Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class wpdb in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 57

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class WP_Object_Cache in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/cache.php on line 384

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/classes.php on line 541

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/classes.php on line 541

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/classes.php on line 541

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/classes.php on line 541

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_PageDropdown::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/classes.php on line 560

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/classes.php on line 659

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/classes.php on line 659

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/classes.php on line 659

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/classes.php on line 659

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_CategoryDropdown::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/classes.php on line 684

Strict Standards: Non-static method sem_admin_menu::init() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-content/plugins/sem-admin-menu/sem-admin-menu.php on line 358

Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method sem_admin_menu::ob_add_menu() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 164

Warning: ob_start(): non-static method sem_admin_menu::ob_add_menu_callback() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-content/plugins/sem-admin-menu/sem-admin-menu.php on line 86

Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method sem_admin_menu::kill_gzip() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler » Ooo That’s Gonna Leave A Mark
Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::add_css() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 164

Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::add_js() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 164
You are viewing the Archives for 2007.......If you want the current page, CLICK HERE.......

John Coleman-Founder of the Weather Channel Network, cuts loose on the Glowball Wormening Crowd.

‘Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

Here’s a teaser:

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

I don’t think I have a thing to add, do go read the entire piece.

Caution: If you’re an acolyte of the Goreacle, please close all windows and remove sharp objects from your immediate vicinity, if you dare to face the truth.

Carry On.

88 Responses to “Ooo That’s Gonna Leave A Mark”
  1. LC Hardclimber54 Comment by LC Hardclimber54

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Ah, Global Warming, the next trillion dollars industry. Grants for “research” in establishing, not a scientific plausibility, but a myth… Now being disseminated throughout the school system in order to prepare their next customers…

    Sadly, in ten, twenty, thirty years, how many of those presently rabid believers in this myth will have manipulated so-called “research” to obtain figures that will validate their wild claims!?! The bigger the lie, the more people believe it… Who will remember today’s wildly bogus “weather data” as invalid ten years from now when the average person has problems remembering past the last three weeks!?! And the myth will carry on, the money will be poured in a hundred “solutions” and the “now-being-endoctrinated” youth will pay up for solutions to a non-existent problem without asking questions, since this so-called GW will have become dogma.

    Global Warming - Filed under “Myths and Other Legends”…

    And first! (I mean, foist…)

  2. cmblake6 Comment by cmblake6

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    And you know he’ll be rabidly attacked as a “tool of the capitalist machine” or whatever these psychidiots are using as the prime insult, ASAP. And the gullible public that’s been buying the GW bs will continue to sing harmony. We’ll be “manipulating geology” or some such shit if we lay cold hard fact in their face. :em98:

  3. LC 0311 crunchie I.M.H. Comment by LC 0311 crunchie I.M.H.

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    DENIER! He MUST be sent on a pilgrimage to the Goreacles palace and beg forgiveness for his heresy.

    Oh well, one more person with some real credibility on the issue showing what a fool Gore and his minions are. The guys got guts.

    Reminds me of the scientist who was credited as being the founder of the modern enviro movement (can remember his name right now) who said that the rain forest was being cut down at 22 kabilliongazillion acres a second back in the 70’s. He flew over the rain forest in the 90’s and realized what a fool he had been and recanted. He’s a pariah now to the envirowackos. My my how they turn on each other if one strays from the dogma.

  4. Mad Insomniac Comment by Mad Insomniac

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Given the HUGE investment that the current Weather Channel management/staff (e.g. Dr. Heidi “crazy as a shithouse rat but I bet she’ll spread ‘em” Cullen) has in this climate change fantasy, this is verrrry interesting. My son got worked up to the point of losing sleep over the climate hysteria once. Fortunately, we had a good father/son “use your common sense” discussion about it, and he now enjoys debating the topic with classmates who are still in the grip of this ridiculous lie.

    Crunchie: it may be Bjorn Lomborg (”The Skeptical Environmentalist”) you’re thinking of? Maybe, maybe not, but his story is an example of how the enviro-whackjobs will eat one of their own if he/she doesn’t toe the Party Line.

  5. LC 0311 crunchie I.M.H. Comment by LC 0311 crunchie I.M.H.

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I think you may be right Insomniac. My memory ain’t what she used to be.

  6. Unregistered Comment by Erin Coda

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Thanks, Jackboot– just the excuse I needed to indulge in a few pitchers of Bad Science Sangria(tm)! After the week I’ve had… (midterms, you know. And that whole dealing-with-the-public-for-a-living issue, but I shan’t bore you with the details.)
    Plus, it has oranges and lemons in it, and Vitamin C is good for you. Drinks all around!

    Erin

  7. Sir Christopher Comment by Sir Christopher

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    this left a mark too, in the road:

    Body Found Burned, Beheaded Identified As Sex Offender

  8. ziske68 Comment by ziske68

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    but but…..THERE’S A CONSENSUS!!!! :em98:

  9. LC Hardclimber54 Comment by LC Hardclimber54

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Sir Christopher

    this left a mark too, in the road

    Sounds like some parents didn’t much care about his “rough life” and ensured their children would never suffer at the hand of this sicko… His burning body polluted this planet for just a short while, but now he’s done polluting our children for good! I can just hear the bleeding-hearts socialists now, whining how it wasn’t his fault he was a f.cking sex offender because of him “having it rough”… But I disgress…

  10. LC Moriarty Comment by LC Moriarty

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Global Warming; It is a SCAM.

    Nonsense!

    It’s every bit as real as the Population Explosion (which lead to global famine and billions of deaths by 2000), Environmental Pollution (which has killed every living thing in the Great Lakes and Gulf of Mexico), The Energy Crisis (which has caused the total collapse of industrialization and ushered in a new Dark Age), Nuclear Winter (which mandated an immediate and unilateral freeze in US nuclear weapons production and was the only hope for humanity’s survival in the face of the all-powerful USSR), and the Ozone Hole (which has already caused incredible destruction of the arctic and antarctic ecosystems and will take decades to resolve once culprit CFCs are banned.)

    It’s obvious that Global Warming is not only real, it’s The Greatest Crisis in Human History and we must act now, before it’s too late.

    (That said, we’re getting new renters here on the ranch and they’re putting it back into alfalfa production. Know anyone who wants to buy carbon credits? I’m totally cereal.)

  11. LC Hardclimber54 Comment by LC Hardclimber54

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    LC Moriarty

    Now try to convince the eco-freaks about the “absolute facts” that did not materialize as listed in your post and see them come up with twists and turns (hey, like a dogfight!) in trying to squirm out of reality! And you said it right

    Know anyone who wants to buy carbon credits?)

    Ah, buy, the money angle… Greatest “incentive” in this whole scam, isn’t it!?!

    Now to find enough scientists, reporters, analysts and the like to mount a vigorous counter-attack before our children become totally conditionned to this mythtical “dogma”…

  12. hilljohnny Comment by hilljohnny

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    i am so bent out of shape. if there is no global warming my beachfront property will never be( currently 548′asl). i demand a recount. where are those hanging chad when you really need them? grumble whine…

  13. Unregistered Comment by mkfreeberg

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Maybe this is the right forum for me to get some answers I’ve been trying to find. Someone please explain this to me if they can.

    I have found there are a lot of glowbubblewormening people who — whether they think they’re preaching to the choir, or whether they’re confronting us deniers — find it necessary to not only announce their atheist leanings, but make snotty comments at religion in general. I’ve seen this happen so often that it’s hard to ignore it anymore. The two issues must be related in some way. We’re crapifying the planet, or else we’re not…there is a God, or else there isn’t. Two separate issues, made into one.

    I would think there’s no connection at all. Pressed to find one, I would have to think the connection would be upside-down from the way it is. In other words, if you presume we have everything we have because of evolution and there’s no Higher Power at work…I would think it’s unavoidable that all this “we have a responsibility to the planet” and “we are stewards of the environment” would go straight out the window. I don’t see how it could be any other way.

    One side believes in God, the other side doesn’t. One side is for freedom, the other is full of rules about carbon credits and apologizing for our existence as a species, and must-do-this and gotta-do-that and “steward of the planet” etc.etc.etc.

    But it’s the anti-God people laboring under all the bullshit rules.

    How’s that happen?

  14. LC Hardclimber54 Comment by LC Hardclimber54

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    mkfreeberg

    But it’s the anti-God people laboring under all the bullshit rules.

    I am an atheist, and certainly do NOT believe in the Global Warming myth, as you have probably read in my post #1. To generalize one group and tag it with a concept or philosophy isn’t reflective on reality. There will be believers and atheist on both sides of any issue, be assured! There are very few “black and white” areas in our reality, just a lot of “in between grays”. No absolutes if you will. But it is what a person has inside that matters, regardless of religious beliefs, or lack thereof, political affiliation, group, tribe, community or nationality.

    And that’s what I find amongst all of the LCs and other Empire dwellers. They have courage of convictions, loyalty, fortitude, decency and common sense. Can’t ask for much better than that!

    Best wishes from Canada…

  15. hilljohnny Comment by hilljohnny

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    mk; liberalism is a religion. it is based on beliefs not facts. the evangelistic libs claim to be atheist to cover their efforts to covert you. think of it as a fundimentalist cult. no lie is too big for true believers if it forwards their agenda. most people who follow the liberal line are just too lazy too think it through. they were indoctrinated before they learned to think.

  16. Unregistered Comment by LC Neokien

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Ehh, the environmentalists have a god. Goddess, actually. She’s called Gaia or Gaea (you see, a lot of ‘em lump in with the same crowd that likes to misspell words like “Magick” just to sound older than they are).

    NevadaDailySteve posted this little gem a while back as an example of nuttery actually making perfect sense:
    http://www.usasurvival.org/cultofgaia.html

  17. Radical Redneck Comment by Radical Redneck

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

  18. Unregistered Comment by mkfreeberg

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Hardclimber,

    I didn’t say it was an absolute with no exceptions. There will always be exceptions to everything.

    I’m writing in observation of a trend, and I’ve found the trend to be unmistakable.

    See, as an exception, you have no inconsistency. We’re just-plain-here, it makes sense then that the planet will keep on chuggin’ or else we’ll kill it — whatever. The shark will starve if he doesn’t eat the seal, the seal of course won’t come out too good if he gets bit; but what’s the “right” way for things to come out? The answer in nature is, whatever happens happens.

    Once people start inventing dirty names for us “denialists” or “confusionists,” the next dirty name is going to be earmarked for…the “sky fairy” people. I’ve found you can set the clock by this.

    And this is the part I don’t get. If it’s okay for a spider to kill a fly, or a python to swallow a possum, well…where’s this “we have a responsibility to preserve for future generations” come from? Simply put, humans are part of the ecosystem too, aren’t they?

  19. hilljohnny Comment by hilljohnny

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    where’s this “we have a responsibility to preserve for future generations” come from? Simply put, humans are part of the ecosystem too, aren’t they?

    even a blind pig may find an acorn. the econuts want to save everything for a future that will never come. lumbermen want to cut down and sale the oldest, most valuble timber they can find and “replant for the future”. cutting down 200+ year-old trees faster than they can grow back is not substainable, but shutting down a viable industry is not a good idea either. using renewable resources can only work if you do not destroy the “farm”. replanting old growth forests with fast growing pine for pulp wood is not a sound idea. banning the drilling for U.S. oil or mining of U.S. coal deposites while we look for a better way is only wasting our money and driving up energy prices. common sense seems to be in short supply as well. we need more nuclear power plants and a real alternative fuel program. solar power is fine on a small scale but guess what, it would cause more waste heat. wind generators are not well designed. the direct generation is not a stabile source of electricity. i do not have the answers, just more questions.

  20. Unregistered Comment by roguetek

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Sounds like some parents didn’t much care about his “rough life” and ensured their children would never suffer at the hand of this sicko… His burning body polluted this planet for just a short while, but now he’s done polluting our children for good! I can just hear the bleeding-hearts socialists now, whining how it wasn’t his fault he was a f.cking sex offender because of him “having it rough”… But I disgress…

    let’s be blunt.

    the “sex offender’ tag has become so diluted as to be meaningless.

    seventeen year old boy fools around with 15 year old girl. Girl’s parents object, now boy is a ’sex offender’.

    I do not recall the specifics, but I seem to recall a case in the last couple of years where a man grabbed a teenage girl to prevent her from walking in front of a moving car.

    He then yelled at her for not paying attention, and was arrested, charged, and labelled as a sex offender.

  21. LC Hardclimber54 Comment by LC Hardclimber54

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    mkfreeberg

    Simply put, humans are part of the ecosystem too, aren’t they?

    Completely agreed! And I certainly do agree that humans have committed some eccentricities with the planet. But I find disturbing to be found guilty of EVERY thing this Global Warming myth is accusing me of by ways of flawed “pseudo-science” brandished by people with a vested interest in perpetuating said myth. And yes, the planet will keep chugging on, whether we like it or not, things being what they are.
    And, like you, I also find amusing that we, as humans, tend to assign a “philosophy” to the planet.
    The spider kills the fly, the wolf kills the deer, that’s nature’s way. But it seem everytime we catch a fish, we are committing some sort of crime… This will cause great divisions in our already divided world. And I do get the “denier” title thrown at me on a regular basis, but hey, my grand-children still love me, my wife adores me (and vice-versa), the birds are still singing, life is good, and to Hell with the eco-freaks! Appreciated your comments, thanks!

  22. Unregistered Comment by mkfreeberg

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Well see, we resolved that amicably. If only the eco-nuts could do the same, maybe all this problem with their “message not getting out” (source: roughly 60% of the footage in ‘Inconvenient Truth’) would never have happened in the first place.

    Glad life is good and the birds are singing. You godless heathen, you.

  23. Unregistered Comment by cassandra

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Update: Since global WARMING can be disputed with facts, the correct term is now “Climate Change”. (How can you argue with that? The climate does change.)

  24. MegaTroopX Comment by MegaTroopX

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    What floors me is how the Global Cooling Crisis(r) of the 70s was so quickly and thoroughly memholed. Not to mention that the same guys were using the same Root Causes(tm) to come to the opposite conclusion (well, except for the “It’s America’s fault!(c)” part)

    It’s one thing to understand Orwell in theory, but quite another to see it in such full effect.

    How long till the unpersoning of Mr. Coleman.

    You godless heathen, you.

    Yeah, I’ll be a heathen, Jack.

    Erin Coda @ 6

    Bad Science Sangria(tm)…it has oranges and lemons in it

    Plus lots of Watermelon! (Green outside, Red inside)

    hilljohnny @ 14

    liberalism is a religion.

    And it worships the concept of stasis. Which creeps me right the hell out. Stasis has never existed in the universe since the Big Bang, and never will. But these whackensteins want to lock humanity down into stasis to Save the Planet(tm). Oy vey.

    Radical Redneck @ 16

    What’s that Plank?

    :D I kid you, RR

  25. paragon27x Comment by paragon27x

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Message to Weather Channel Resident Enviro-Wacko Moonbat, Heidi Cullen… Bend over and say Ahhhhh, Baby!

  26. paragon27x Comment by paragon27x

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Sadly, I rarely even watch the Weather Channel anymore. (and I am a dedicated weather nut, and hope to be a storm spotter for my County this coming Summer.) I just rely on Weather Underground, or use NWS Radar feeds. Just can’t cope with TWC anymore…

  27. paragon27x Comment by paragon27x

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Being the old Air Defense Radar fixing type that I am, I just love seeing raw W-88D imagery… Radar Porn, as it were.

  28. Unregistered Comment by theshaman

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    This weatherman doesn’t cite any facts in his screed. I don’t think anyone who has actually researched climate change will be won over. If the testimony of one man is supposed to “sting”, how does the fact that the National Academy of Sciences, The American Geophysical Union, The Royal Society Of The UK, NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies, and The American Meteorological Society, to name but a few, have all chosen to hang their credibility endorsing the scientific consensus on climate change. Does it “sting”? If not, why not? And why do you think that the opinion of one man, a businessman, not a scientist, would be worth more than the opinions of the *thousands and thousands* of scientists who have spent their lives studying this issue?

    For a bonus point, would anyone care to tell me the difference between *weather* and *climate*?

  29. Unregistered Comment by theshaman

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    That should be “hang their credibility ON endorsing the scientific consensus on climate change”. Sorry about that.

  30. MegaTroopX Comment by MegaTroopX

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Sadly, I rarely even watch the Weather Channel anymore

    The Wii weather channel is usually sufficient for me.

    Hey, our flags are back!

  31. LC Moriarty Comment by LC Moriarty

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    blockquote] And why do you think that the opinion of one man, a businessman, not a scientist, would be worth more than the opinions of the *thousands and thousands* of scientists who have spent their lives studying this issue?[/blockquote]

    Money.

    Ever heard the phrase “publish or perish”? Science (and the careers of scientists) run on money and it does not grow on trees. (It drops into your lap if you have a topical and politically-advantageous grant proposal. Go, right now and read and you’ll see one reason why I abandoned a career in research.)

    As to “thousands and thousands” of scientists vs. one businessman: Take a more careful look at who composes the IPCC. Many of these “scientists” are in fact bureaucrats and other vermin who stand to derive marked primary and secondary benefit from any political action on climate change.

    Why would they be more credible to you than someone who has already made his money, is in a position to know the truth and has nothing to lose by telling it?

    Why are we hearing that “the science is settled” when climatology is a discipline barely out of diapers (relatively speaking) and even a cursory literature review reveals far more methodological controversy than consensus? Why have numerous scientists, dissenting in their conclusions, been subject to ad hominem rather than honest criticism? Why were Mann et al. (of the famed “hockey stick”) accepted, published and lionized — when they attempted to conceal and refused to reveal their methods and data sets?

    Why have the recent recalculations of global temperatures by NASA and the record advance of Antarctic ice and harsh winters in the Southern Hemisphere been largely ignored by the mainstream?

    To any rational observer of the history of “crisis politics”, the media and the process by which science moves forward, this has the mark of fraud* stamped deeply across it.

    *For your edification: Fraud (n.) An intentional perversion of truth; deceitful practice or device resorted to with intent to deprive another of property or other right. (My emphasis.)

  32. chuck Comment by chuck

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    theshaman says:
    National Academy of Sciences, The American Geophysical Union, The Royal Society Of The UK, NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies, and The American Meteorological Society

    And what do all of those organizations have in common? They are either government run or government funded. Now, if you depend on government for your funding, that means you have to get legislatures to appropriate money for you. What makes increased budgets more likely, a huge crisis that is going to destroy the planet and all life on it or just simple, natural fluctuations around a mean? That is the scam.

  33. LC Moriarty Comment by LC Moriarty

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Simply put, humans are part of the ecosystem too, aren’t they?

    No. We’re a disease (the “AIDS of the Earth”, to be exact) and we must be eradicated:

    “Curing a body of cancer requires radical and invasive therapy, and therefore, curing the biosphere of the human virus will also require a radical and invasive approach.”

    There’s the agenda, spelled out as plainly as possible.

    Same collectivist shitheads, slightly different approach , but with the same goal in mind as before.

  34. psychochick Comment by psychochick

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Moriarity
    Well, the changes in the temp data were covered in the LAT

    Hillclimber
    Gag. What an utterly bizarre view. Why are there so many liberal churches if liberals tend to be atheists? I know this hardcore asshole atheist militancy exists, but I’ve only seen them on YouTube, and they strike me as anarchists. I’m agnostic. No indoctrination, incidentally–my thoughts have always been my own. If you don’t think liberals think, go pick up an issue of “The Nation.” The book reviews are particularly impenetratable. (That’s high-end, though. The mindless liberals would not be reading that.) I even got my right wing death beast debating partner (non-Rottie) interested in an article from there.

    somebody (sorry–many White Russians)–obviously commie

    There is this growing tendency among evangelicals to be concerned for the environment, since it was given by God.

    Someone on this site uses Gaia–I won’t out him.

  35. psychochick Comment by psychochick

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Moriarty
    This is terribly extreme stuff. But it seems like an obscure web site to me that wouldn’t necessarily be taken seriously. Maybe this type of thought is more widespread than I thought, but have you seen it in a bunch of places?

    We’re overdue for a pandemic anyway. That will take care of overpopulation issues.

    What did your field used to be? I always assumed you were medical.

  36. LC Hardclimber54 Comment by LC Hardclimber54

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    psychochick

    Gag. What an utterly bizarre view. Why are there so many liberal churches if liberals tend to be atheists

    It’s Hardclimber (a nickname acquired after a Maple Flag exercise, long story…).
    I’m not sure I understand your “Gag” reflex about my comments here..? There was no mention of liberal churches, simply the fact that there are atheists and believers both left and right wings political affiliations and what-have-you. We all share the same world, we all have responsibilities towards it, and it seems to become increasingly difficult to be able to do anything without having someone finding fault with it. Like you, my thoughts have always been my own, so I could call myself atheist/agnostic as well. My sense of loyalty and responsibility, I got from my upbringing. Dedication, determination and honesty, I got from my service in our Air Force (25 years of it!). And I DO admire people who can make their own minds. I like reading your comments, you seem to know what you want!

    Thank you for your comments, and best wishes from Canada.

  37. LC Hardclimber54 Comment by LC Hardclimber54

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    And of course, don’t ask me how I managed, but the whole text is bold instead of the items that should have been!?!

    May I be forgiven…
    (Fixed it for ya. Management)

  38. LC JackBoot IC/A-OBR Comment by LC JackBoot IC/A-OBR

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    LC Hardclimber #14-

    And that’s what I find amongst all of the LCs and other Empire dwellers. They have courage of convictions, loyalty, fortitude, decency and common sense. Can’t ask for much better than that!

    Bravo !! Well said and spot-on my friend, it’s just one of the reasons it’s an honor to be part of Teh Mangagement™ here.

  39. LC Moriarty Comment by LC Moriarty

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    PC,

    This is terribly extreme stuff. But it seems like an obscure web site to me that wouldn’t necessarily be taken seriously. Maybe this type of thought is more widespread than I thought, but have you seen it in a bunch of places?

    The Sea Shepherd/ELF crowd and their “direct action” memes are a lot more prevalent than you might imagine. Here’s a reasonably well-written article that details the reach of Earth First! and their fellow travelers.

    We’re overdue for a pandemic anyway. That will take care of overpopulation issues.

    What overpopulation issues? It is wrong, tragically, wrong to assume that high human population density invariably leads to a decline in quality of life. (Contrast one of the most densely populated places on Earth with one of the least. Considering a map of global population density, it’s hard to correlate population density and local scarcity of natural resources with quality of life at all. It is worth noting, however, that life expectancies declined in much of the Soviet Bloc during that era. System of government is a far greater influence on human suffering than population density.)

    As to the next pandemic, it’s likely going to strike hardest at the poorest and weakest (as with HIV/AIDS) not the most populated. Fortunately, H5N1 has yet to demonstrate worrisome poultry-to-human transmission and could easily mutate into a less virulent form before it transforms into a human-to-human strain. We also know a lot more about virology and preventing and treating viral illness than we did in 1918.

    Still, like the great USA for Africa fiasco of the ’80s, even the simplest treatments are likely to be withheld by certain governments during a pandemic. (Why undertake “ethnic cleansing” when a virus can do your dirty work for you?)

    You can count on it.

    Ever read the (lamentably) late Julian Simon’s Ultimate Resource? Very few books have had the ability to gobsmack me into a new perspective on the world. This was one of them.

    What did your field used to be? I always assumed you were medical.

    I am. But I got here via cognitive psychology/cognitive neuroscience. Given my background, I thought I wanted to be a neurologist until I did my first neuro elective. Between stroke patients, Alzheimer’s, MS, Parkinson’s, the lack of effective treatments and the general “diagnose and adios” paradigm, I decided to practice family medicine in my home town.

    So here I is.

  40. LC Moriarty Comment by LC Moriarty

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Bah.

    The population density map.

  41. LC Moriarty Comment by LC Moriarty

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Double bah.

    Limited H5N1 Transmission Despite Extensive Poultry Contact
    (can’t link it right now)

    http://infectious-diseases.jwatch.org/cgi/content/full/2006/906/1

  42. psychochick Comment by psychochick

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I don’t have a bold option–prob my browser–no disrespect intended to any of you.

    Hardclimber

    I’m so sorry! I was referring to Hillclimber. I would never say “Gag” to you. Nothing you ever say is insulting! I was objecting to a comment that Liberalism is a religion and that they don’t know how to think. (Although, at this point, I’m more of a moderate than a liberal)

    Moriarty

    Thanks–I’ve been enlightened! Except that the bird flu could mutate into a highly transmissable form resistant to current antivirals (always the optimist)

  43. Unregistered Comment by theshaman

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    this is

    a test

    To make sure I can code properly. Sorry for the interruption.

  44. Unregistered Comment by theshaman

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    L.C. Moriarty wrote:

    Money.

    Ever heard the phrase “publish or perish”? Science (and the careers of scientists) run on money and it does not grow on trees. (It drops into your lap if you have a topical and politically-advantageous grant proposal.

    Yes, I have heard the phrase ‘publish or perish’. I have *not* heard the phrase “Publish articles which conform to the scientific consensus on climate change or perish”. The reason I haven’t heard that phrase is because it doesn’t exist. Can you tell me why, if the science on climate change is so unsteady, all these scientists (who, lest we forget, need to maintain a steady output of submissions for peer review) are choosing to focus their energies on something that is based on supposedly bad science? I mean, it would make more sense to focus on the good science, right? That’d be easier. And there’d be more of it, because it’s the truth. So why not take the easy path? Are they bored? Do they just enjoy the challenge of shilling for something based on weak science? Tell me, what is motivating these scientists to write so many papers specifically endorsing the consensus on climate change?

    Perhaps you think no-one would pay them to write articles about how the climate isn’t changing. I guess you’d be right, were it not for the fact that the climate is always changing. The consensus on climate change is that our CO2 & methane emissions aren’t really doing us any favours in the long run. But if our greenhouse gas emissions were truly inconsequential, the climate would still be changing, and there would still be plenty of people interested in knowing why, and how, it’s changing. Even if the climate crisis weren’t a crisis at all, the field of climatology would still present more than enough challenges to occupy those currently employed in the field. Climatology will not implode in the absence of controversy.

    Moreover, you do not take into account the importance of reputation in scientific discourse. One of the reasons why science is so wonderful, is because it is so rigorously and relentlessly self-critical. So honest is it, in fact, that scientific discourse may very well be the only field of human inquiry where you can actually get respect for proving yourself wrong. In his book ‘The God Delusion’, Richard Dawkins relates an interesting anecdote about an Oxford professor who had long championed a particular theory explaining the evolution of a particular species of bird. A visiting American professor, in the course of a single lecture, roundly demolished the professor’s pet theory. Afterwards, the professor went to the front of the class and said “Sir. I must thank you. I’ve been wrong all these many years”. That statement, perhaps more than any other I’ve ever read, captures the philosophy of the scientific method.

    The entire concept of peer review is based on the fact that scientist’s value their reputations. This truth is self evident as a scientists job is to uncover facts and report them as he sees them, and no-one would hire him for that purpose if he had a reputation for incompetence or dishonesty. Why would a scientist choose to base his publications on anything other than the facts? Why would he risk his reputation so cavalierly What makes you think a publication not based on sound science would survive the peer review process? How do you think the consensus on climate change became a consensus in the first place?

    Thirdly, look again at the list of organisations which support the consensus on climate change. You’ve got the National Academy of Sciences, The American Geophysical Association, The Royal Society of the UK…I mean, these are the best, most respected scientists in the world right there. Why on earth would these august organisations stake their reputations on the scientific consensus on climate change if the science wasn’t sound?

    Still, if you think that the National Academy of Sciences and all the other organisations on the list are comprised entirely of conspiratorial little Poindexters trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes, what do you think of these statements made by key representatives of the oil industry?

    1) British Petroleum (BP) made this statement:

    There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels and that action is required now to avoid further increases in carbon emissions as the global demand for energy increases.

    2) Shell Oil made this statement:

    Shell shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate.

    3) Eighteen CEOs of Canada’s largest corporations made this joint statement:

    Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

    Why do you think these organisations would say such things? If we can’t agree on anything else, we can certainly agree that it would be better for the oil industry if the scientific consensus on climate change wasn’t based on sound science. But according to you, and the weatherman quoted earlier, the scientific consensus on climate change isn’t based on sound science. So why are these oil companies saying such things? Have they had enough of making hundreds of millions of dollars in the oil trade and decided to commit collective economic suicide by endorsing the idea that excessive use of their product could be really bad for us all in the long run? Or are they making those statements because they are true, and to not make them would have been to expose themselves as uninformed, disingenuous, or both? Which, seriously, is more likely?

    Take a more careful look at who composes the IPCC. Many of these “scientists” are in fact bureaucrats and other vermin who stand to derive marked primary and secondary benefit from any political action on climate change.

    Cite? I contend that many of these scientists are, in fact, scientists.

    Why would they be more credible to you than someone who has already made his money, is in a position to know the truth and has nothing to lose by telling it?

    Who would I respect more than a retired businessman? The most prestigious scientists in the world, who have also made their money, and also have nothing to lose except their reputations if they’re wrong. That’s who.

    Why are we hearing that “the science is settled” when climatology is a discipline barely out of diapers (relatively speaking) and even a cursory literature review reveals far more methodological controversy than consensus?

    How do you define “barely out of diapers”? Put a figure on it. A recent poll (Gallup or Zogby, I think) revealed that almost 50% of Americans ascribe to some form of Creationism. That’s about 150,000,000 Americans who would consider the discipline of biology to be “barely out of diapers”. Frankly, the only people who can judge whether a scientific discipline is mature are scientists. And they have judged. Conclusively.

    Why have numerous scientists, dissenting in their conclusions, been subject to ad hominem rather than honest criticism?

    How do you know that the climate change deniers you speak of have not been subjected to honest criticism? I’ll make you a challenge right now. For any climate change denying scientist you can mention, I can find a wealth of criticism which challenges him on points of science. These people may have been subjected to ad hominem as well as honest criticism. But they’re all big boys and girls and if they can’t handle a little ad hominem then they’re in the wrong job.

    Why were Mann et al. (of the famed “hockey stick”) accepted, published and lionized — when they attempted to conceal and refused to reveal their methods and data sets?

    Firstly, there is an awful lot more to the scientific case for climate change than the hockey stick graph. The hockey stick graph is just one piece of evidence among thousands. The fact is, there are dozens of other temperature reconstructions. They tend to show more variability than the original hockey stick (their sticks are not as straight), but they all support the general conclusions the IPCC presented in 2001: late 20th century warming is anomalous in the last one or two thousand years, and the 1990s were likely warmer than any other time in that period.

    Secondly, what evidence do you have that Mann et al. concealed their methods and data sets?

    Why have the recent recalculations of global temperatures by NASA and the record advance of Antarctic ice and harsh winters in the Southern Hemisphere been largely ignored by the mainstream?

    Perhaps because they’re irrelevant? The recalculation’s of NASA’s global temperature records have been dismissed by the overwhelming majority of climatologists as having “…a negligible effect on global warming statistics, and none at all on the overall warming trend.” I quoted that because it’s in the article you cite. The old figures may have been incorrect, but the new figures have no bearing whatsoever on the mass of evidence of long term climate change.

    Actually, I find it odd that you would cite that Times article in support of your position. Four times it is stated clearly, by different authorities, that the revised figures also supported the scientific consensus on climate change.

    Your second cite is also fraught with problems. The basic thrust of the article is that Antarctic temperatures are falling, which wouldn’t happen if we were experiencing climate change. There are two basic problems with this argument.

    1) any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to disprove a global trend is dead in the water. Anthropogenic global warming theory does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe. We need to assess the balance of the evidence.

    2) Second, ice-sheet thickening is not inconsistent with warming! Warmer climates tend toward more precipitation. The Antarctic is one of the most extreme deserts on the planet. As it warms, we would expect it to receive more snow. But even a whopping warming of 20 degrees — say, from -50 degrees C to -30 degrees C — would still leave it below freezing, so the snow wouldn’t melt. Thus, an increase in ice mass.

    In short, both your objections are irrelevant. In fact, they aren’t even objections.

    To any rational observer of the history of “crisis politics”, the media and the process by which science moves forward, this has the mark of fraud* stamped deeply across it.

    Luckily the veracity of climate science is in no way related to “crisis politics”. It is related solely to facts, and the climate change supporters have pretty much all of them.

  45. LC JackBoot IC/A-OBR Comment by LC JackBoot IC/A-OBR

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    And so the worm turns, our little troll here theshaman is rather wordy, but then again it’s quite easy to cut and paste from your various talking-points.

    1) The climate is in fact changing. That’s not in question, as it always has and always will.

    2) At issue is the anthropogenic contribution to the changes that were seeing. The article I cited wasn’t offered as scientific evidence in any way, but an expression of a credentialed scientist (he’s a real meteorologist, not just a TV weather reader), of dismay and outright disgust at how, some scientific evidence, coupled with political agendas and an ecological whacko crowd that places man at the bottom of life-forms on the planet, can turn it into both a religion and a lucrative industry.

    3) We inhabit and have dominion (that means both stewardship and control) over the planet, as created by an Almighty. By definition, the Creator already foresaw (at the time of creation) that man would progress and there would be an effect on the planet. That there is a natural, on-going control system providing corrective feedback, is hardly in doubt as the planet has seen ice ages and tropical temperatures throughout geological history. Regardless, here man is, alive and well and thriving in all but the most extreme areas.

    4) Global Warming (of the man-made) variety has in fact, assumed the mantle of a religious movement, replete with it’s acolytes, oracles and of course, offerings (carbon offsets anyone?). It MUST remain theistic in order to propagate as true religion easily dismisses it’s basis, e.g. Man is responsible for all negative impact and that Man alone must be kept in check to prevent catastrophic consequences, whereas real religion places Faith in a Creator that transcends Man’s weaknesses (and technology) protecting him from himself.

    I’ve spent entirely too much time both here and on the radio, systematically detonating your junk-science cum religion. This is about one thing and one thing only. MONEY and POWER. The left must have a handy boogey-man to keep the masses focused on, of course with the benevolent elites ready to save them, for just a bit more tribute. It’s always easier to emote the people out of their hard-earned bucks than using facts, as school-children are being taught that the big, bad, glowBULL warming is going to kill us all, if Mom and Dad don’t send more money to the Goreacle? Tell me what body of science in history has been used to create such an all-pervasive, irrational fear?

    theshaman-Such a perfect nick, how much do you charge to roll the bones?

  46. Unregistered Pingback by hubhg » Comment on Ooo That’s Gonna Leave A Mark by theshaman

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    […] You can read the full story here […]

  47. Unregistered Comment by theshaman

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    LC Jackboot wrote:

    And so the worm turns, our little troll here theshaman is rather wordy, but then again it’s quite easy to cut and paste from your various talking-points.

    Can you prove I cut and pasted anything? Also, just out of curiosity, do you define “troll” as “Anyone with an opinion I don’t like”, or “Anyone I don’t like with an opinion”? Or both?

    The climate is in fact changing. That’s not in question, as it always has and always will.

    Yeah, this is a statement of the obvious.

    At issue is the anthropogenic contribution to the changes that were seeing. The article I cited wasn’t offered as scientific evidence in any way, but an expression of a credentialed scientist (he’s a real meteorologist, not just a TV weather reader), of dismay and outright disgust at how, some scientific evidence, coupled with political agendas and an ecological whacko crowd that places man at the bottom of life-forms on the planet, can turn it into both a religion and a lucrative industry.

    And you’re taking this guy’s word as gospel because…what? It can’t be because the evidence is on his side, because it isn’t. And while the guy may be a meteorologist, his day job is running a tv station. I’d imagine one would find it difficult to do that and immerse oneself in the latest developments in the field.

    Furthermore, I keep hearing that the scientific consensus for climate change is the ideological powerhouse behind some “lucrative” industry but no-one has ever been able to provide proof that (A) it is actually lucrative, or (B) that the scientists who support the consensus on climate change are actually doing so for the money and not because the overwhelming majority of the evidence is on their side.

    We inhabit and have dominion (that means both stewardship and control) over the planet, as created by an Almighty. By definition, the Creator already foresaw (at the time of creation) that man would progress and there would be an effect on the planet.

    Yeah, I’m not buying that crap for a minute. If you’re going to justify polluting the earth by passing the buck to God, I’m going to need to see a great big boatload of evidence that this God of yours actually exists. And then, given the natural calamities which threaten us daily, I’m going to have to see another great big boatload of evidence to prove that he actually has our best interests at heart. One thing I’m not going to do is sit meekly by while you try and justify your denialism by saying the creator of the universe is on your side. That’s not extremism. That’s not “militant atheism”. That’s just common sense.

    That there is a natural, on-going control system providing corrective feedback, is hardly in doubt as the planet has seen ice ages and tropical temperatures throughout geological history. Regardless, here man is, alive and well and thriving in all but the most extreme areas.

    But one of the arguments consistently propounded by supporters of the scientific consensus on climate change is that these natural corrective systems, which no-one is denying the existence of, are being overwhelmed by the amount of pollutants we as a species are pumping into the atmosphere. Like everything else in existence, these corrective systems have their breaking point. I’ll give you an example. The world’s oceans provide a natural corrective of sorts to the pollutants we are dumping into the atmosphere. They soak up (or, rather, they did soak up) about 2 billion tons of carbon per year. One of the reasons our oceans can soak up so much carbon is that they are infested (in a good way) with a plant called phytoplankton. The carbon absorbed by this phytoplankton accounts for about half of the carbon absorbed by our oceans as a whole. Unfortunately, higher average global temperatures (climate change, in the popular sense) are killing this phytoplankton. Less plankton; less carbon uptake. Less carbon uptake, higher average global temperatures. Higher average global temperatures, less phytoplankton. I guess you can see where this is going.

    Global Warming (of the man-made) variety has in fact, assumed the mantle of a religious movement, replete with it’s acolytes, oracles and of course, offerings (carbon offsets anyone?). It MUST remain theistic in order to propagate as true religion easily dismisses it’s basis, e.g. Man is responsible for all negative impact and that Man alone must be kept in check to prevent catastrophic consequences, whereas real religion places Faith in a Creator that transcends Man’s weaknesses (and technology) protecting him from himself.

    Oh it has “in fact”, has it? Well, I guess since you’ve made the assertion you won’t mind backing it up with some cites and answering some questions as to how solid this “fact” is, right?

    1) How do you define “religious”? I personally think, if anyone’s being religious, it’s the climate change deniers. After all, are they not the one’s against whom the evidence is stacked? Are they not, to borrow from Mark Twain, believing what they know ain’t so? And are they not prone to believing absolutely anything that they think may well support their agenda, regardless of whether or not they actually know what it means?

    Rush Limbaugh gets pwned by joke paper on climate change.

    2) If a “religion” is founded on masses and masses of testable scientific fact, can you really call it a religion?

    3) Are you not, in effect saying, “My religion, my faith, would be more difficult to take seriously if the scientific consensus on climate change were true - therefore it isn’t.”? Because, that’s not a very scientific attitude now, is it?

    I’ve spent entirely too much time both here and on the radio, systematically detonating your junk-science cum religion. This is about one thing and one thing only. MONEY and POWER. The left must have a handy boogey-man to keep the masses focused on, of course with the benevolent elites ready to save them, for just a bit more tribute.

    This is funny. You sound like Marx talking about, well, actual religion.

    Look, the facts don’t give a shit what anyone thinks, and at the end of the day your God isn’t going to save anyone. It’s up to us to use the evidence of our senses and come up with either a solution to this problem or a way of coping with its effects. The facts being overwhelmingly in support of the scientific consensus on global warming, deniers like you are faced with a choice: Help out, or get out of the way. Which is it going to be?

  48. DдrтH бдкфи Comment by DдrтH бдкфи

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Shaman-

    You may wish to know why John Christy- the gentleman who chairs the IPCC, and shares a Nobel prize with the GoreBot, has denounced him and the whole “scientific concensus” bit- as being impossibly certain when no such certitude exists. I believe he described it in charitable terms as “annoying”.

    Go ahead and denounce him as a shill for Big Oil- you know you want to.

    Here’s a couple of tasty morsels if you’re too lazy to read:

    I suppose, fundamentally, it’s the fact that someone is speaking about a science that I have been very heavily involved with and have labored so hard in, and been humiliated by, in the sense that the climate is so difficult to understand, Mother Nature is so complex, and so the uncertainties are great, and then to hear someone speak with such certainty and such confidence about what the climate is going to do is — well, I suppose I could be kind and say, it’s annoying to me.

    And:

    Well, the carbon dioxide is going up. And remember that carbon dioxide is plant food in the fundamental sense. All of life depends on the fact carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere. So, we’re fortunate it’s not a toxic gas. But, on the other hand, what is the climate doing. And when we build — and I’m one of the few people in the world that actually builds these climate data sets — we don’t see the catastrophic changes that are being promoted all over the place. [Emphasis mine-DB]

    Sorry if this causes you to question any of your Inconvenient Twoofs

  49. DдrтH бдкфи Comment by DдrтH бдкфи

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    denialism

    Please lay off the slurs- you know very well the use of “Denialism” when “skepticism” will do, is a transparent attempt to conflate us with Holocaust Deniers.

    The Holocaust of Jews during WWII being established fact, versus the theory of AGW.

    Snarky, rude, and wholly dishonest.

  50. DдrтH бдкфи Comment by DдrтH бдкфи

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    And another thing I find curious about the ones shrieking the loudest about this alleged ’scientific consensus’-

    Hasn’t anyone told you that ‘consensus’ is not the stuff of science, or scientists? ‘Consensus’ is what legislators are supposed to arrive at.

    It was once ’scientific consensus’ that we lived on a flat earth in a geocentric universe.

  51. Demosthenes Comment by Demosthenes

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    The Royal Society Of The UK

    It’s funny that you mention the Royal Society Shaman since their motto is nullius in verba (on the word of no one). True science is not a democratic institution or the majority opinion but about empiricism and testing prevailing knowledge from all possible angles. Men like Galileo, Newton, Darwin and Einstein who challenged the prevailing scientific paradigms of their day knew they were going against the grain. But they continued nonetheless, and we have them to thank for a better understanding of our world.

    Any honest scientist will admit that climate is not a static state but a dynamic system that has been in constant flux from the Pre-Cambrian down to the Cenozoic. Yes humans do affect their environment, but it’s an amazing hubris to say that we are prime movers when it comes to climate change. The planet has been through much worse than we can dish out and it’s still here obviously.

    Please lay off the slurs- you know very well the use of “Denialism” when “skepticism” will do, is a transparent attempt to conflate us with Holocaust Deniers.

    The Holocaust of Jews during WWII being established fact, versus the theory of AGW.

    Snarky, rude, and wholly dishonest.

    Absolutely. Anyone who accords the same moral and ontological status to the output of partial computer models of a chaotic dynamical system that they accord to six million dead cannot possibly be taken seriously by any thinking person.

  52. LC Moriarty Comment by LC Moriarty

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Yes, I have heard the phrase ‘publish or perish’. I have *not* heard the phrase “Publish articles which conform to the scientific consensus on climate change or perish”.

    … much inane blather, strawman argument, non sequitur, appeal to authority, and general ignorance about the sociology of science and academe deleted…

    Or are they making those statements because they are true, and to not make them would have been to expose themselves as uninformed, disingenuous, or both? Which, seriously, is more likely?

    Did you read the Feynman address I linked? Do you understand that science is fundamentally a human endeavor, that is, along with its more noble ambitions, it’s replete with false turns, base motivations, petty jealousies and yes, a desire to remain funded and working?

    Haven’t spent any time in grad school, have you? Ever seen a Kuhnian “paradigm shift” and what it precipitates in the lives of the people affected? I have.

    Cite? I contend that many of these scientists are, in fact, scientists.

    Not keeping up with both sides of the issue, I see:

    Lindzen has been quite vocal about “global-warming alarmists intimidat[ing] dissenting scientists into silence” and, unlike many of his brethren, has steadfastly refused to succumb. Not surprisingly, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT is now an outspoken critic of the IPCC.

    In fact, it was Lindzen who blew the whistle on irregularities in both the 2001 summary and report when he testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in May of that year. After stating that the IPCC was created to support negotiations concerning CO2 emission reductions, he gave an astonishing account of the pressure placed upon the scientists who drafted the report.

    “…throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC ‘coordinators’ would go around insisting that criticism of models be toned down, and that “motherhood” statements be inserted to the effect that models might still be correct despite the cited faults. Refusals were occasionally met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed coauthors forced to assert their “green” credentials in defense of their statements.”

    He then avowed that the vast majority of scientists contributing to the full report played virtually no role in preparing the summary, nor were they given the opportunity to review and approve its contents. Furthermore, it is this unscientific version only, often written to further political agendas, which becomes the basis of media hype and public understanding:

    Note that almost all reading and coverage of the IPCC is restricted to the highly publicized Summaries for Policymakers which are written by representatives from governments, NGO’s and business; the full reports, written by participating scientists, are largely ignored.” (My emphasis.)

    Of course, Lindzen doesn’t know shit about his field (amazing that the IPCC ever bothered with him) and must be discounted entirely. (Fascist pawn of the oil companies…)

    Yes, many of these scientists are in fact scientists. (That being axiomatic, obvious and trite.) Many others are not.

    Who would I respect more than a retired businessman? The most prestigious scientists in the world, who have also made their money, and also have nothing to lose except their reputations if they’re wrong. That’s who.

    That’s nice. (Naive, but nice.) Consider Paul Ehrlich, as one shining, prestigious example. Go look at his CV, his professional awards and accolades and his academic standing. Then undertake some research on his sensational predictions and doomsaying in the media. (Hint: “I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”)

    He retains remarkable professional credibility, reputation and prestige, including his Bing professorship at Stanford.

    Plenty more where he came from, but I’ve made my point.

    How do you define “barely out of diapers”?

    The field of climatology didn’t separate from meteorology until the 1950s. Relatively speaking that’s “barely out of diapers.” As to the remainder of your response, if you’re stating that the only people who can judge if the outcomes of a science are valid (or mature, if you prefer), you have a great deal to learn about both science and validity. (And maturity.)

    How do you know that the climate change deniers you speak of have not been subjected to honest criticism? (My emphasis.)

    (A rich vein of irony there as you use a favorite pejorative (”denier“) as opposed to, say, “skeptic”!)

    I can read English (and a couple of other languages) and can recognize the difference between an argument an a logical fallacy. Go ye therefore and learn likewise. (Ad hominem, by the way, has no place in science despite your attempt to apologize for it. It is prima facie evidence of having lost an argument, which is why it’s avoided by honest critics in scientific discourse.)

    Firstly, there is an awful lot more to the scientific case for climate change than the hockey stick graph.

    Quit dodging the point, namely that Mann et al. were given a free pass by the IPCC without adequate explanation of their methods, which is why the IPCC has amended their original support for the “hockey stick.”

    From the above:

    The 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC now presents a whole range of historical reconstructions instead of favoring prematurely just one hypothesis as reliable.

    Moreover:

    When looking back we are satisfied with what has been achieved – namely an open, open-minded exciting discussion about the merits and problems related to different methods; an atmosphere where mere claims about the informational content of proxy-data meet a more critical response; an evolving practice of testing the skill of reconstruction methods in the laboratory of millennial forced global climate model simulations, where the formation of proxy-data is simulated in - so far too simplified - models. (My emphasis.)

    If those in the field of climatology were so honest, “open and open-minded” as you contend (and if, indeed, the science is as “settled” as you assert) then how do you account for the nonitalicized portion of the above? As to the initial refusal of Mann to share (and his later efforts to conceal) his data and methods, I commend you to the above as a starting point.

    Actually, I find it odd that you would cite that Times article in support of your position. Four times it is stated clearly, by different authorities, that the revised figures also supported the scientific consensus on climate change.

    Learn to distinguish between data, bias and editorial, especially when such is presented in the popular press. That was part of the point.

    Perhaps because they’re irrelevant?

    Again, you miss the point entirely. The mainstream media has been all too quick to take up the story of Arctic melting (including the recent announcement of a “Northwest Passage” bias. )

    Luckily the veracity of climate science is in no way related to “crisis politics”. It is related solely to facts, and the climate change supporters have pretty much all of them.

    Okie-dokey, then. (Glad to hear it in such concise, open-minded and nondogmatic terms.)

    You win. I hereby concede all points and I’m invoking cloture on this discussion.

    The science is settled, the debate is ended, the models are irrefutable, the crisis is unquestionably upon us and the National Academy of Science was correct, after all, in reaching “a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room.”

    Therefore: I have 200 acres that will be replanted in alfalfa this Spring; I have another 160 of forested land that requires continuous management. I’ll be looking forward to your (voluntary — so far) contribution in the form of carbon offset purchases. (I think a modest 15% of your gross income ought to suffice, for now.)

    This is, after all, in no way related to “crisis politics”. It is related solely to facts, and the climate change supporters have pretty much all of them.

    That this benefits me materially and leaves me laughing all the way to the bank should be of no concern to you.

  53. LC Moriarty Comment by LC Moriarty

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    the outcomes of a science are valid (or mature, if you prefer),

    should read:

    the outcomes of a science are valid (or mature, if you prefer) are those in the field themselves

  54. LC Moriarty Comment by LC Moriarty

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    more errata:

    Again, you miss the point entirely. The mainstream media has been all too quick to take up the story of Arctic melting (including the recent announcement of a “Northwest Passage”

    should be followed by:

    while remaining curiously silent on developments elsewhere, when they do not conform to the prevailing zeitgeist (or, as most of us refer to it, bias.)

    (I’ve lost text following links before.)

  55. DдrтH бдкфи Comment by DдrтH бдкфи

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Anyone who accords the same moral and ontological status to the output of partial computer models of a chaotic dynamical system that they accord to six million dead cannot possibly be taken seriously by any thinking person.

    And that’s what I’m on about.

    Anyone who takes even a cursory swipe at the language that the “Progressive” “Movement” has chosen in order to further it’s ‘reframing’ of any number of issues, from an intentionalist perspective, can’t help but conclude (or at least to seriously entertain the notion) that they mean not a shred of what they say. From a semantic, semiotic, and ontological perspective, their arguments betray them.

    Use of words like “Denier” are entirely intentional, for they KNOW the ontological/semantic/semiotic import of the words they choose. After all, they’re the ‘nuanced’ ones, while we’re the uneducated troglodytes…so let them “Deny” that.

  56. LC Moriarty Comment by LC Moriarty

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Oh, nonsense, Darth…

    As we all know, postmodernism has conclusively demonstrated that “meaning” is itself meaningless. Therefore semantics, choice, values, reason and morality are entirely arbitrary constructs which we may deconstruct and dispose of at our whim. (Unless, of course, the Left requires them to denigrate someone, in which case they are utterly valid.) Equally clear, all of Western culture, influence and technology is entirely evil and oppressive. (Unless you’re an oppressed, third-world dictator, in which case you’re entitled to as much as you want as a means of striking back at your oppressors — the people who produced it for you.)

    Really… I’m surprised and shocked that you haven’t kept up with your reading on this important matter.

  57. Unregistered Comment by theshaman

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    DдrтH бдкфи wrote:

    You may wish to know why John Christy- the gentleman who chairs the IPCC, and shares a Nobel prize with the GoreBot, has denounced him and the whole “scientific concensus” bit- as being impossibly certain when no such certitude exists. I believe he described it in charitable terms as “annoying”.

    You cited an article which requires me to pay a subscription fee to read it. Since I’m not prepared to do that, may I request you come up with some other way I can read the quotes in context?

    Go ahead and denounce him as a shill for Big Oil- you know you want to.

    Oh dear. I can see I’m going to spend much of the time I devote to you burning down your facile little strawmen. Let’s back up a little bit. The scientific consensus on climate change is a little more nuanced than “WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!11ONEOMG!!” The scientific consensus on climate change is simply this: The climate is getting hotter. The process is anthropogenic and driven by greenhouse gas emissions. This will entail some adverse consequences for the human race. Reasonable scientists can disagree on the severity of these adverse consequences but, and here’s the important bit, none of them dispute the fact that human activity is driving climate change! Hell, John Christy certainly doesn’t dispute that. In fact, he’s gone on record as saying, and I quote:

    “It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way.”

    So, what we have here is a man with impeccable scientific credentials who supports the scientific consensus on climate change but doesn’t go quite as far as some of his fellow scientists. That’s hardly devastating news.

    Anyway, this is largely beside the point. Even if John Christy vociferously disagreed with the scientific consensus on climate change, his word wouldn’t spell death to the mission of those scientists trying to fix the problem. John Christy is not the Emperor of all climatologists. He’s certainly entitled to his opinion, but his disagreement wouldn’t invalidate the myriad conclusions of the thousands of other scientists who do support the scientific consensus on climate change. Still, this is just a logical nitpick. As we’ve seen, Christy doesn’t support the scientific consensus on climate change so it’s all a non issue anyway.

    Sorry if this causes you to question any of your Inconvenient Twoofs…

    Your post has entirely convinced me that you haven’tt got much idea about:

    A) What John Christy really believes about climate change.
    B) What the scientific consensus on climate change actually is.
    C) My own position on the issue.

    So don’t worry. You were never in any danger of being remotely persuasive.

    Please lay off the slurs- you know very well the use of “Denialism” when “skepticism” will do, is a transparent attempt to conflate us with Holocaust Deniers.

    The Holocaust of Jews during WWII being established fact, versus the theory of AGW.

    Snarky, rude, and wholly dishonest.

    Hogwash. I will not use the word skepticism because doing so would imply that your objections to the scientific consensus on climate change actually had merit, when I genuinely don’t think that they do. Frankly, I think your attempt to conflate the practise of denialism in general with Holocaust deniers in particular is nothing more than an attempt to play the victim card, and take advantage of the tragedy of the Holocaust to shield yourself from appropriate criticism.

    Moreover, I find it utterly laughable that deniers are complaining about their hurt feelings on a website where those who stand by the scientific consensus on climate change are routinely derided as ‘GoreBots’ and ‘Acolytes of GlowBULL Wormening’.

    Still, I understand that this may be an emotional point for you, so I will use the word ‘objectors’ instead. Fair?

    And another thing I find curious about the ones shrieking the loudest about this alleged ’scientific consensus’-

    Hasn’t anyone told you that ‘consensus’ is not the stuff of science, or scientists? ‘Consensus’ is what legislators are supposed to arrive at.

    It was once ’scientific consensus’ that we lived on a flat earth in a geocentric universe.

    So…what? Scientists aren’t allowed to agree with each other? There is a scientific consensus on evolution as well. Do you think that the scientists who form this consensus are being unreasonable? Tell me, what would you call it when the overwhelming majority of scientists in a field concur on a particular issue?

    Demosthenes wrote:

    It’s funny that you mention the Royal Society Shaman since their motto is nullius in verba (on the word of no one). True science is not a democratic institution or the majority opinion but about empiricism and testing prevailing knowledge from all possible angles.

    More important than their motto is their reputation, which is stellar. I ask again, why would a society as reputable as the Royal Society of the UK hang their credibility on the scientific consensus on climate change if it was based on shaky science?

    Any honest scientist will admit that climate is not a static state but a dynamic system that has been in constant flux from the Pre-Cambrian down to the Cenozoic. Yes humans do affect their environment, but it’s an amazing hubris to say that we are prime movers when it comes to climate change. The planet has been through much worse than we can dish out and it’s still here obviously.

    Who, precisely, is arguing that humans are the “prime movers” of the climate? Certainly not me, nor any other scientist or pundit I’m aware of. What I am are arguing is that we are simply a mover, a mover with technological influence over the environment sufficient enough to create a knock on effect. As it turns out, this knock on effect is not beneficial to us in the long term. Therefore we need to act now to prevent problems in the future. The scientific consensus doesn’t presume that we are “prime movers” of anything.

    Absolutely. Anyone who accords the same moral and ontological status to the output of partial computer models of a chaotic dynamical system that they accord to six million dead cannot possibly be taken seriously by any thinking person.

    And anybody who tries to conflate the act of calling a spade a spade (in this case, calling people who deny the evidence without good reason deniers) with the act of comparing climate change deniers to Holocaust deniers shouldn’t be taken seriously either, IMO.

    L.C. Moriarty wrote:

    Did you read the Feynman address I linked? Do you understand that science is fundamentally a human endeavor, that is, along with its more noble ambitions, it’s replete with false turns, base motivations, petty jealousies and yes, a desire to remain funded and working?

    Yes, I read it. In fact, I read it years ago. I’m well aware that science is a “fundamentally human endeavour” and that a scientist’s word isn’t sacrosanct. However, when the vast majority of scientists concur with the vast majority of evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that they’re onto something. In my last post, I asked you to produce some actual evidence that the scientific consensus on climate change was all just some great big conspiracy. You not only failed to do this, but you chose to delete my arguments and dismiss them with a cheap ad hominem rather than discuss them in any detail. I am tempted to disregard you as simply dishonest, but then you wouldn’t learn anything. Also, I wouldn’t get to point out that this statement of yours:

    Why have numerous scientists, dissenting in their conclusions, been subject to ad hominem rather than honest criticism?

    is fundamentally at odds with this blasé dismissal of my arguments:

    … much inane blather, strawman argument, non sequitur, appeal to authority, and general ignorance about the sociology of science and academe deleted…

    And I wouldn’t get to chalk up your name on the ‘Pot, Kettle, Black’ scoreboard.

    Not keeping up with both sides of the issue, I see:

    Of course, Lindzen doesn’t know shit about his field (amazing that the IPCC ever bothered with him) and must be discounted entirely. (Fascist pawn of the oil companies…)

    I can think of no organisation who is discounting Richard Lindzen entirely. Frankly, I don’t know why you think he would be discounted entirely. His criticism of the IPCC has been criticised in turn, but that’s just because, well, people disagree with him. You are overplaying the extent to which Richard Lindzen has received criticism in order to bolster your own opinion that anyone who disagrees in any way with the scientific consensus on climate change is immediately ostracised. Lindzen is controversial, to be sure, but he’s no pariah. He’s the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT for Christ’s sake. How discounted do you think he is?

    That’s nice. (Naive, but nice.) Consider Paul Ehrlich, as one shining, prestigious example. Go look at his CV, his professional awards and accolades and his academic standing. Then undertake some research on his sensational predictions and doomsaying in the media. (Hint: “I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”)

    He retains remarkable professional credibility, reputation and prestige, including his Bing professorship at Stanford.

    Plenty more where he came from, but I’ve made my point.

    You really should spend a little less time bragging and a little more time checking the veracity of your arguments. Simply google searching the terms “Paul” “Ehrlich” and “Debate” will reveal a host of articles critical of Ehrlich’s statements. He has also written an awful lot of extremely well received work since the publication of “The Population Bomb” in 1968. The bottom line is that Ehrlich was wrong, and was criticised accordingly. In fact, the experience of Ehrlich at the hands of other scientists is yet more evidence for my argument that science is a self-correcting discipline.

    Still, if you’re content to take the word of a retired businessman who is unconstrained by any social, academic, or financial pressure, and is perfectly at liberty to shoot his mouth off on any topic without consequence, over the word of thousands of reputable scientists who, by contrast, have a lot to lose by being wrong, be my guest. Just don’t get sniffy when people refuse to take you seriously.

    The field of climatology didn’t separate from meteorology until the 1950s. Relatively speaking that’s “barely out of diapers.”

    You’re dodging my question. I asked how you define “out of diapers” when talking about a scientific discipline. If your answer is ‘by the age of the discipline’, I will again point out that disciplines far, far older than climatology are also accused of immaturity by their detractors. The point, of course, is that there isn’t a scientific discipline in existence which isn’t considered “immature” or “barely out of diapers” by some people. You need to be more specific.

    I can read English (and a couple of other languages) and can recognize the difference between an argument an a logical fallacy. Go ye therefore and learn likewise. (Ad hominem, by the way, has no place in science despite your attempt to apologize for it. It is prima facie evidence of having lost an argument, which is why it’s avoided by honest critics in scientific discourse.)

    You are talking utter, utter nonsense. Your response here is virtually a non sequitur. And AGAIN you have neglected to respond to my point, instead trying to bluster your way through it with pompous hand waving and arrogant appeals to your own authority. Let’s recap:

    1) You said objectors to the consensus on climate change were being subjected to ad hominem and not being criticised on the basis of their science.

    2) I then said this was arrant nonsense and made you a wager: That for every scientist you could name who had gone on record as objecting to the scientific consensus on climate change, I could find a scientific challenge to his arguments which did not feature a single ad hominem. I then made the point that ad hominem can exist in perfect harmony with dispassionate criticism, and that the presence of the former doesn’t nullify the latter. This is absolutely correct. If a Young Earth Creationist says that the Earth is 6000 years old, and then a scientist comes along, shows him ten metric tons of scientific evidence to the contrary, and then calls him a fucking idiot just for kicks, the insult doesn’t invalidate the evidence. The same is true when discussing climate change. The science of a scientific critique doesn’t become any less scientific because the author uses bad language. You’re right that, ideally, ad hominem shouldn’t have any place in scientific discourse. But you’re completely wrong that ad hominem somehow invalidates legitimate scientific criticism, or that there exist any prominent objectors to the scientific consensus on climate change who have not been challenged on their science as well as their integrity.

    3) You then repeated the original assertion as though I hadn’t said anything at all.

    Quit dodging the point, namely that Mann et al. were given a free pass by the IPCC without adequate explanation of their methods, which is why the IPCC has amended their original support for the “hockey stick.”

    Argh! I’m not dodging anything. You didn’t make that point. You said that Mann et al. concealed their methods and data sets. Not that they didn’t adequately explain them. If you want me to rebut a point, please make sure you’re actually making the right one. While I see absolutely no evidence that Mann et al. actively concealed anything, I am fully aware that the hockey stick graph was included in the IPCC’s 3rd assessment report without an adequate explanation by Mann et al. of their methodology. I know this because Mann himself published a corrigendum to their 1998 article, correcting a number of mistakes in the on-line supplementary information that accompanied their article but leaving the actual results unchanged.

    Learn to distinguish between data, bias and editorial, especially when such is presented in the popular press. That was part of the point.

    Um, excuse me? No it most certainly wasn’t part of the point. Your point as you wrote it was simply that recent recalculations of NASA’s global temperatures and the advance of Antarctic ice floes hadn’t been covered in the popular press.

    But that was it. No more no less.

    If you want to impure further meaning to your own words, meaning which couldn’t reasonably be inferred from the words themselves, in an attempt to make it look like I dodged your point, then go ahead. Anyone willing to check the wording of your original post will see through this artless charade in no time.

    Again, you miss the point entirely. The mainstream media has been all too quick to take up the story of Arctic melting (including the recent announcement of a “Northwest Passage” bias. )

    And what does that prove? That the mainstream media has a predisposition to scary stories? That’s not news to anybody. How does this bear on the scientific facts at issue?

    I’ve got to go out now but I will post this for the time being. When I get back from running my errands I’ll repost all the questions I asked that you neglected to answer. That post will be almost as long as this one.

  58. Unregistered Comment by theshaman

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Errata:

    When I said:

    “As we’ve seen, Christy doesn’t support the scientific consensus on climate change so it’s all a non issue anyway.”

    I obviously meant

    As we’ve seen, Christy does support the scientific consensus on climate change so it’s all a non issue anyway.”

    Also:

    If you want to impure further meaning to your own words

    Should be

    If you want to impute further meaning to your own words

  59. Don_M Comment by Don_M

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    The best demolition of “global warming” I’ve seen is the postscript Michael Crichton wrote in his 2004 novel, State of Fear. In it, he details a turn-of-the-century “truth” held by all the best minds in academia, science, government and popular culture. Non-believers were ridiculed and marginalized. Laws were passed, and great sums of money were spent. It was the beginning of the 20th century, and the “scientific doctrine” was eugenics. Haven’t heard that term in a while? No wonder: Eugenics kept on going until it reached its logical, terrible conclusion, the Holocaust. Please read the whole book, but if you haven’t got the time, Dr. Crichton’s postscript, at roughly 15 pages, sums things up nicely.

  60. kayinmaine Comment by kayinmaine

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    FUCK OFF DENIERS!

    Speaking of the Holocaust, we WILL have Nuremberg style mass trials for all the deniers. You all want to make the whole world a corporate oil field and WE WON’T LET YOU!

    THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!

    Also: My Kucinich KICKED CHENEY’S ASS the other day! He’ll have to count his Halliburton stock from JAIL!

    http://whitenoiseinsanity.com/2007/11/06/will-dennis-kucinich-kick-dick-cheneys-ass-today/

  61. jaybear Comment by jaybear

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    AAAaaahhhhhhh HAA HAA HAAAAAAA…….

    decayinmaine found us!!!!!! that’s what happens when you leave the gate open DJ.

    parents: let your kids read her screechings, they’ll get a good look at the damage that rampant drug use will do to the mind.

    Seig Heil kay, betcha look hitleresque in your brown shirt.

  62. The Major Comment by The Major

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Speaking of the Holocaust, we WILL have Nuremberg style mass trials for all the deniers.

    Sooooo, decayin’-stain wants to hang everyone who doesn’t lockstep with her in worshiping the Prophet Ezekiel Gore in the pseudoscientific religion of Global Warming. I say give the bitch a bull horn and a prime time television show! Let America see the kind of dimwits the Democratic Party is pandering to.

    Kay, PLEASE put me on trial first! If your ilk ever control this planet to the degree that such trials ever occur, I’ll choose a noose over living on Mother Gaia with such rectal abscesses as you and your Gorebots in the human race.

  63. LC JackBoot IC/A-OBR Comment by LC JackBoot IC/A-OBR

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    The shaman spews forth, exactly as anticipated:

    Yeah, I’m not buying that crap for a minute. If you’re going to justify polluting the earth by passing the buck to God, I’m going to need to see a great big boatload of evidence that this God of yours actually exists. And then, given the natural calamities which threaten us daily, I’m going to have to see another great big boatload of evidence to prove that he actually has our best interests at heart. One thing I’m not going to do is sit meekly by while you try and justify your denialism by saying the creator of the universe is on your side. That’s not extremism. That’s not “militant atheism”. That’s just common sense.

    Read the words, I said man has Dominion of the earth, that means stewardship. Look it up, it’s hardly a justification of pollution and while we’re at it I’m a conservationist.

    I’m not going to waste the Emperor’s bandwidth on a theological discussion of the existence of God. Try reading some St. Thomas Aquinas “Proofs of God” for a start. You won’t win this one, we have virtually every religion, atheist and agnostic alike visiting this site and we’ve been down this road before. One thing that is certain is that natural calamities, death and disease aren’t the result of an uncaring Creator. But I wouldn’t expect you to grasp this. Lets put it this way, you won’t ever see a ‘boatload’ of evidence of something that by definition is transfinite. Like it or not the Creator is on your side too, it’s up to you to accept or deny his existence and the personal consequences of your decision.

    God won’t save anyone huh? Obviously you’ve been well schooled in atheist-theology? Every human on this planet is under a sentence of death, the mere concept that you mention God in that context tells me you’ve never really studied Judeo-Christian theology. It’s NOT about this life, it’s about our eternal, spiritual life.

    I do enjoy and quite expected the “Denier” label to come out. It’s on par with Godwin’s rule and the use of it in my book has the same results. Don’t even try to imply we’re playing it as a ‘victim’ card, our LCs can hold their own quite well without the crutches the left is so fond of.

    You’ve stirred the pack with it’s indiscriminate use and the semantic connection to the Shoah, and it’s damn well intentional, don’t try to two-step away from it, asswipe.

    That’s warning #1. There won’t be a second.

  64. Unregistered Comment by theshaman

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    kayinmaine wrote:

    Speaking of the Holocaust, we WILL have Nuremberg style mass trials for all the deniers. You all want to make the whole world a corporate oil field and WE WON’T LET YOU!

    THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!

    I’m glad I read this. I think that this post is actually the most informative in the thread. I know it’s taught me an awful lot.

    Specifically, it’s taught me why so many people on this site think that environmentalists are all fucking nut cases.

    kayinmaine I say this in all sincerity, as one advocate of the scientific consensus on climate change to another. You’re making me look bad. In fact, you’re making everyone who supports the scientific consensus on climate change look like a frothing moron. Please, chill out or stop.

  65. LC JackBoot IC/A-OBR Comment by LC JackBoot IC/A-OBR

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    OH Imagine that, theshaman asking someone to stop making him look bad. The irony is sweet. The only difference is one is more erudite/articulate than the other. Both equally batshit insane. Enjoy the company she’s on YOUR side.

    Bring your lunch and body-bags when you come arrest this God fearing Denier. Lots of bags.

  66. Unregistered Comment by theshaman

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    L.C. Jackboot wrote:

    Read the words, I said man has Dominion of the earth, that means stewardship. Look it up, it’s hardly a justification of pollution and while we’re at it I’m a conservationist.

    Actually, what you said was:

    “By definition, the Creator already foresaw (at the time of creation) that man would progress and there would be an effect on the planet.”

    Now, how can we have “dominion” in any meaningful sense if God already knows the effect we are going to have on the environment? It would seem like our future is written in stone already. Your statements are contradictory, but all religion is contradictory, so that doesn’t really bother me. What does bother me, is the immediate implication of your statement: That whatever happens is God’s will and, hey, who are we to interfere? That’s a great excuse for just sitting back and doing nothing. It’s passing the buck to God. If you’re going to offer that as a serious argument, you’re going to need to back it up with proof. If you can’t do that, don’t use the argument, and certainly don’t expect anyone to treat it with respect if you do.

    I’m not going to waste the Emperor’s bandwidth on a theological discussion of the existence of God.

    Okay, fine by me.

    Try reading some St. Thomas Aquinas “Proofs of God” for a start. You won’t win this one, we have virtually every religion, atheist and agnostic alike visiting this site and we’ve been down this road before.

    Oh, darn it, now you’ve gone and started a theological discussion. For the record, I have not read “Proofs of God”, but that’s because Aquinas never wrote any such book. He did write the Summa Theologica which contained several supposed “proofs” of God’s existence. However, as any first year philosophy student can tell you, none of them hold water. Dissections available on request.

    One thing that is certain is that natural calamities, death and disease aren’t the result of an uncaring Creator. But I wouldn’t expect you to grasp this. Lets put it this way, you won’t ever see a ‘boatload’ of evidence of something that by definition is transfinite.

    I know. Natural calamities are simply the results of natural processes. Natural process which kill indiscriminately, unimpeded by any benevolent creator. I know I won’t see a boatload of evidence for something that by definition is “transfinite”. But that’s precisely why you shouldn’t make vague invocations of God’s will in scientific debates.

    Like it or not the Creator is on your side too, it’s up to you to accept or deny his existence and the personal consequences of your decision.

    I thought you said you didn’t want a theological discussion…

    Anyway, I’m an atheist for the same reason I don’t believe in Zeus, Apollo, or Baal. Lack of concrete evidence. If I’m wrong, and God asks me why I turned my back on him, I’ll just say that if he wanted my attention he should have provided more evidence. Still, if he does exist, and if, as you say, he foresaw all at the moment of creation, he already knew I was going to turn out this way, so I guess he isn’t really bothered about me one way or the other.

    God won’t save anyone huh? Obviously you’ve been well schooled in atheist-theology? Ever human on this planet is under a sentence of death, the mere concept that you mention God in that context tells me you’ve never really studied Judeo-Christian theology. It’s NOT about this life, it’s about our eternal, spiritual life.

    There’s a popular joke among atheists in response to statements like yours: “Christianity: Satisfaction guaranteed or your autopsy’s free!” Your statement is pure conjecture. Hell, the entire discipline of theology is pure conjecture and little more than an extended exercise in sky-castle engineering. Without evidence, I’m not buying. And I’m certainly not buying arguments about climate change based on premises which are not only unproven but also by your own admission completely unprovable.

    I do enjoy and quite expected the “Denier” label to come out. It’s on par with Godwin’s rule and the use of it in my book has the same results.

    You’ve stirred the pack with it’s indiscriminate use and the semantic connection to the Shoah.

    The semantic connection was always yours to make, and was never in my power to infer. Deniers, people who turn their back on the evidence no matter how conclusive, exist to irritate scholars in every branch of study. They precede the Holocaust by almost the entire lifespan of our species. I say again, the relentless attempts by objectors to co-opt the word “denier” to refer exclusively to deniers of the Holocaust is merely a particularly underhanded way to play the victim card.

  67. L.C. Mope, Imperial Offsetter Comment by L.C. Mope, Imperial Offsetter

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    theshaman-

    If you’re going to offer that as a serious argument, you’re going to need to back it up with proof. If you can’t do that, don’t use the argument, and certainly don’t expect anyone to treat it with respect if you do.

    Seems to me it is the proponents of Man made Global warming are the ones “proof”, instead they insert consensus. When has science ever been consensus?

    Why should any of these people that lack proof of man made global warming deserve to be treated with respect?

  68. Unregistered Comment by theshaman

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    L.C. Mope, Imperial Offsetter wrote:

    Seems to me it is the proponents of Man made Global warming are the ones “proof”, instead they insert consensus. When has science ever been consensus?

    A consensus is simply another name for a bunch of people agreeing on stuff. In this case, the people are climate scientists and the stuff is climate change. Scientists aren’t born adhering to the current consensus on climate change. They are led there by the evidence. If you want the evidence I can show it to you. Just tell me where to start. There is an awful lot of it, you know.

  69. L.C. Mope, Imperial Offsetter Comment by L.C. Mope, Imperial Offsetter

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    They are led there by the evidence.

    Just to get to the point, theshaman, let’s start with the peer review. Peer review is supposed to be a sort of ‘devil’s advocate’. Let’s see how that review went.

  70. Imperial Tobacconist LC&IB M Comment by Imperial Tobacconist LC&IB M

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    The semantic connection was always yours to make, and was never in my power to infer. Deniers, people who turn their back on the evidence no matter how conclusive, exist to irritate scholars in every branch of study. They precede the Holocaust by almost the entire lifespan of our species. I say again, the relentless attempts by objectors to co-opt the word “denier” to refer exclusively to deniers of the Holocaust is merely a particularly underhanded way to play the victim card.

    Who said the evidence for global warming is “conclusive”?

    Follow the money. The so-called scientists supporting the THEORY, and I emphasize it’s a THEORY, not a fact, of global warming are those who are getting the grants. It’s a sad fact of modern science that only two things matter today to most people in science. Tenure, and funding. You spend enough money or promise a university chair, and you get the “scientific” results you want.

    The bottom line, as the meteorologist founder of The Weather Channel points out, is we can’t accurately predict the WEATHER more than 10 days from now. Anyone who thinks they have the foggiest CLUE what the overall CLIMATE will do over the next year, much less the next ten, is seriously deluded.

    Show me the slightest proof that mankind can affect the weather. Go ahead and show me a SINGLE successful attempt to change the direction of the wind, divert a thunderstorm, stop a tornado or prevent a hurricane. For that matter, tell me ACCURATELY whether it’s going to rain tomorrow, not “there’s a 30 percent chance”, or accurately predict the exact temperature at noon tomorrow, not “high in the upper 80s”.

    And you want me to believe we can effect (or predict) climate?

    Right.

  71. L.C. Mope, Imperial Offsetter Comment by L.C. Mope, Imperial Offsetter

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    A consensus is simply another name for a bunch of people agreeing on stuff. In this case, the people are climate scientists and the stuff is climate change.

    OK, I get it… There is a consensus of people that believe in God, therefore, you should believe in God.

  72. LC JackBoot IC/A-OBR Comment by LC JackBoot IC/A-OBR

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Hell, the entire discipline of theology is pure conjecture and little more than an extended exercise in sky-castle engineering.

    Nice, you manage to dismiss out of hand something held firmly by at least 75% of the world’s population.

    Just consider this for one moment of your life. If you’re wrong, you’ll face a day of judgment and hell awaits those who deny the Creator. Are you willing to risk damnation for your sense of pride, elitism and the sole arbiter of your own truth?

    Just keep in mind there are NO “Exit Here” signs from the Lake of Fire.

  73. jaybear Comment by jaybear

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Just consider this for one moment of your life. If you’re wrong, you’ll face a day of judgment and hell awaits those who deny the Creator. Are you willing to risk damnation for your sense of pride, elitism and the sole arbiter of your own truth?

    or as someone much MUCH wiser than me once said:
    “I rather live my life as if there WERE a God and find out there wasn’t, than live my life as if there WEREN’T a God and find out there was”

  74. LC Moriarty Comment by LC Moriarty

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    In my last post, I asked you to produce some actual evidence that the scientific consensus on climate change was all just some great big conspiracy. You not only failed to do this,

    You’re right. I failed to do it because it because I never made that argument. You don’t get to insert words into my buffer. That’s one straw man. The limit in possession is two.

    but you chose to delete my arguments and dismiss them with a cheap ad hominem rather than discuss them in any detail.

    Best way to deal with a straw man is to ignore it, which is exactly what I did.

    He’s the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT for Christ’s sake. How discounted do you think he is?

    I should have known that someone as literal as you can’t spot obvious hyperbole. (Hint: He isn’t really a fascist, either.)

    In fact, the experience of Ehrlich at the hands of other scientists is yet more evidence for my argument that science is a self-correcting discipline.

    Duh. I never said science wasn’t a self-correcting discipline. The arc tends to be long, however. We’ll see how the anthropogenic, rapid global warming hypothesis (which is what we’re discussing here) fares in the next couple of decades. Given the nature of the “consensus”, the relative immaturity of climatology as a science and the sociology and funding of science at large, I have good reason to expect that it’s going to land in the same scrap heap as overpopulation and the other Great Crises I mentioned.

    As to the “maturity” issue: It can be easily be maintained that both physics and mathematics are reasonably “mature.” However, neither the physics nor the mathematics of climatology are especially well-developed, particularly with respect to predictive reliability and validity, as the IPCC Assessment Reports (pick one) explicitly state. Pay attention now: When you base your discipline on other, well-developed, mature disciplines and yet cannot arrive at a reasonable degree of reliability and validity with those tools in hand, it’s a fair bet that your science is not yet well-developed nor mature.

    Were you born this dense or did you have to work at it?

    But you’re completely wrong that ad hominem somehow invalidates legitimate scientific criticism, or that there exist any prominent objectors to the scientific consensus on climate change who have not been challenged on their science as well as their integrity.

    Never said it invalidated scientific criticism, only that it stands as fair evidence that the speaker has run out of rational arguments. Further, challenging someone’s scientific integrity is anything but an ad hominem. (You could ask Cyril Burt, but, he’s dead.)

    And as to “honesty” that’s the second straw man.

    While I see absolutely no evidence that Mann et al. actively concealed anything,

    You’re very fond of words like “absolute”, “completely” and “entirely.” Interesting. Here’s something I was able to find after 30 seconds of searching: link

    If you see absolutely no evidence (your words, your context, not mine) that Mann made an active attempt at concealing data you’re either being completely disingenuous or entirely a fool.

    Either way, I’m calling “strike three.”

    Dead stop.

    Dismissed.

  75. DдrтH бдкфи Comment by DдrтH бдкфи

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Nice.

    Words only mean what Shaman and other members of the Community Based Reality say they mean, and then only when they’re saying them.

    He tosses out a word that (whether this ‘reality’ has penetrated the insular Community in which such types reside is immaterial) has undeniable (heh!) connotation. Then he gets called on it. Rather than graciously try and claim that was not his intent, he instead insists that the connotation is imagined, and calling him on his own words is a disingenuous attempt at concealing rhetorical inadequacy behind the (flalse, according to him) mantle of imagined (by us) victimhood.

    Nevermind that despite all his excess flailing, he still has to dismiss without argument that John Christy (among many other scientists, including the thousands who chose not to add their names to the so-called consensus) has said unequivocally that as one of the few people in the workd with the practical expertise in such matters, he doesn’t see the calamitous calamities that the chicken littles do. Instead, he has to insist (totally disingenuously) that somehow Christy’s other utterances somehow abrogate this statement. It all boils down to “I’m righter than you, and you’re not only stupid, you’re evil- YOU DENIER!11!!”

  76. B.C., Imperial Torturer™ Comment by B.C., Imperial Torturer™

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Jeebus, I guess I shouldn’t have been burning up those 200 acres of woodlands these past few days and releasing all those tons of CO & CO2 into the atmosphere. It looks like I missed one Helluva ClueClubbing™ session.

    After wading through a couple of Shamalamaramadan’s posts and finding him repeatedly using the following bovine fecal droppings, I’ve decided to just laugh derisively at him and his blind faith in The Great Gorebecile™ and his Chompskyite Chicken Littles®:

    The scientific consensus…

    BZZZZT! Wrong answer, Sparky. There is no “consensus”. Quit drinking the Kyoto KlimateChange Kool-Aid®

    …on climate change is simply this: The climate is getting hotter.

    And has been since that 1.5 mile thick sheet of ice started receding from the Manhattan skyline. Got any real “news” for us knuckle-draggin’ Neo-Troglodytes™?

    The process is anthropogenic and driven by greenhouse gas emissions.

    *coughbullshitcough*

    This will entail some adverse consequences for the human race.

    You really should bone up on your human civilization vs. climatology argument before coming here, Junior. Global cooling is thousands of times the threat to human civilization than is a couple of degrees of warming. Ever tried growing a food crop under a blanket of snow and ice? Here’s a two word hint: “Ain’t happenin’.”

    Reasonable scientists can disagree on the severity of these adverse consequences but, and here’s the important bit, none of them dispute the fact that human activity is driving climate change!

    Oh really? So all of those scientists who say that it’s the natural variability of the sun’s output, along with other long-term cycles, aren’t “reasonable” and can be dismissed, out of hand, by the Acolytes of The Mighty Goreacle™?

    Have fun trying to surf the InterWebTubeNets™ while furiously peddling your recycled tampon-built bicycle/generator and typing on your hemp & soy-built laptop, Spanky. We’ll stick to burning bountiful coal, gas, abiotic oil & firing up nukular reactors.

    BTW, Shamalamaramadan, you really need to start using napkins. Those Kyoto KlimateChange KoolAid® stains don’t do anything for you.

    And that’s coming from a back-slidden Southern Agnostic.

  77. DдrтH бдкфи Comment by DдrтH бдкфи

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    But BC…

    Weren’t you paying attention when RR, er…Kayinmaine instructed us that the science is ’settled’? I don’t know about you, but I’m scared of that gulag she was talking about, and as someone desperate to cloak myself in the false mantle of Holocaust victimhood, I’m going to stop denying the painfully obvious fact that our betters don’t need to marshal facts or any stuff like that. They’re right on the strength of their convictions, and they have decided that there is no way anyone can disagree with them in good faith- they’re onto our terrible secret!

  78. LC JackBoot IC/A-OBR Comment by LC JackBoot IC/A-OBR

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Jumpin’ Jeebus BC—-

    You cleaned the smudge up pretty well. Guess I can put the 20kV carpet cleaner away and keep the Empire carbon offsets down a bit.

    20 thousand gorebeciles shredded and still counting.

    And that’s coming from a back-slidden Southern Agnostic.

    You were warned that we all don’t base perspectives from a theistic viewpoint…..

    Bac, I’ll save you a nice seat in the Gulags.

  79. LC Moriarty Comment by LC Moriarty

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    BTW, Shamalamaramadan, you really need to start using napkins. Those Kyoto KlimateChange KoolAid® stains don’t do anything for you.

    Uhhhhh… BC…

    That ain’t KoolAid…

  80. DдrтH бдкфи Comment by DдrтH бдкфи

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    That ain’t KoolAid…

    Especially if Tipper’s asking…

  81. Sir Guido Cabrone, LC, M.o.P. Comment by Sir Guido Cabrone, LC, M.o.P.

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Does this mean it’s Open Season, No Bag Limit on brown shirts?

  82. Sir Guido Cabrone, LC, M.o.P. Comment by Sir Guido Cabrone, LC, M.o.P.

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Tell us, KwazyinMange, inquiring minds want to know!

  83. LC HJ Caveman82952 Comment by LC HJ Caveman82952

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    A whole new meaning to brown baggin’ it, huh Guido…or is it bagging browns. I find these threats amusing, especially considering the attitudes, acquisition and competence folks like us generally display regarding firearms and usage of the same…and they are going to put us in a gulag? No dippy bitch will ever do that…….might end their life as a fishing weight but that’s it. Fucking fools, they are good for a laugh or two……

  84. DдrтH бдкфи Comment by DдrтH бдкфи

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Interesting follow-up survey of IPCCers by Junk Science.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,309919,00.html

  85. LC Hardclimber54 Comment by LC Hardclimber54

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Well Folks, time for this Canuck to throw in his two cents’ worth..

    Kayinmaine instructed us that the science is ’settled’? I don’t know about you, but I’m scared of that gulag she was talking about,

    Seems to me that anyone wanting to try and convict the “deniers” should read up on the French and Spanish Inquisitions… There’s a perfect example of the “righteous” imposing their philosophies on the “heretics” now-days called “deniers”. I am not scared of that gulag DдrтH бдкфи , quite the contrary. Just TRY to come and “arrest me in the name of the Global Warming Consensus King” and see what happens… They are so convinced of holding the truth, anyone offering a diffferent point of view is ripe for kangooro courts and execution. We have become “deniers” in their eyes because we refuse to bow before their new-found god, and they need sacrifices to validate its existence. I am an atheist, so that makes me twice as dangerous to these fanatics. Once all is read and published, there will still be a lack of consensus on the subject of climate. As mentionned, this is, at the very best, a guess-timate (I’m taking liberty with words here, bear with me…) so-called science. No, I do not want the world to be turned into a “corporate oil field” but just make sure you park the car and start taking the local horse buggy to work from now on, then we’ll pay attention…

    Or better yet, get a life you eco-freaks!

    psychochick Thank you for the correction. As far as never saying anything insulting, well, there are some issues that will get me to melt my anger shields, you should see me on a bad day, ain’t pretty, but I do admire your own convictions and being your own person. The world is sadly lacking in that department… Hope we share the same cell when the Goreacle’s storm troopers come for us “deniers”… It’ll make for great story telling!

  86. LC Hardclimber54 Comment by LC Hardclimber54

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Ooookkk, how in !@#$%^&* did I get to bold the wrong items again! And they trusted me to fly our fighters…

    Sorry, can someone in the Emperial Management team be so king as to repair my f.ck up once again. I promise to be more careful next time…

    Hate when that happens, you have no idea…

  87. Deathknyte Comment by Deathknyte

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Hardclimber you missed an opening bold statement before “DдrтH бдкфи “.

  88. LC Hardclimber54 Comment by LC Hardclimber54

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Deathknyte

    Sorry about that, got carried away, and ended up bolding the wrong items!

    And now, I can’t find the quote I wanted! I am having a bad day!!!