Global Warmers are Flat Earthers?

Who'da thunk it!?!?


THE FLAT EARTH

Quote:

---

All of the computer models of the climate have adopted the flat earth theory of the earth's energy, as portrayed in Kiehl J. T. and K. E. Trenberth 1997. Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget. Bull. Am. Met. Soc. 78 197-208.

---

http://climaterealists.com/attachmen...gyBalance2.jpg

Quote:

---

“The attached graph is in all of the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, and it is fundamental to all their activities. It assumes that the earth can be considered to be flat, that the sun shines all day and all night with equal intensity, and that the temperature of the earth’s surface is constant.”

---

If that's true, it's pretty fucking funny.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nlZ7aIw2Fl...50/s1600/z.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

If that's true, it's pretty fucking funny.

---

Well, just just how they represent simple explanations of the greenhouse effect. If it was that simple to model, we could have accurate models. Problem is, there are hundreds of variables they model, and thousands of small global regions in the model, with attempted interation.

The models are no better than they are programmed, and they are programmed with a specific mindset.

Any arithmetician knows that it is impossible to do so once you get past so many variables of unknown values. Anytime you hear about predicted values, just remember, the models already have numerous built in assumptions. It is statistically impossible they have the models correct.

"they are programmed with a specific mindset."

You Lie

your "mind" is set and duped by corporate propaganda.

Oops.


http://www.climate-movie.com/wordpre...09-500x375.jpg


http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a...d71e970c-800wi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"they are programmed with a specific mindset."

You Lie

your "mind" is set and duped by corporate propaganda.

---

Evidence please, or are you dreaming again?

I remember getting called out months back for making the observation that it was suspicious that a scientific issue like GW was clearly being fought along partisan lines. People said "no, no, no... this is all about the science!"

And yet Fox News, the conservative blogosphere, and this board repeatedly confirm that the only people who consistently take issue with the theory are the die-hard, according-to-Hoyle right-wingers.

So I guess I'm still wondering: don't you find it at all curious that you guys -- none of whom have ever taken so much as a climatology course -- are constantly shilling cut-and-paste jobs attempting to undercut the theory of GW? Isn't it weird that there are plenty of liberal, centrist, and independent posters on this board who are just as educated and intelligent as you (political inclinations notwithstanding) that do not share your obsession with -- or out-sized skepticism of -- climate change?

Because y'all's comments almost exclusively seem to consist of cutting-and-pasting, making elementary deductions about raw data you've never looked at, and using old saws you learned in physics and statistics classes (much as those who choose to argue with you), I don't think the argument can be made that conservative philosophy better prepares you to be more capable of scientific analysis or critical thought than anybody else, so how do you account for the overwhelming majority of climate change denial coming from your ranks? Why do you think it's become a partisan issue?

Is it just the Al Gore connection? Is it because the theory threatens the petrochemical industry or the status-quo of global industrialization? Is it because investment in alternative energy will be expensive? If so, why not argue about it on those grounds, instead of pretending you have any grasp of the science being used besides the pre-digested cliff's notes versions you glean from other sources? Why politicize science when what you really want to do is talk about the political implications/consequences of scientific findings?

These are all honest questions meant in good faith. I really am curious what you guys make of the disproportionate level of skepticism in your political spectrum and am not trying to demean anybody or start shit, just calling it as I see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar

I remember getting called out months back for making the observation that it was suspicious that a scientific issue like GW was clearly being fought along partisan lines. People said "no, no, no... this is all about the science!"

And yet Fox News, the conservative blogosphere, and this board repeatedly confirm that the only people who consistently take issue with the theory are the die-hard, according-to-Hoyle right-wingers.

---

Here's a great video of a liberal skeptic, er, I mean "denier".

Hey, I almost forgot, it's the 40th anniversary of the 1st Earth Day.


Here are some experts predictions from that first Earth Day.


“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist

“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”
• Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist

“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
• New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”
• Martin Litton, Sierra Club director

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
• Sen. Gaylord Nelson

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Here's a great video of a liberal skeptic, er, I mean "denier".

---

If I made the case that there were nothing but conservative skeptics, I misspoke. My point is more that there seems to be a clear preponderance of skepticism among conservatives and in conservative media that I can't make sense of given we're talking about a scientific issue. How do you account for it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar

If I made the case that there were nothing but conservative skeptics, I misspoke. My point is more that there seems to be a clear preponderance of skepticism among conservatives and in conservative media that I can't make sense of given we're talking about a scientific issue. How do you account for it?

---

I'm not sure, but, for the record, I used to be a believer in AGW.

I believe that most skeptics also tend to be older. Maybe they are old enough to remember the poor track record of environmental hysterics?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I'm not sure, but, for the record, I used to be a believer in AGW.

I believe that most skeptics also tend to be older. Maybe they are old enough to remember the poor track record of environmental hysterics?

---

Maybe, but I doubt it. There seems to be a fairly even distribution of ages on both sides of the issue, and hyperbolic declarations emanate from both camps, I think.

For me it's just better to admit I don't really believe what anybody says, than pretend I have the competence to separate science from learned superstition as relates to global temperature trends. But that's just me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar

Maybe, but I doubt it. There seems to be a fairly even distribution of ages on both sides of the issue, and hyperbolic declarations emanate from both camps, I think.

---

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/...rhns0g0hpw.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

For me it's just better to admit I don't really believe what anybody says, than pretend I have the competence to separate science from learned superstition as relates to global temperature trends. But that's just me.

---

At this point, I'm in the same boat. Besides the amount of effort it would take to honestly become conversant in the strengths and weaknesses of the science employed, there's simply too much political noise surrounding the issue to trust my sources.

It's precisely why I hijacked this thread, I guess: I want to know more about the people who feel passionate about it.

Distrust becomes more general at age thirty, peaking between 30 and 50, but remaining fairly steady.

The data posted goes somewhat against the thesis that skepticism varies directly with age, which you seemed to be suggesting a minute ago

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/...rhns0g0hpw.gif

---

Again, you may be right, but there are all kinds of ways that data could have been come by (for example: you could feel that the coverage is exaggerated and still believe in GW), and it still ignores the issue of partisanship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar

At this point, I'm in the same boat.

---

Bullshit. You're a debunker-flack. You already picked sides. Please keep your propagandistic slippers off my allegedly neutral cape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar

It's precisely why I hijacked this thread, I guess: I want to know more about the people who feel passionate about it.

---

Sincerely?

You don't show it. JMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Distrust becomes more general at age thirty, peaking between 30 and 50, but remaining fairly steady.

The data posted goes somewhat against the thesis that skepticism varies directly with age, which you seemed to be suggesting a minute ago

---

Are you looking at the same data? The 2010 data?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Bullshit. You're a debunker-flack. You already picked sides. Please keep your propagandistic slippers off my allegedly neutral cape.

---

Snippy much?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Bullshit. You're a debunker-flack. You already picked sides. Please keep your propagandistic slippers off my allegedly neutral cape.

Sincerely?

You don't show it. JMO.

---

If there's sarcasm at work, it's a little beyond my means to suss it... but yeah: I'm sincerely curious about why a scientific issue -- and not the consequences that might fall out of it -- is being, on the one hand, attacked by the conservative political media, and on the other, accepted seemingly uncritically by the liberal and mainstream media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar

If there's sarcasm at work, it's a little beyond my means to suss it... but yeah: I'm sincerely curious about why a scientific issue -- and not the consequences that might fall out of it -- is being attacked by the political media.

---

Maybe because it's a political issue and not merely a scientific one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Snippy much?

---

Pretending you occupy the middle ground here seems monstrously insincere to me, and I'm only a casual observer in this debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Maybe because it's a political issue and not merely a scientific one.

---

I absolutely agree insofar as we're talking about the consequences of global warming being true, but what I'm seeing is the politicization of the science itself, which doesn't make sense to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar

I absolutely agree insofar as we're talking about the consequences of global warming being true, but what I'm seeing is the politicization of the science itself, which doesn't make sense to me.

---

I agree that the science has become politicized. Who did that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar

If there's sarcasm at work, it's a little beyond my means to suss it... but yeah: I'm sincerely curious about why a scientific issue -- and not the consequences that might fall out of it -- is being, on the one hand, attacked by the conservative political media, and on the other, accepted seemingly uncritically by the liberal and mainstream media.

---

If talking heads previously passed on the exaggerated imminence of the eco-collapse more or less uncritically, why should it surprise anyone now that they wave it away more or less uncritically, more or less according to the changed political mood?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I agree that the science has become politicized. Who did that?

---

Al Gore brought attention to it -- no doubt about it -- but the vast majority of climate scientists didn't seem to take issue with the science of his presentation, so I can't in good faith put it on him for misrepresenting data for political ends. At the same time, Bush 43 did the opposite and had a "What, me worry" position regarding climate issues, so we could put it on him, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Are you looking at the same data? The 2010 data?

---

What explains the evenness of data for people over thirty if you get more suspicious as you get older?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar

Al Gore brought attention to it -- no doubt about it -- but the vast majority of climate scientists didn't seem to take issue with the science of his presentation, so I can't in good faith put it on him for misrepresenting data for political ends. At the same time, Bush 43 did the opposite and had a "What, me worry" position regarding climate issues, so we could put it on him, too.

---

Except that a British court identified 11 errors in the film and concluded that the film couldn't be shown in public schools unless it was made clear that:

1. The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.
2. If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.
3. Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.



The 11 errors are (according to the ruling):

•The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

•The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

•The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.

•The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.

•The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

•The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

•The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

•The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

•The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

•The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

•The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

In the matter of securing research grants, sensitivity to changing political moods is often key: no money, no study.

Bonne chance, science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

What explains the evenness of data for people over thirty if you get more suspicious as you get older?

---

I never said it was linear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

If talking heads previously passed on the exaggerated imminence of the eco-collapse more or less uncritically, why should it surprise anyone now that they wave it away more or less uncritically, more or less according to the changed political mood?

---

It doesn't strike me as being remotely ironic that the same media outlets are treating the issue the same way they always have.

It does, however seem ironic (or, more likely, just status-quo misdirection) that we, as a country, have allowed the conversation to be shifted away from policy issues we can all grasp, to scientific intricacies we're conditioned to argue about without knowing whereof we speak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I never said it was linear.

---

Well, you didn't say it wasn't either, until now. You just said people get more contrary as they get older. That's only part true.

My point in replying was only to suggest that the data you posted more backed up AS than it did you. The tables were only an apparent riposte: in fact, the data you posted kicked your ass. Again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Well, you didn't say it wasn't either, until now.

---

What is the antecedent of your pronoun here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

In the matter of securing research grants, sensitivity to changing political moods is often key: no money, no study.

Bonne chance, science.

---

Same can be said for petrochemical companies having a vested interest in keeping their product viable, but we don't talk about either of these issues as often as we do about the science.

His would-be thesis. Correlation of skepticism with age, as recently restated.

It's a nonce.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

His would-be thesis. Correlation of skepticism with age, as recently restated.

---

Ah, gotcha -- not running on much sleep today. Too much celebration last night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar

Same can be said for petrochemical companies having a vested interest in keeping their product viable, but we don't talk about either of these issues as often as we do about the science.

---

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumb_1...3150FHh2c6.jpg

Quote:

---

Pincers!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar

we, as a country, have allowed the conversation to be shifted away from policy issues we can all grasp, to scientific intricacies we're conditioned to argue about without knowing whereof we speak

---

My candidate for best condensation of the thread so far. :tu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Well, you didn't say it wasn't either, until now. You just said people get more contrary as they get older. That's only part true.

My point in replying was only to suggest that the data you posted more backed up AS than it did you. The tables were only an apparent riposte: in fact, the data you posted kicked your ass. Again.

---

You're smart.


EDIT> Oh, and here's what I originally stated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I believe that most skeptics also tend to be older.

---

Nothing in that graph is inconsistent with this statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Nothing in that graph is inconsistent with this statement.

---

Fair enough. I misunderstood.

I apologize for allowing my whimsy to get the better of me. Srsly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Except that a British court identified 11 errors in the film and concluded that the film couldn't be shown in public schools unless it was made clear that:

1. The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.
2. If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.
3. Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.



The 11 errors are (according to the ruling):

•The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

•The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

•The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.

•The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.

•The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

•The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

•The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

•The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

•The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

•The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

•The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

---

Most if not all of those bullets are fair criticisms, but, again, Bush walked out on the Kyoto protocols causing what seemed to me at the time to be a much greater, and obviously political, level of controversy. He even went so far as to plainly explain his motives as being driven purely by economic projections (something to the effect of "if I'd signed that thing it would have ruined the American economy.")

Anyway, although I think Gore's film, on the whole, made a sincere (if narcissistic) effort to scientifically show why Bush's course of action was potentially short-sighted, I guess you're making me a believer that he was the first to make science the forum in which the argument would be had. Why it has remained there is, unfortunately, why health-care and finance reform have been moved into the realm of the ineluctable, I reckon: the harder they make it for us saps to grasp the substance of the issues, the easier it will be to pass things we don't understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar

Why it has remained there is, unfortunately, why health-care and finance reform have been moved into the realm of the ineluctable, I reckon: the harder they make it for us saps to grasp the substance of the issues, the easier it will be to pass things we don't understand.

---

Ah, the stab of life. Third item, below:

Quote:

---

Proverbs for Paranoids:

1. You may never get to touch the Master, but you can tickle his creatures.

2. The innocence of the creatures is in inverse proportion to the immorality of the Master.

3. If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.

4. You hide, they seek.

5. Paranoids are not paranoid because they're paranoid, but because they keep putting themselves, fucking idiots, deliberately into paranoid situations.

---

Left-wing academics tell us global warming is happening, and that it's going to be catastrophic, and that in order to stave it off we must massively centralize the world's developed economies and curtail personal freedoms.

In massively centralized economies, since decisions on resource allocations have to be made at a high level (rather than having large numbers of businessmen making localized decisions in a dispersed market), the decisions fall to state-appointed experts, who invariably end up being the left-wing academics.

I don't know about you, but when a class of people is making the argument that they need to be given unprecedented power and control over the world in order to save it, they better damn well have airtight proof. I'm not going on some fucking "precautionary principle."

Now when I start to find out that some of these scientists have been cooking the books on the data, or corrupting peer review, or whatnot, it starts to look a lot less like disinterested science and more like a class of people lying and cheating in order to take power.

This is straight Marxism! Marx was astounded that the merchant classes pulled off the first true class revolution when they overthrew the nobles. And now, the academics want to do the same, to overthrow the businessmen, convincing themselves they do it on behalf of "the people." Bullshit! They are craven bastards looking out for their own power and wealth, like all tyrants before them.

This is why when right-wing military dictatorships carry out coups d'etat one of the first things they do is imprison or kill off the intellectual classes, and why we should do the same.

Your entire thesis rests on the assumption that alternative energy sources would be state-owned, but do you have any evidence of any such thing?

If anything, wouldn't being less reliant on petroleum and coal and moreso on wind, solar, geothermal, chemical, etc de-centralize power and allow energy to be provided by a much larger pool of entrepreneurs who don't have the natural resources of, say, Texans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar

I remember getting called out months back for making the observation that it was suspicious that a scientific issue like GW was clearly being fought along partisan lines. People said "no, no, no... this is all about the science!"

And yet Fox News, the conservative blogosphere, and this board repeatedly confirm that the only people who consistently take issue with the theory are the die-hard, according-to-Hoyle right-wingers.

So I guess I'm still wondering: don't you find it at all curious that you guys -- none of whom have ever taken so much as a climatology course -- are constantly shilling cut-and-paste jobs attempting to undercut the theory of GW? Isn't it weird that there are plenty of liberal, centrist, and independent posters on this board who are just as educated and intelligent as you (political inclinations notwithstanding) that do not share your obsession with -- or out-sized skepticism of -- climate change?

Because y'all's comments almost exclusively seem to consist of cutting-and-pasting, making elementary deductions about raw data you've never looked at, and using old saws you learned in physics and statistics classes (much as those who choose to argue with you), I don't think the argument can be made that conservative philosophy better prepares you to be more capable of scientific analysis or critical thought than anybody else, so how do you account for the overwhelming majority of climate change denial coming from your ranks? Why do you think it's become a partisan issue?

Is it just the Al Gore connection? Is it because the theory threatens the petrochemical industry or the status-quo of global industrialization? Is it because investment in alternative energy will be expensive? If so, why not argue about it on those grounds, instead of pretending you have any grasp of the science being used besides the pre-digested cliff's notes versions you glean from other sources? Why politicize science when what you really want to do is talk about the political implications/consequences of scientific findings?

These are all honest questions meant in good faith. I really am curious what you guys make of the disproportionate level of skepticism in your political spectrum and am not trying to demean anybody or start shit, just calling it as I see it.

---

I have a BS in Geology... so... I studied climates that ACTUALLY happened... not ones that are PREDICTED to... does that count?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sec24Row7

I have a BS in Geology... so... I studied climates that ACTUALLY happened... not ones that are PREDICTED to... does that count?

---

I certainly don't see how it could hurt, and you probably have a jump on most of us with respect to some of the theoretical foundations in the discussion -- but would you also grant that geology and climatology have very different purviews? And that geology is limited, as you say, to what has happened, while most climatologists (be they right or wrong) argue that this strain of GW is unprecedented in the sense that it's cause is human, not geological or celestial or what-have-you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homeland Security

This is straight Marxism! Marx was astounded that the merchant classes pulled off the first true class revolution when they overthrew the nobles. And now, the academics want to do the same, to overthrow the businessmen, convincing themselves they do it on behalf of "the people." Bullshit! They are craven bastards looking out for their own power and wealth, like all tyrants before them.

---

I can see that. There's a definite whiff of New Class self-aggrandizement about it. I doubt global technocrats are very close to toppling political power, but it is a scary notion.

"we must massively centralize the world's developed economies and curtail personal freedoms."

You Lie.

Upping tax on transport fuel up to $7-$9/gal over an multi-year, inflation-indexed schedule allows people freedom of choice about what vehicles to buy, where to live in relation to their workplaces, etc, etc. No authoritarian dictation.

"people lying and cheating in order to take power"

Repugs? yes. Climate scientists from around the world? GMAFB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homeland Security

This is why when right-wing military dictatorships carry out coups d'etat one of the first things they do is imprison or kill off the intellectual classes, and why we should do the same.

---

In view of the will to power of pointy-headed academics and other cultural flaneurs, they all ought to be preventively jailed or shot.

I never thought of it as a problem that the US doesn't emulate the social hygiene of someone like Pol Pot, but I guess there's a first time for everything

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

I can see that. There's a definite whiff of New Class self-aggrandizement about it. I doubt global technocrats are as close to toppling political power as you seem to be suggesting, but it is a scary notion.

---

Although I can just as easily (more easily, actually) see alternative energy innovators striking out on their own to pursue their fortunes rather than banding together to create some nightmarish pseudo-meritocracy of academians (is that a word? Spellcheck says no. :lol)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar

Although I can just as easily (more easily, actually) see alternative energy innovators striking out on their own

---

They would probably only be creating their own nightmarish pseudo-meritocracy in so doing, but yeah, that strikes me as likely. It might even be a good bet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HomelandSecurity

I don't know about you, but when a class of people is making the argument that they need to be given unprecedented power and control over the world in order to save it, they better damn well have airtight proof. I'm not going on some fucking "precautionary principle."

---

I find this prejudice hard to rebut, but I have little doubt RG stands ready to, whenever he drops into the thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar

Your entire thesis rests on the assumption that alternative energy sources would be state-owned, but do you have any evidence of any such thing?

If anything, wouldn't being less reliant on petroleum and coal and moreso on wind, solar, geothermal, chemical, etc de-centralize power and allow energy to be provided by a much larger pool of entrepreneurs who don't have the natural resources of, say, Texans?

---

Prominent left-wing economist calls for nationalization of energy industry because of global warming

Wake the fuck up. The appropriate response to people like Brad Delong who hold political sway is assassination. Leftists are cowards deep down and will defer to violence. Look at that whole "South Park" thing and how they backed down to the Muslims.

Once you get over this asinine antiquated notion that liberals are your countrymen, understand they are ten times the enemy Al-Qaeda is, and just start killing them, scores of problems die with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"we must massively centralize the world's developed economies and curtail personal freedoms."

You Lie.

Upping tax on transport fuel up to $7-$9/gal over an multi-year, inflation-indexed schedule allows people freedom of choice about what vehicles to buy, where to live in relation to their workplaces, etc, etc. No authoritarian dictation.

"people lying and cheating in order to take power"

Repugs? yes. Climate scientists from around the world? GMAFB

---

No point in even debating subhuman shit like you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homeland Security

Left-wing academics tell us global warming is happening, and that it's going to be catastrophic, and that in order to stave it off we must massively centralize the world's developed economies and curtail personal freedoms.

In massively centralized economies, since decisions on resource allocations have to be made at a high level (rather than having large numbers of businessmen making localized decisions in a dispersed market), the decisions fall to state-appointed experts, who invariably end up being the left-wing academics.

I don't know about you, but when a class of people is making the argument that they need to be given unprecedented power and control over the world in order to save it, they better damn well have airtight proof. I'm not going on some fucking "precautionary principle."

Now when I start to find out that some of these scientists have been cooking the books on the data, or corrupting peer review, or whatnot, it starts to look a lot less like disinterested science and more like a class of people lying and cheating in order to take power.

This is straight Marxism! Marx was astounded that the merchant classes pulled off the first true class revolution when they overthrew the nobles. And now, the academics want to do the same, to overthrow the businessmen, convincing themselves they do it on behalf of "the people." Bullshit! They are craven bastards looking out for their own power and wealth, like all tyrants before them.

This is why when right-wing military dictatorships carry out coups d'etat one of the first things they do is imprison or kill off the intellectual classes, and why we should do the same.

---

I loved your post until you started talking about taking out entire groups of people. Intellectuals will always step on their own foot. The American culture respects experience far more than education.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar

I certainly don't see how it could hurt, and you probably have a jump on most of us with respect to some of the theoretical foundations in the discussion -- but would you also grant that geology and climatology have very different purviews? And that geology is limited, as you say, to what has happened, while most climatologists (be they right or wrong) argue that this strain of GW is unprecedented in the sense that it's cause is human, not geological or celestial or what-have-you?

---

So if it is unprecedented... and you don't take what we have learned about paleoclimates into consideration... what are their theories based on? Computer predictions that have no foundation in history?

I mean why do they try to get rid of the Medieval Warm period? That's history... and puts 1998 into a natural range...

Why do they not tell people that you had significant glacial growing periods in the little ice age and in outlier years like 1815 (the year without a summer) because of volcanic ash clouds, but glaciers have been steadily receding since the end of the last ice age?

I am upset at the modelologists for their cherry picking of history... and their complete lack of regard for any scientific viewpoint that disagrees with theirs.

Another big irk is their immediate discredit to anyone who has petroleum ties. The MOST LIKELY industry for ANYONE who has studied geology paleo climates is the petroleum industry. The vast majority of EXPERIENCED scientists are ignored for those few who have stayed strictly in academia because they are believed to have a conflict of interest and an agenda.

Grants for a research scientist are just as big a conflict as a petroleum scientist's employer. They should get an equal voice in the media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homeland Security

Prominent left-wing economist calls for nationalization of energy industry because of global warming

Wake the fuck up. The appropriate response to people like Brad Delong who hold political sway is assassination. Leftists are cowards deep down and will defer to violence. Look at that whole "South Park" thing and how they backed down to the Muslims.

Once you get over this asinine antiquated notion that liberals are your countrymen, understand they are ten times the enemy Al-Qaeda is, and just start killing them, scores of problems die with them.

---

So on the basis of one guy's opinion you think you've seen beyond the veil? There were plenty of people calling for the nationalization of the banks, but that never happened.

As to the rest of your anti-American, internets-toughguy rubric... have at it, hoss. I'm sure you can find lots of playmates in prison.

I've backpedaled slightly on Global Warming. As such, I consider myself agnostic on the issues of A) whether humans are the main cause of global warming and B) the severity of the situation. I lean towards "yes" and "somewhat severe", but not enough to the point where I'm willing to make a political decision based off of it. (Meaning it goes right back to my "abortion" category.)

I continue to do my part recycling and trying to avoid waste, and encourage others to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sec24Row7

So if it is unprecedented... and you don't take what we have learned about paleoclimates into consideration... what are their theories based on? Computer predictions that have no foundation in history?

I mean why do they try to get rid of the Medieval Warm period? That's history... and puts 1998 into a natural range...

Why do they not tell people that you had significant glacial growing periods in the little ice age and in outlier years like 1815 (the year without a summer) because of volcanic ash clouds, but glaciers have been steadily receding since the end of the last ice age?

I am upset at the modelologists for their cherry picking of history... and their complete lack of regard for any scientific viewpoint that disagrees with theirs.

Another big irk is their immediate discredit to anyone who has petroleum ties. The MOST LIKELY industry for ANYONE who has studied geology paleo climates is the petroleum industry. The vast majority of EXPERIENCED scientists are ignored for those few who have stayed strictly in academia because they are believed to have a conflict of interest and an agenda.

---

If that's how you see it, that's great -- I don't pretend to know enough about the science to discuss it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sec24Row7

Grants for a research scientist are just as big a conflict as a petroleum scientist's employer. They should get an equal voice in the media.

---

Nobody contested this when it was brought up earlier, so I guess we all agree on the point.

Homeland Security continues his reign as the most effective troll ever.

If AS and SnC were familiar with the poster who created the troll, I would agree 100%, but they may not be.

I was totally fooled by HS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

If AS and SnC were familiar with the poster who created the troll, I would agree 100%, but they may not be.

I was totally fooled by HS.

---

He got me, too. Oops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar

He got me, too. Oops.

---

HS's impressions used to be more whimsical and light on their feet, now they seem more like blank parody. If they are parody.

The creation of ambiguity on this point might be another deliberate snare.

I thought HS's point that regardless of the science at issue, there might be good reasons to dislike the political solutions launched to face it, was a salient one.

You can know nothing at all about the science and still dislike the related political initiatives. One doesn't need any specialized technical competence to prove that sort of distrust. Only open eyes.

Global warming deniers are Flat Liners.

"No point in even debating subhuman shit like you."

Do like the other chickenshit faux-macho victims of my bitch-slapping, put me on IGNORE.

Quote:

---

Do like the other chickenshit faux-macho victims of my bitch-slapping, put me on IGNORE.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old joke

This male fly landed on top of a female elephant and started screwing her. A coconut fell and landed on the elephant's head; she threw her head back and let out a loud moan!

The fly looked up and said, "Suffer, bitch."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

I loved your post until you started talking about taking out entire groups of people.

---

According to legend, HS was at first a spoof of very typical bloodthirsty republicans back in the GWB day, but then Hi-skool Security's methods became...unsound...

...out here with these natives, there must be a temptation...

...he's out there operating without any decent restraint, totally beyond the pale of any acceptable...human conduct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

The American culture respects experience far more than education.

---

Not all the American people hate knowledge as much as you do, so you shouldn't speak for them. Sadly, enough do that our technical schools lag behind those of other nations like India who value education much more than people like you.