds of awesome. While I must suspect nym-jacking (yeah, sure, here? S,N!) it’s every wingnut paint-by-numbers corporate propaganda assault on reason, beautifully wrapped up in a neat pink ribbon huge shit sammich.

Science is a discipline of observation and replication…

Subtly wrong. (See The Journal for Irreproducible Results for a few good laffs.) Science is a method of drawing conclusions from observations. We can thus describe, say, formation of planets without, you know, having to make our own f’n planet. Our demonstrable “failure to produce a planet” does not invalidate our astronomical observations concerning formations of star systems.

The acceptance of human causation of global warming is a massive scientific fraud.

If you had claimed that many scientists, in different disciplines, over many years, had deliberately perpetrated the exact same intellectual fraud on their funders and readers, that would, at least, be possible. But you claimed that we who accept the overwhelming weight of available evidence presented by said scientists are perpetrating a fraud. This is exactly blaming the victim, and thus becomes morally reprehensible, beyond being merely, you know, utterly and totally ludicrous.

The earth, its climate and its ecosystems are vast in a way we cannot possibly understand with our current knowledge base of fewer than 500 years scientific observation of a 5 billion-year-old planet.

You get points for care here. Most of your kind go with the canard about us only taking temperature readings for the past few hundred years; you’ve heard of (I’m guessing) tree rings. In fact, we know that the planet was, overall, warmer and wetter in the time of the dinosaurs than it is today. (That’s, like, hundreds of millions of years ago.)

In addition, there are other planets out there, with their own climates. Can you name a nearby planet, approximately the size of the earth, but with much more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? What is the surface temperature of the planet Venus? Is it hotter or colder than here on earth? Is it hotter or colder, in relation to the amount of solar radiation it intercepts, compared to the earth? How about Mars, where, we seem to see, evidence of large water flows, suggesting a much higher temperature in ages past? Do you even care about how ignorant you appear to be?

There have been so many drastic global warmings and coolings with so many causative factors that it is impossible to say with any certainty that the current warming phenomenon is not completely natural and independent of human origin.

Nice pirouette! But you tripped over “any certainty”, which covers the range 0.001% to 99.999% certain. In fact, we can assign an approximate value within that range. Care to guess to which end of the range most scientists assign that value?

This being said, it is crucial that we develop every conceivable green technology, because it is entirely possible that the warming that we are experiencing is in fact of entirely of human origin and therefore could be reversible by solutions of human origin.

“It’s a total fraud, and, this being said, we should spend vast sums of money, time, and effort as if it is real.” Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, bogey at zero, repeat zero, I.Q. Advise pointing and laughing.

“There is not a shred of good science present in the current theory.”
“Again: this could be our fault. Evidence suggests that it probably is.”

Pick one, and only one. Care to guess why?

“But it is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that it has been proven that humans are solely responsible for the current warming trend.”

Since science, by definition, does not prove anything, this statement is correct. Please provide an example of anyone (scientist or not) claiming to prove that humans, etc. Failure to provide such a statement will leave you open to charges of BSDM play with a nonconsensual strawman.

I have, and you just beautifully illustrated my point

Central, care, etc. Can I has book advance, mom?

The current theory claims absolute proof.

Citation, example, strawman, BSDM, etc.

Predictably, most of the reaction to my post has been negative.

You’re right; not only was the reaction negative, a reasonable person could (heh, indeedy) have predicted it. This shows what, exactly?

…most of them in the history of science erroneous…

You do understand that Newton’s practice of alchemy in no way invalidates his Laws of Motion (at non-relativistic speeds), right? You do get that, don’t you?

Science can prove little outside of gravity and the inevitability of death, and even gravity has its skeptics.

Stop arguing with us strangers on der intertuubinz, and type up your ‘proof’ of gravity. Publication of which, in a peer-reviewed journal, will put you in the same company as both Newton AND that guy with the wild hair. Especially when you include the quantum-mechanical portion of your proof.

… most of whom guided by the superstition of religion …

Many of whom driven by no-there grammar-thingy!

That’s why I preluded with a crucifixion analogy: those of much faith will do anything in their power to silence those who speak out against the orthodoxy.

Ah, vintage wingnut! “Arguing with/mocking” = “silencing”, “scientific consensus” = “orthodoxy”. Why do you hate words having meanings?

The science of 500 years from now will not resemble in any way the slipshod, policy-tenure-money driven culture that currently permeates the discipline.

And it’ll have headbanger hair, too! Seriously, do you believe visible light will become sound waves in 500 years? That cats will evolve into dogs? What the hell do you even mean?

Science today is done for public consumption and approval and has little resemblance to what came before and will inevitably come again.

Watching “Nature” edge out “Colorectal Cancer Today!” on the magazine bestseller list broke my heart, too. But, big poofy wigs simply must make a comeback amongst the pocket-protector crowd, I’ll give you that.

“Why does this challenge to my orthodoxy cause me so much anguish?”

Because you’re not challenging interpretations of scripture; you’re saying the scientific method is either wrong or wrongly applied by us. Both of these latter statements are deeply insulting to those of us who use the scientific method in our daily work. I design experiments, have them performed, collect data, and draw conclusions from the results. This is completely different from arguing over what the ‘correct’ interpretation of Revelations 10 should be. Claiming equivalence is as bone-crushingly wrong as equating public opinion polls with oceanographic data.

Do you still believe in geocentrism? What about humors or spontaneous generation?

Ah yes, the equation of science and religion again. If a human believes that Mithra, son of Zoroaster, alone can deliver salvation, then that human is a Mithraist. If said human repudiates that belief, in favor of Jesus being the sole salvation-bearing son of Yahweh, then that human has become a Christian. None of which says anything, much less proves, that Zoroaster or Yahweh exist. But we can observe Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion, without accepting Kepler’s claim that the orbits of the planets fit into the five perfect solids. We can see how Kepler’s Laws are special cases of Newton’s Laws, which are special cases of Einstein’s Theory, which will eventually fit into a quantum theory of gravity. Do you understand the differences here?

What is truly fascinating is that I plainly stated that human causation of the current global warming trend is possible and even probable, and that these problems need to be solved by way of human ingenuity if such a solution is possible

What is truly fascinating is that you did this, while at the same time attacking both the only method for obtaining this knowledge, and while impugning the character of the persons who practice said method.

Just because you adhere to the principles of science makes you no less faithful than the tongue-speakers and snake-handlers; vastly better informed but no less credible.

Somehow, I doubt the Bible-bangers have performed double-blind, peer-reviewed studies on the efficacy of handling snakes with the power of the Lord, vs. NOT TOUCHING POISONOUS ANIMALS IN THE FIRST PLACE. But hey, citations, evidence, etc. Go for it!

Just remember this: “E pur si muove!”

He wasn’t stating that humans (falsely) caused the earth to spin and translate, fool.

Setting myself up for crucifixion…here goes.

Yeah, mindlessly repeating corporate propaganda can get one mocked here.

But because I have challenged the “facts,” I am on the cross.

No, you can’t have any more M&M’s; they’ll just fall into the holes in your hands. (H/t Lenny Bruce, methinks.) Seriously, showing that you’re a corporate g00b who mindlessly slanders scientists (and others) equates to slow, painful, agonizing death by a brutal army of occupation? Do you bleed when it rains? Get over yourself, already.