Global Warmers are Flat Earthers?

[Yonivore]

Who'da thunk it!?!?


THE FLAT EARTH

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.

“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 ing funny.

[Wild Cobra]

If that's true, it's pretty ing 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.

[boutons_deux]

"they are programmed with a specific mindset."

You Lie

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

[DarrinS]

Oops.

[Wild Cobra]

"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?

[admiralsnackbar]

I remember getting called out months back for making the observation that it was su ious 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 , just calling it as I see it.

[DarrinS]

I remember getting called out months back for making the observation that it was su ious 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".

[DarrinS]

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 Ins ute, 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

[admiralsnackbar]

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?

[DarrinS]

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?

[admiralsnackbar]

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.

[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 supers ion as relates to global temperature trends. But that's just me.

[DarrinS]

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.

[admiralsnackbar]

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 supers ion 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.

[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

[admiralsnackbar]

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.

[Winehole23]

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

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

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.

[DarrinS]

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?

[DarrinS]

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

Snippy much?

[admiralsnackbar]

Bull . 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.

[DarrinS]

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.

[Winehole23]

Snippy much?

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

[admiralsnackbar]

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.

[DarrinS]

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?

[Winehole23]

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?