There’s a clear connection between “we create our own reality” and forcing false confessions.

Don’t over-estimate the Brits, Amanda. It’s about masochism as much as anything. In terms of of real action on global warming, pollution, recycling etc., the UK is way closer to US standards than to the rest of the EU - it consistently comes close to the bottom of all the sustainability league tables, it’s the most car-heavy society in Europe, etc.

It’s just that the Brits don’t mind existing in a climate of being beaten over the head with how awful they are and how they’re going to ruin the planet single-handed (well, double handed - in this as in the Iraq war, they’re hiding behind the US and using its more eggregious offenses as some sort of bizarre justification).

I’m not down with torture, or with denial of simple reality; but acknowledging reality is only the first step. If you’re not willing to take the steps that are clearly indicated by your observation, then the constant low level sense of background guilt being “aware” generates is just creepy.

The conservative view on environmental protection is one that I just never understood.  I mean, it’s pretty clear why they feel the way they do on most other issues, but I just don’t see what they have against against the environment.  It can’t just be that they enjoy polluting, because liberals love to pollute too.  But sometimes it seems like conservatives don’t just not care about the environment, but that they are actually at war with it and trying to intentionally destroy it.

catgirl:  The conservatives are at war with everybody.  For dog’s sake, they’re at war with an emotion (the War on Terror? wtf?).  Plus, they love love LOVE their corporate giants, and we all know that businesses can’t make money if they act in a responsible fashion.

But I’ve never understood why, even if you don’t think global warming is a problem, they want to stay dependent on a finite resource that is mostly held in the hands of their sworn enemies.  You would think they would want to find a viable alternative so they can thumb their noses at the Middle East.  A side effect would be an improvement in the environment.

While getting ready to go out or winding down, we’ve of course been watching a lot of TV here, and one thing I’ve noticed that’s interesting is there is a LOT of stuff on about global warming.

Even CNN International prevents more honest coverage about these issues than does its domestic counterpart. I was travelling abroad last fall during the economic crisis, and the news (both English-languge and local) on that crisis was pretty stark and frank, too. When I returned to the States, I looked at CNN and CNBC out of curiousity—sure enough, they were still pretending this was a temporary blip. It was like returning from the real world to happyland.

American conservatives may reject the “reality-based community,” but the MSM is right there backing up their delusions—especially on issues like science and economics which the “expert reporters” barely understand (or don’t really want to understand) themselves.

But the thing is, even if they don’t believe in global warming, or that pollution is a problem, they still should see polluting as morally neutral, and not actually as a good thing.  So why get mad when someone chooses not to pollute, if pollution is only “not bad” rather than “good”.  At worst, they should just be completely indifferent to pollution, but I have known some who actually make a point of polluting more.

Oh, and forget the TV news bozos. You know the top business journalists at outlets like the NYT who was supposed to be warning readers that easy mortgages were leading us down the road to perdition during the Bush years? Guess what some of them were doing? (don’t worry, he’ll pay it off with proceeds from the resulting book deal)

So why get mad when someone chooses not to pollute, if pollution is only “not bad” rather than “good”.

Well, you see, they’re not being competitive in the free market by cutting costs (or, in the case of consumers, by buying more). It’s anti-capitalist! It’s socialist!

It seems absurd to us, but that’s how these morons think.

But I’ve never understood why, even if you don’t think global warming is a problem, they want to stay dependent on a finite resource that is mostly held in the hands of their sworn enemies.

Because their real sworn enemies are the Dirty Fucking Hippies. When Homer said “Lisa, if we conserve energy then the environmentalists win”, he was exactly articulating the real issue: tribal politics.

Amanda, I agree with your OP, as far as it goes. (And note that global warming denial didn’t become a cottage industry until the Bush II years.) But there’s a strong strain of reality denial in our culture that crosses political lines. You’ve posted before about anti-vaccination cranks, even recently. I’m sure some are conservative, as hippie-crunchiness has taken hold in the homeschooling/back-to-the-land fundie subculture. But most of them aren’t.

Then there are the homeopathy believers, and the various NewAge/SewAge types… and then there was this appalling thread on Feministe in which various people declared their support for “mad activists” who aren’t simply seeking better treatment and dignity for mentally ill people, but who strenuously deny that psychiatric illness is anything but a label of oppression. (Note Opoponax getting screamed at in there for disagreeing with them.) As someone who’s known people whose lives were destroyed or severely derailed by mental illness, and others whose lives were reclaimed by medication and therapy and sometimes even forced hospitalization, I found that discussion frightening and enraging. (So did a friend of mine who suffered abuse at the hands of a mentally ill parent who probably wouldn’t have been so abusive had they sought proper treatment.)

Not that we lived in some gloryland of rationality before the schools were massively defunded and the Fairness Doctrine struck down, but I think that better education, plus a media that actually did its job (not just the news but also people like Oprah Winfrey), would go a long way toward keeping a lid on these various forms of denialism.

Also, what Dunc said. If they have to choose between their own survival and well-being (and that of their kids), and spiting the DFHs, they will cut off their noses to spite their faces every time. Similar to how they subscribe economic policies that screw the majority of them over, although the ultimate goal there is to retain some sort of status — even if it’s totally illusory — above “the undeserving.”

This is a pretty rubbish comment, but I’ve been reading Pandagon for a while and, as a Londoner, am dead excited to see you’re in London. Dead excited mixed with slightly embarrassed - the MP expenses scandal makes us seem like Italty ..

(British broadcasting has similar reality-based trip ups, though, as I’m sure you know. The BBC’s constitutional requirement for balance sometimes sees them bringing on two interviewees, one representing 99.8% of the legitimate scientific community, and the other representing the remaining 0.2%, and then treating them as if they are equally ‘expert’. Because that’s ‘neutral’.)

Regarding torture, since first reading 1984 (I believe I read it the first time in 1983), I’ve always assumed that the entire purpose of torture was simply to break human beings out of spite, revenge, a childish need to humiliate your “enemy”, etc.  Getting bogus intelligence you can use to further your aims is just a lucky side effect.

As far as Global Warming, I think Americans at the top of the political food chain believe they will thrive no matter how long oil is still available.  And as far as they are concerned, they’re almost certainly correct in this cynical and callous evaluation.  And while things are winding down, the opportunities for profit are excellent.  If necessary, Dick Cheney will get a sedan chair carried by homeless people if he can’t use a huge and thirsty SUV to get around in.  This entitlement mentality is just the ultimate expression of “We’re spending our children’s inheritance”.

With wealth and influence, you can escape the consequences of your actions quite easily.  Too hot?  Live closer to the poles.  Florida under water?  Enjoy brand new beach front property somewhere else.  Remember, just as with the Wall Street meltdown, consequences are only for those who aren’t powerful enough to force others to accept their rightful share…

Interesting.  I can’t remember when I watched the Discovery Channel or the Science Channel and didn’t see some kind of reference to climate change during a show on animals or plant biology, etc.  Where I’m really interested by the increase in talking about climate change is on the major networks and news stations.  Once network execs realized they could sell people “green” crap they don’t need, environmentalism didn’t become the enemy of their revenue stream: it became an addition to it.  Denialism becomes more crackpotty when it can interfere in sales figures.

I think this has a lot more to do with why you see reporting on global warming and other environmental issues now than you did, say, two years ago.  Enough eco-friendly, recycled, low-emission, reused (fill in Carlinesque rant here) and other products are available on the market that networks can generate advertising income from featuring these products in their home makeover shows or their “million things I must own!” shows or their DIY shows, etc.

The battle for the heart of environmentalism is being won by the bourgeois.  That’s not necessarily a bad thing - green consumerism is better than wasteful consumerism - and if it gets people to be the slightest bit more aware of their habits then that’s good.  But still, when you can open up a women’s mag and see $900 Chanel recycling bags - the kind you put your food in at the supermarket, instead of plastic bags - it’s hard to not think something is seriously fucked up in the direction the rich are taking the green revolution.

On all issues raised here, our abysmal science education plays a role in people’s positions. So what if the hypothalamus shrinks in untreated depression, mental illness is just a label. Carbon dioxide is a “harmless gas”, never mind that it’s dangerously out of proportion and throwing off the earth’s entire equilibrium. Sleep deprivation is harmless, and we’ll quote a tiny part of research that quite clearly says otherwise just to prove it. Science is not necessarily an altar at which we should worship, but a passing familiarity with pertinent information would be helpful in these situations.

Fast Fact:

Reality is determined by whoever has the most power.

Sad, but 100% true.

Reality is determined by whoever has the most power.

Interesting ... so you’re saying there’s no distinction between reality (e.g. the First Law of Thermodynamics) and public perception thereof?

The First Law of Thermodynamics… basically - energy can change forms but cannot be created or destroyed is a scientific principle.

My comment is applicable to social reality, which is what we discuss the most on this site.

And who has the power?

Depends on the situation.

Because their real sworn enemies are the Dirty Fucking Hippies. When Homer said “Lisa, if we conserve energy then the environmentalists win”, he was exactly articulating the real issue: tribal politics.

I think you got it just right.  It’s not they hate the environment, it’s that they just want to be right about something.  It’s not about what’s good or bad for the environment, our wallets, or even our national safety.  It’s about winning an argument, no matter what the cost is.

My comment is applicable to social reality, which is what we discuss the most on this site.

Ah, so 100% isn’t in fact 100%.

You’ll note that scientific reality is the issue under discussion in this thread, and the First Law of Thermodynamics has some relevance to the issue of global warming.

It’s important for you to clarify, because guys like FR are more than willing to believe that the First Law of Thermodynamics is some Obama-driven socialist plot if Rush tells him so.

So, if everyone just believed that pollution doesn’t cause any problems, then the problems would just disappear?  So instead of trying to take care of our planet, we’d be better off just ignoring the problem and hoping it will go away.  I guess physical problems are just like Hollywood actors!  Everyone, stop recycling, stop conserving energy, and just believe!  We don’t have to take any responsibility for our actions if we just wish hard enough.

It’s about winning an argument, no matter what the cost is.

Ask any given Libertarian whether he was on his high school debate team, and the probability is high that he’ll answer “yes.”

So, if everyone just believed that pollution doesn’t cause any problems, then the problems would just disappear?

Of course! Didn’t you read The Secret? Don’t you watch Oprah (and, coming soon, Jenny McCarthy’ Anti-Vax-O-rama?). Welcome to Idiot America.

Don’t blame Oprah. She woke middle America up to the garbage swirl polluting the Pacific ocean. Okay, that doesn’t make up for Dr. Phil, but she is doing her part to get folks to at least admit there is a huge problem.

Well, there’s a couple reasons Global Warming hasn’t really caught on in the US.

1. We’re naturally skeptical, and especially skeptical of stuff coming from “Big Government” or “experts” and the like. And, after all, science itself is based on healthy skepticism.

2. The real world evidence is pretty thin. It’s not like the weather is getting noticeably warmer or anything.

3. Its biggest proponents are goofballs like Al Gore. When Gore says “The debate on GW is OVER”, well, that’s not science. It’s more like dogmatism.

And, finally, the hypocrisy. Being lectured by Hollywood celebs on “going green” while they drive their Priuses to their Gulfstreams is a bit like being lectured on the virtues of chastity at the Playboy Mansion.

Don’t blame Oprah. She woke middle America up to the garbage swirl polluting the Pacific ocean. Okay, that doesn’t make up for Dr. Phil, but she is doing her part to get folks to at least admit there is a huge problem.

Ok, I’ll admit I’m a little tough on her, but only because her woo:reality ratio is far too “fair n balanced” for my tastes.

Fantastic, EricJG—have a phone conference now, but can’t wait to see the responses to your reality-challenged denialist idiocy.

So, if everyone just believed that pollution doesn’t cause any problems, then the problems would just disappear?

That depends on your definition of problem. As somebody remarked above, Peak Oil, for example, is not a “problem” as such to the cossetted, shletered elites at the top of the Conservative ideological ladder. They’ll just get some poor people to power their generators or something. The fact that everybody else is going to live in abject misery is not a problem as such - because it isn’t going to affect them.

This isn’t just an American problem, it’s already in evidence in other places around the world. You’ve got all kinds of oligarchs, imperialists, war lords, dictators, living in huge gated mansions replete with every kind of luxury, while the majority population around them expires from poverty and disease.

That isn’t a side effect of the capitalist dream - it is the capitalist dream. You can’t be rich unless someone somewhere is poor; increasing the number of poor people in the world is a net gain to these people.

Increasing the number of poor people (and hence, their own status) while not having to change their behaviour is a double gain. Global warming denial is practically written into their DNA.

It’s not like the weather is getting noticeably warmer or anything.

What? Even global warming denialists don’t claim this. They claim that the reality of the weather getting noticeably warmer and snow caps getting noticeably smaller is merely a temporary, normal fluctuation.

Sorry, EricJG, but you dn’t even get the denialism right.

We’re naturally skeptical

A stock market bubble and a real estate bubble puts lie to this assertion. We’re not “naturally skeptical.” We’re simply believers in things like “common sense” and trust our own intuition/our gut rather than facts and figures and expertise. To a degree, this is intrinsic to humanity, but the United States seems to codify this into its culture.

If you don’t know the difference between weather and climate, then you’re not informed on even the basics of this issue, and I don’t see how you can draw such a strong conclusion on something you know nothing about.  But the weather has actually been getting noticeably warmer where I live.

Ah, so 100% isn’t in fact 100%.

Sure it is…It’s just a different “100 %”...a differen pie as it were

You’ll note that scientific reality is the issue under discussion in this thread, and the First Law of Thermodynamics has some relevance to the issue of global warming.

I disagree with your note.

I interpreted the opening post as an invite to a discussion about how true discourse is impossible when people (conservatives) refuse to acknowledge certain basic scientific principles. (Certain people here took the thread on a scientific tangent.)

Ironically, it reminded me of how personhood for females was and is still rejected in some circles based on “science” or “scientific proof” of females’ weaknesses / imperfections compared to males or males’ superior intelligence….blah blah blah. Basically Heterosexual White males as the standard of “good” and “normalness”... It also reminded me of the “science” and “scientific proof” of Black people’s inferiority to just about everyone. This is why I stated reality = whatever those in power say.

It’s important for you to clarify, because guys like FR are more than willing to believe that the First Law of Thermodynamics is some Obama-driven socialist plot if Rush tells him so.

I disagree. Frankie deson’t appear to here to discuss issues or exchange ideas. HIs interpretation of my comments isn’t a real concern for me.

2. The real world evidence is pretty thin. It’s not like the weather is getting noticeably warmer or anything.

Yep.  Pole ice isn’t melting at unprecedented rates.  The land ice in Greenland doesn’t threaten the global thermohaline circulator, predicted rainfall increases haven’t occurred (ask our British friends about last summer’s floods), CO2 isn’t at the highest levels in tens of thousands of years, blah blah blah.

There are changes.  They are affecting the climate.  They are predictable and evidenced.  Personally, I don’t like saying the Earth is in trouble b/c I don’t think the planet gives a damn.  If we make the ecology difficult for our own survival, Earth won’t care.  It’s got plenty of other creatures in reserve to take our places, and if we all die off?  the planet will continue to orbit for another 4.5 billion years.

But we create our own reality through visualization, so let’s just keep pretending that American superiority will mean we’re the bestest forever.  We don’t actually have to do anything exceptional, we just have to say we ARE exceptional.  That will create the perfect reality.

Shit.  People didn’t make up global warming/climate change and then look for evidence.  It’s not like torturing people for WMDs.  There are published studies, including predictions that have proven out.

I just hate it when people who know nothing about what the theories of climate change entail start whining about “it’s not noticeably warmer here in Hickland, so it’s not real”. 

Reality is not a world view.  Things do happen, they are observable and predictions can be made about what will happen next.  Disliking the predictions and saying “That’s stupid” without a decent counter-argument and evidence for why you dislike the prediction is the height of entitled ignorance.

So, if everyone just believed that pollution doesn’t cause any problems, then the problems would just disappear?  So instead of trying to take care of our planet, we’d be better off just ignoring the problem and hoping it will go away.  I guess physical problems are just like Hollywood actors!  Everyone, stop recycling, stop conserving energy, and just believe!  We don’t have to take any responsibility for our actions if we just wish hard enough.

I don’t think anyone really believes that, catgirl.

People with the power use whatever method works to ensure the success of their agenda. It can involve lying to large masses of people or misleading a few key people, denying facts, making up “science”....all kinds of crap.

The problem with explaining complex synergies (such as global warming or the inputs to the stock market and real estate market collapses) is that there are no solitary causes, and the systems themselves do not react in a straight-line manner.  For instance, we have evidence that glaciers are melting at a record rate.  That is a fact.  We know that CO2 introduced into a mixture of gasses will trap heat and raise ambient temperature.  That is a fact.  Beyond that, however, we have to extrapolate, to form reasonable hypotheses…and simulate unknowable inputs.  It is reasonable that the introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere due to human activity will raise global temperatures, but it is experimentally unprovable…we don’t have a spare Earth lying around to play with. 

However, the environment is a synergy…increased global temperatures don’t necessarily mean that Fairbanks Alaska will become the new Hawaii, but perhaps that snowstorms will be more intense, Hurricanes more destructive, rainfall higher, or many other possible outcomes.  Some scientists even suggest that due to increased cloud cover the Earth may tip into an ice age as the Earth’s albedo reflects more solar radiation.

The fact that Science is based on the concept of uncertainty - we have theories which explain the observations, but not solid LAWS which are eternal.  Therefore Science becomes political - “if you can’t say for really really really extra sure that global warming exists, therefore it doesn’t, nyah nyah.”  In many cases anti-Scientism can have a serious but not fatal effect - if a family, for instance, decides not to vaccinate their children ‘cause they think that vaccines cause autism, that may affect them and any others their possibly infected children come across.  Denying the possibility that man-made pollutants could seriously affect the entire world’s environment, causing droughts, floods, Hurricanes, and perhaps worse, is a far more serious problem.

In the end, even if you’re not convinced by the theories, doesn’t it make sense to take them seriously anyway?  The aforementioned common sense would seem to suggest that even though a threat may not be immanent, one should take precautions (using less fossil fuels, recycling, etc.) at the very least.  I mean, how many global warming skeptics decide to forego car insurance because “only bad drivers get in accidents?”

It’s less “[squashing] reality” than it is, “forcing our own brand of reality down your throats.” The media has an interesting power. Stick a couple of capital letters together and fancy-font them: CNN, MSNBC, FOX, NPR - throw some dough behind the endeavor and you’re suddenly credible. Hell, you don’t even need that as long as you have a computer, access to the internet and someone to hate.

It’s all one big soap opera to me now. I look at major news networks like I look at All My Children (long enough to figure out who is being stupid this time). Ok, so I don’t even watch soap operas. Go me.

It’s less “[squashing] reality” than it is, “forcing our own brand of reality down your throats.”

Yep.

Hey I visited your blog. Nice!

An exaltation of property rights over any other rights and an unwillingness to account for the costs of pollution at the source of that pollution explain much of the resistance to attempts to remediate environmental damage, of course, but there’s more than that.

Parts of the hard right-wing are hostile to any sort of environmental regulation stems from the theology of dispensational millennialism, developed right here in Dallas, woot.  God created the earth and gave it to humans to use however they please.  Some Christians see this as a call to enlightened and careful stewardship over the earth, others see is as almost requiring maximum exploitation as an appreciation of god’s gift—to do otherwise would be impolite and ungrateful, I suppose.

On top of that they’re convinced that these are the End Times anyway.  The environment will be wrecked pretty hard during the apocalypse so why bother trying to save any of it now?  And there are people like John Hagee who see it as their duty to create the conditions that presage apocalypse and Christ’s return to earth.  For example: The Jews have to be in the Holy Land for it to work (though they’ll be slaughtered in the process, which is not actually so great for the Jews) so they are pro-Israel in a big way.

Of course, they’re delusional and following the word of a man notoriously fond of hallucinogenic mushrooms, but dammit, they’re sincere and we have to respect that.  Or not.  I’m on the ‘not’ side, but we’re supposed to respect people’s deeply held religious beliefs, even if they’re dangerous like driving with a Jack Daniels IV drip.

HIstorically speaking, religious beliefs have caused much death & destruction for humanity…

The Truman Show, The Matrix and Total Recall.  Pirsig’s second book, Lila,  all touch on how to preserve (or have it preserved for you) a vision of reality that isn’t real.Willfully live in a circumscribed world, and one can limit what one is forced to consider reality. 

Disregard the dots that don’t fit the map of dots in your head, and you can continue to believe that map represents reality.

1. We’re naturally skeptical, and especially skeptical of stuff coming from “Big Government” or “experts” and the like. And, after all, science itself is based on healthy skepticism.

It’s true that the US has an anti-intellectual streak a mile wide.  For a lot of people, the fact that they personally can’t understand something (like evolution or global warming) means that it must not exist because, hey, they’re smart people and if they don’t understand it, no one can.

Take a look at this video of Rep. Dan Barton, who thinks that he tripped up Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu when Chu answered his question about where oil comes from by explaining plate tectonics.  Seriously.  Because Barton doesn’t understand plate tectonics, he thinks they don’t exist, so therefore Dr. Chu “stumbled” over the question and gave a bogus answer.  Rep. Barton really thought that he had shown up the scientist and proudly put the video on YouTube to show the world how smart he is to stump a Nobel Prize-winner.

2. The real world evidence is pretty thin. It’s not like the weather is getting noticeably warmer or anything.

Eric, here is photographic evidence for you that global warming is happening.  At this point, you sound like the people who insist that the moon landing was staged or that the earth is flat.  You clearly have no connection to reality since you’re unable to accept the evidence in front of your own eyes.

3. Its biggest proponents are goofballs like Al Gore. When Gore says “The debate on GW is OVER”, well, that’s not science. It’s more like dogmatism.

Good to know that we only have to pay attention to science when its spokespeople aren’t “goofballs.”  I guess that means that hydrogen bombs don’t really exist since Edward Teller was a crackpot about everything else.  We also don’t have rockets because Jack Parsons was an occultist and a follower of Aleistar Crowley in addition to his work on solid fuel.  Oh, and don’t forget that gravity doesn’t exist because Isaac Newton preferred alchemy to science.

Once you decide you can deny scientific fact based on personality, you can ignore just about anything.  But the fact that Newton was an occultist goofball is not going to stop gravity from pulling you to the ground if you jump off a 10-story building.

Kaninchen mentioned what I was going to say: that there are those who believe, or claim to believe, that environmentalism is like a heresy because it indicates a mistrust that God will give us a new Earth, so caretaking is not needed. Coincidentally, it dovetails nicely with the idea that companies should be able to do whatever they want to keep costs low.

And who has the power?

Frankie actually asks a relevant question for once. Mark the calendars, people!

Those who have the power are the ‘captains of industry’, the capitalists, and politics is the shadow that corporations cast on society. Dems vs Repubs is just a competition between management philosophies within a single class: sustainable exploitation (by spending some money to keep the proles moderatly happy) or ‘bleed the working class dry’. It’s funny that their environmental policies parallel their labor policies so well…

As for EricJG: you might want to learns the distinction between skepticism and denialism/revisionism (for instance, most skeptics reject Holocaust revisionism and moon-landing conspiracy theories, as well as global warming denialism, as pseudo-scientific). The Skeptical Inquirer, as an organ of the various skeptics societies in the USA, seems to have accepted the overwhelming scientific evidence in favor of human-made climate change. They have multiple articles on the subject in their latest issue, including a skeptical examination of the denialists’ claim that in the 70s scientists were claiming we’d have global cooling and a new Ice Age. They examined climate-related peer reviewed articles of the time period and found I believe at least four times as many such articles defending global warming vs the number claiming global cooling, meaning while the scientific consensus was still in the air at the time (and it isn’t now… only professional deniers paid for by industry reject the scientific consensus), the evidence already seemed to point towards global warming for most scientists.

I dealt with this type of thing for about an hour yesterday arguing with my mother on a variety of obvious issues.  She told me the reason that I don’t think ab-only sex ed works is because I lost my virginity before I HAD ab-only ed.  >.<  And she and I can’t even talk about global warming.  It just sets off way too much anger.

Glad I previewed. Thanks, Left_Wing_Fox and Caren and tannenberg and Mnem and BlackBloc, for putting our Bush-voting, anti-choice “libertarian” climate-change denialist EricJG in his place far more politely than I would have.

It also reminded me of the “science” and “scientific proof” of Black people’s inferiority to just about everyone. This is why I stated reality = whatever those in power say.

Except that Charles Murray’s Bell Curve theory (the most recent high-profile expression of that racist “scientific” crankery—a Libertarian, BTW) was quickly knocked down by serious establishment scientists (guys with advanced degrees and tenure and government grants—many of them with achromatic arses) soley on the basis of glaringly bad data and methodology. When those in power actually acknowledge empirical reality and use it to strike down ignorance and BS, the results can sometimes be positive.

Uhura, thanks.

I just started blogging a month ago. My girlfriend is a Pandagon regular but she never posts comments, so I’m taking up her slack.

As a gardener, I can tell that something is sure happening with the climate.  The growing season has been lengthening and the USDA Climate Zones are shifting.  Our zone has increased in number, meaning it’s warmer than it used to be.  Since I live in northern MN, this is kind of convenient for gardeners.  We have more variety of plants to chose from and a little more time to grow them.  In addition, we have birds up here that we never saw this far north before.  People may argue that we don’t know exactly why the climate is changing but there’s no doubt that the change is happening.

There are indeed some very serious questions about AGW.  However, regardless, we have to look to the future because the end of the petroleum economy is clearly in sight.  I don’t think we need to panic, but none the less we need to start moving to the future.  We should have been doing that 30+ freaking years ago.  Warm or cold, boys and girls, we’re running out of oil.

Even if AGW is total bullshit, that doesn’t mean conservation and energy independence are bad.  It also doesn’t mean that we get to hide our heads in the sand like we’ve been doing for so long.

The serious questions about global warming are “How is this going to manifest in terms of how it effects human lives” and “What, if anything, can we do to reverse these trends or remediate them?”  That average global temperature is increasing due to human activity is not disputed by any scientist not being paid to dispute it.

I think another big reason that pollution is considered a right-wing duty is that concern for the environment is seen as a form of communitarianism—although each of us gets some benefit from not delivering deleterious waste to the air, water and ground, most of the benefits from each person’s decision are reaped by others. Not only that, others who may not even have jobs, who won’t pay the non-polluter to not pollute, who may not even be appropriately grateful. And not only that, but (as the troll points out) people who worry about the environment, like Al Gore, are a bunch of earth-tone-wearing wimps who also like to coddle criminals and envy the success of brilliant men like Ken Lay and Bernie Ebbers. If your creed is rugged market individualism, then it’s pretty clear that you should pollute as much as you can, dare the people affected to sue you, and devil take the hindmost.

Of course, the next step is realizing that if everybody does that, you, too will end up coughing your lungs out while drowning in waste, so the only way to hold onto the free-market faith is to deny the problem entirely.

Even if AGW is total bullshit, that doesn’t mean conservation and energy independence are bad.  It also doesn’t mean that we get to hide our heads in the sand like we’ve been doing for so long.

But…but EricJG’s idealist hero, Commander D.H.S. Flightsuit, said that the answer to all crises is for Americans to drive their SUVs to the mall and do some shopping! You tellin’ Murkins not to consume, Magis? You must be some kinda socialist hippie.

I think another big reason that pollution is considered a right-wing duty is that concern for the environment is seen as a form of communitarianism

Teddy Roosevelt a Commie—who woulda thought?

socialist hippie

Workers of the world unite, man.

Magis - you have to understand that the global warming skeptics also posit huge HUGE HUGE undiscovered reserves of oil everywhere.  Alaska - the Antarctic - deep ocean drilling - they have pseudoscientific studies proving that the Earth’s core is actually filled with nice, burnable oil, like a nice greasy creme filling to the Earth’s Twinkie.  Therefore oil isn’t a precious and finite resource but a big candy bowl you can dip both hands in and grab all you want.

That average global temperature is increasing due to human activity is not disputed by any scientist not being paid to dispute it.

That simply isn’t true.  But the question you asked:  “What, if anything, can we do to reverse these trends or remediate them?”, is the most important question.

A huge amount of CO2 is absorbed by the oceans.  There is a body of thought that there is so much CO2 ‘in solution’ that it is far too late to do a damn thing about it.  That even if every industrial source were stopped tomorrow that as the oceans warm the amount of CO2 they release will increase.  Sort of like a warm beer.  We like to think we’re the masters of our environment but that ain’t always so.

2. The real world evidence is pretty thin. It’s not like the weather is getting noticeably warmer or anything.

You folks have to understand that Eric isn’t talking about melting icecaps and global temperatures.  He’s talking about what’s right outside your door.  Which makes him even more of an idiot, b/c even in my short lifespan, the weather in the locales I’ve lived in has noticeably changed.

OK Magis: I will buy that temperature increase could be non-human related. But that the *rate* of increase of the average global temperature is increasing due to human activity isn’t disputed.

Don’t forget, Magis, that the CO2 in the oceans is increasing the acidity of the water - coupled with the “freshening” of the water from melting glaciers - which might have a very dangerous synergistic effect on sea life (it’s already killing coral reefs.)  This MIGHT end up altering the lifecycle of the phytoplankton - you know, those pesky little critters which provide a lot of our oxygen - and…well, you can guess the end result of that.

By the way, anyone who STILL disputes the large effect human activity can have on entire ecosystems just has to look at Easter Island (still deforested after all of these years) and the algae blooms south of the Mississippi River which are making large portions of the Gulf underwater wastelands.

“3. Its biggest proponents are goofballs like Al Gore. When Gore says “The debate on GW is OVER”, well, that’s not science. It’s more like dogmatism.
Good to know that we only have to pay attention to science when its spokespeople aren’t “goofballs.” I guess that means that hydrogen bombs don’t really exist since Edward Teller was a crackpot about everything else.  “

Big difference. Teller actually designed the thing, so he knew what he was talking about. Gore is not a scientist, and when he says “The debate is OVER”, he’s rejecting the very notion of skepticism itself. And keep in mind he’s not talking about a bit of mild warming that would only have a modest impact, he’s basically talking an Apocalyptic Earthwide catastrophe, and has been saying it for years. THAT is what I’m skeptical about. And so are a whole lot of other people.

And then there’s the hypocrisy angle, which everyone missed. If Al Gore really believes this stuff, then why doesn’t he live like it? Instead, he lives very high on the hog, and so do all his Hollywood pals. Or is he just a big phony who knows he can peddle his alarmist bunkum while raking in tons of dough?

This is completely off topic but it enraged me enough that I had to post it here.  I read this blog as often as possible because along with some of the other feminist blogs it has great writing, along with coherent commentary.  Amanda especially is good at critiquing just about anything,  hence, sending this article with some of the worst comments I have ever seen in my life:

http://www.alternet.org/sex/140012/xxx:_is_the_porn_industry_doomed/

I’m not a purveyor of porn for two reasons: (1) If you’ve seen one you seen ‘em all and (2) I would much rather be doing the real thing than watching it on a screen.  Those were the two originally, but now there are a whole host of reasons not to, but that being said, it is the pro porn/anti-feminist comments that make me like it even less.

EricJG, I’m not a biologist, but I feel fairly comfortable saying that there is no debate over the reality of the fact that evolution occurs.

You might not think that the effects of human-caused climate change are catastrophic, but there isn’t much legitimate debate on the existence of human-caused climate change, and Gore’s statement on that point is accurate. If you don’t like hearing that, well tough luck for you. Gore has a pretty good track record (speaking out on the Iraq war and speaking out on torture are things he also was right about, as well as being right about many environmental issues), and if it chaps your asss that a person you have opposed for almost your entire political life is right, and you are wrong, then that’s your personal psychological problem you have to deal with.

At its base, this post by Amanda is about the fact that we’re dealing with science and we’re being opposed by conservatives who are harboring their personal hangups and psychological issues.

And then there’s the hypocrisy angle, which everyone missed. If Al Gore really believes this stuff, then why doesn’t he live like it? Instead, he lives very high on the hog, and so do all his Hollywood pals. Or is he just a big phony who knows he can peddle his alarmist bunkum while raking in tons of dough?

You can be hypocritical and correct at the same time.

BlackBloc:

Well, it is, actually.  It is not disputed that human activity is adding to the ‘problem.’  However, man-made contributions come from two sources, active and passive.  Active are such as our tailpipes (no pun intended).  Passive by the fact that we have destroyed so much of the natural ‘sponge’ through de-forestation, etc.  Further there is the aerosol effect.  While greenhouse gases tend to warm the world, particulate pollution tends to cool it by blocking sun light.  We had a cooling trend from c. 1940-1970.  Since 1970 (to about 2000) it has been getting warmer.  Then, the last few years it appears to be getting colder.

What happened in 1970?  The environmental movement.  Europe and America cleaned up their particualte pollution.  What happened in 2000?  We noticed the effects of China and others hitting full stride industrialization without giving a damn about particulate pollution.  Guess what.

My earlier point was that getting green doesn’t depend on Global Warming.  It’s the right and intelligent thing to do for millions of reasons and shouldn’t be lost in the GW debate.

Why the quotes around ‘in solution?’  Even if there were any non-manufactured controversy about average global temperature rising—which, despite your assertions, there isn’t* and hasn’t been for decades—the fact that gases dissolve in liquids is very, very basic chemistry.  Yes, warmer ocean temperatures will result in a smaller fraction of all gases dissolved in seawater.  But your claim reverses the temporal (I was going to say causal, but I try not to use the word unless causality is well-established) relationship.

Global average temperatures rise due to a dramatic increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases.  (Those gases are present largely due to human industrial and agricultural activity, but that’s not immediately relevant.)  Ocean temperatures rise along with everything else temperatures.  Gases dissolve in the ocean release into the atmosphere.  Some of those gases will be greenhouse-type gases and may play a role in further warming.

* Note that this is a document produced for the internal use of the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, a group with a big financial stake in promoting The Controversy.  Major contrarian views on global warming were debunked in 1996.

“And then there’s the hypocrisy angle, which everyone missed. If Al Gore really believes this stuff, then why doesn’t he live like it? Instead, he lives very high on the hog, and so do all his Hollywood pals. Or is he just a big phony who knows he can peddle his alarmist bunkum while raking in tons of dough?”

...well, there you go.  Goddam rich people living like they’re rich or something! 

Why a good Republican in that position would…well…I think he would…live exactly the same way but keep 10 Hummers idling in his front yard 24/7 too.  See the difference between Mr. Hypocritical Hippie and Mr. Successful American?...

You can be hypocritical and correct at the same time.

Strangely, I never hear people criticizing their heart surgeons for being overweight.

EricJG, stuck in a rut, is reduced to simply regurgitating talking points. No one cares about what you think of Gore—it’s your problem to deal with, and it’s a pathology of a bunch of right-wingers who had a bug up their ass about the man when he was running against their Chosen One, George W. Bush. In any case, that sort of pathologiical hangup about Gore turned out to be a very destructive one and a sign of the poor moral, personal, intellectual, and political judgment that is the hallmark of libertarians and conservatives. The fact that they’re willing to allow their personal hangups and hostility to hippies to spill over into a denial of science and a hostility to the idea that someone, other than them, is right about something, and you have a perfect storm of wingnut denialism.

Our Eric may also wish to look into the burden of proof logical fallacy.  Well, zie probably wouldn’t wish to.  Nor would zie learn anything by doing so.  ::shrug:: Myeh.

“...well, there you go.  Goddam rich people living like they’re rich or something! “

Well, there’s the personal issue of hypocrisy, but then there’s also the professional/political hypocrisy.

I mean, Gore wrote “Earth In The Balance” several years before becoming VP, yet in the 8 years when he was the Number Two guy in the Clinton Admin, he basically sat around like a potted plant, not saying “Boo!” while Detroit rang up huge profits churning out big, bigger, and humongous SUV’s by the millions. I mean, if he really was committed to stopping Global Warming, why didn’t he do much of anything when he was actually in a position to do so?

The extent to which US reactionary conservatives wield power, so vastly out of proportion to their actual numbers in the population, is staggering.  Imagine if the 2008 election went the other way, with the Republicans taking the executive branch and both chambers of commerce and the Democrats getting their asses handed to them:  Would we be seeing Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Barney Frank on TV as often as we see John McCain, Eric Cantor, and (lately) Dick Cheney? 

Therein lies the problem. This has ceased to be a scientific debate and is now a political issue and an excuse for more taxes.

Oddly enough, there’s no debate over the existence of gravity either.  That’s why we tax people to build bridges so their cars don’t fall in the water when they try to drive across rivers and bays.

I mean, if he really was committed to stopping Global Warming, why didn’t he do much of anything when he was actually in a position to do so?

Perhaps because the office of the Vice President doesn’t actually come with any official power aside from casting the deciding vote in the event of a tie in the Senate?  The gentleman occupying that office after Mr. Gore’s term was effective because of his leet ninja bureaucratic skills and the credulous moron sitting in the Oval Office, not because the Vice Presidency actually is worth anything more than a bucket of warm spit.

Also, you may have heard of a phenomenon known as lobbying.  American auto manufacturers had, until late, a rather effective one.  “O NOES WE CANT MAEK MOAR EFISHUNT CARZ LEST WE DAI!!!!eleventy-one!1”  Or something like.

I have two words for EricJG - Pascal’s Wager.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal’s_wager)

Even if AGW were not true (it is), what do we lose by treating the Earth like what it is - our only home? 

Regardless of any other consideration, conserving energy saves money. Reducing pollution yields cleaner air and water.  Switching to renewable fuels means we don’t have to send our hard-earned money to our enemies. The list goes on and on.

Why is it that conservatives are so opposed to conservation???

OK, and even if you believe Gore is right, and we are facing a major catastrophe if we don’t take drastic action, then why is almost no one pushing for the obvious Big Solution, namely, to start replacing all oil, coal, and gas power plants with nuclear? It’s really the only big source of energy with zero emissions, and it doesn’t even chop up the little birdies like wind turbines!

Or, could it be that most people, including most politicians, really don’t take Global Warming all that seriously?

Even if the money from cap and tax is not used to directly combat global climate change, the tax would create an immediate disincentive to pollute.  If reduced pollution is the goal, cap and tax will help.

And then there’s the hypocrisy angle, which everyone missed. If Al Gore really believes this stuff, then why doesn’t he live like it? Instead, he lives very high on the hog, and so do all his Hollywood pals. Or is he just a big phony who knows he can peddle his alarmist bunkum while raking in tons of dough?

EricJG, this is obviously your main point, so why did you make a fool of yourself with all the additional pseudo-science crankery? Even the serious entrepreneurs and investors you worship so blindly don’t buy that anymore.

Not that someone who bitterly grouses about “Al Gore and his Hollywood friends” needs any help making a fool of himself. Seriously, EricJG, your use of that phrase conjures up the classic image of some middle-aged right-wing loser sitting in his mom’s dark basement, simultaneously coveting and loathing what he sees on celebrity gossip Web sites. Don’t be that guy, EricJG.

Oh, and regarding Gore’s alleged hypocrisy, you might want to look up the ”Tu quoque” logical fallacy. The accusation of hypocrisy is only a useful illustrative tool to the degree that one’s opponent’s position (e.g. Miss California’s desire that the state impose her Xtian family values on everyone else) is easily demolished by empirical evidence to begin with. Not so useful here.

Uhura, the “science” behind female inferiority is actually evidence-free bullshitting pretending to be science.  Actual scientific research points to female equality—-there is no actual evidence for the idea, for instance, that a woman can operate a uterus or a brain but not both.  Science actually disproved sexism, and a lot of the critique of how science is just another way of establishing reality that is comparable to religion, etc. stems from, I suspect, some academic types who are trying to take the sciences down a notch by theorying at them.

I just wish those who praise the almighty free market had a clue how the fucking thing works.

But if they knew anything about how it works, they would stop worshiping it.

I just wish those who praise the almighty free market had a clue how the fucking thing works.

The funny thing is that I learned about the concept of cap and trade in a high school AP Economics class in the early 1990s. Not only are the ideas basic and well known and taught in any class going over the basics of economics, it’s also the hallmark of “neoliberal, free market” solutions to problems that are invariably taught in the conservative-learning economics classes.

Which isn’t to say that I disagree with your point about people who use “science” to make arguments about the inferiority of certain people.  It’s just that their version of science is inevitably not-science, but just bullshit masquerading as science.  They wear the coat of science to get esteem.  But they aren’t rigorous.

If Al Gore really believes this stuff, then why doesn’t he live like it?

And if he’d built an off-grid house in the boonies out of recycled tires & soda bottles instead of seriously improving an existing one, his staff would have to travel farther, it would still be inefficient land use, and the new materials would have still been trucked in… but hey, conservatives could have had even more fun mocking his ‘purer’ choices (extra bonus Grizzly-Al points if he’d kept the beard, too!) & generally dismissing him as an idealistic loon.  But actually making the most effective choices at a given time as his understanding of the issue increases, while still remaining fully engaged with the world on his usual terms… well, that’s just unforgivable because it’s too much like an example of what most of us really should be trying to do instead of a misery-inducing bogeyman lifestyle.

Many people are pushing for solar, wind, water, and nuclear plants.  Of course the reason that these solutions are not being pushed for with greater force is because the discussions of what to do to mitigate the harm to humans caused by global climate change are hampered by the need to confront specious claims of the denialists.  You are correct that many people do not take global climate change very seriously.  This is a failing that needs to be corrected by educating the public on the facts of global climate change.

The line from intro economic texts at the time was “those darn liberals want to regulate and stop pollution, but the wonders of the free market demonstrate how much more effective and efficient a cap-and-trade regime would be!”

Well, the neoliberal consensus flowed over into the Democratic party, they took it seriously, and started proposing the implementation of cap and trade. It turns out that conservatives and freemarketeers aren’t so keen on reducing pollution, after all.

Eric - there are plenty of people out there who support nuclear energy as a valid interim measure that would help ease the transition to an alternatively-fueled future, even though there are many environmental & safety issues with the current state of nuclear energy generation. 

Google is your friend (http://www.grist.org/article/umbra-nuclear).

OK, and even if you believe Gore is right, and we are facing a major catastrophe if we don’t take drastic action, then why is almost no one pushing for the obvious Big Solution, namely, to start replacing all oil, coal, and gas power plants with nuclear?

And of course, those nuclear power plants will be privately run, and loosely regulated so that they can be built quickly (”another layer of containment for quadruple redundancy? Nah, the shareholders will scream”).

why is almost no one pushing for the obvious Big Solution, namely, to start replacing all oil, coal, and gas power plants with nuclear?

Excellent idea; I think we should start by building nuclear reactors all over, say, sub-Saharan Africa and Central America, because they will need energy too.  Less pesky regulation in those countries is the bonus.

Geez, Franklin, shouldn’t that make him your hero?

I think we should start by building nuclear reactors all over, say, sub-Saharan Africa and Central America, because they will need energy too.  Less pesky regulation in those countries is the bonus.

Makes sense to me. Not like fallout from an unfortunate accident (“hmmm, maybe we should have added that extra layer of containment…”) can travel beyond national borders, so we’re “away” from that problem. U-S-A! U-S-A!

So, Our Eric, we can store spent fuel from all those new nuclear power plants at your place, right?  You’re cool?

Geez, Franklin, shouldn’t that make him your hero?

Well, ya sees, for Libertarians there’s good rapacious capitalism (i.e. that practised by social conservatives and short-sighted greedheads) and bad rapacious capitalism (i.e. that practised by egghead libruls and their “Hollywood friends”).

See, Franklin, that’s the beauty of science!  When something turns out not to be true, it doesn’t really matter how prominent the people were who supported it.  The evidence says no, and the science is updated accordingly.

Actually, I did read Al Gore’s book, and posted a review over on Dana’s site. You’ll likely disagree with most of the content, but might find the style a bit entertaining.

Earth in the Balance - by Al Bore
24 August 2006, 10:21 am by Eric

A good example of what’s wrong with this book can be found in the introduction, where Al Gore informs us that, as a young Congressman, he once devoted a vast amount of time to studying the nuclear arms race, and in the process came up with a complex set of “solutions” for dealing with the problem, which he proceeds to lay out for us in mind numbing detail. In contrast, at about the same time another politician, Ronald Reagan, also looked at the problem and came up with a much simpler solution - get rid of Communism.

Part of me thinks it’s unfair to poke fun at this book; after all, Al Gore takes his subject matter (and himself) so very seriously. But a larger part of me thinks that’s exactly why we should poke fun at it. This is the sort of work that humorist PJ O’Rourke would shred with a literary buzz saw, asking questions like “How could all that intelligence produce something this stupid?”

A large part of the problem is that the intelligence and seriousness so often devolve into moral and intellectual pomposity, as evidenced in grandiose statements like “We must all become partners in a bold effort to change the very foundations of our civilization.” Who, after all, upon reading such a fatuous comment, would not want to take the author and swat him with a rolled up newspaper?

Actually, to be fair to Gore, so long as he sticks to actual facts, and policy specifics for dealing with them when it comes to the environment, he’s on fairly solid ground. The problem, of course, comes when he leaves the safety of the dry land of science and political realism and goes wandering off into the realm of Big Ideas. This is because, for most people, Big Ideas invariably lead to Bad Ideas, and this book contains a veritable boatload of them, the most notable being that Global Warming is nothing less than the coming Apocalypse and that we must mobilize Heaven and Earth in our efforts to stop it. Gore’s fundamental problem is his dogmatism on the subject, not only has he breezily dismissed any and all skeptics, he’s also concluded that it is without question a brewing catastrophe of Biblical proportions. As a result, all reason, common sense, and self-restraint go out the window in his efforts to marshal the entire globe in his Final Crusade against … warm weather! Which is probably why he and his fellow Chicken Littles have met with a wall of indifference from the general populace. Most of us don’t think Global Warming is real, and even if it is, it will probably make things better, not worse. And Americans, who have rousted themselves in the past and sacrificed to confront evil in the form of slavery, Nazism, and Communism, are not about to work themselves into a frenzy of patriotic fervor to wage war against a bunch of hot air.

http://commonsensepoliticalthought.com/?p=756

Uhura said on 05/15 at 08:25 AM:

My comment is applicable to social reality, which is what we discuss the most on this site.

To be honest, I agree with Uhura, and wish more liberals would realize this as well. I don’t, of course, mean that objective reality actually changes in accord with people’s beliefs. I mean that consensus reality is more powerful than many people realize.

If you would like to see an example of me trying desperately to communicate with a very intelligent person, only to fail because our reality-pictures are so different, check out this thread:

http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/laptham-3/

Start with this comment to see the start of the conversation:

http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/laptham-3/#comment-16373

Also see:

http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/laptham-3/#comment-16467

Fabius Maximus is a very intelligent student of geopolitics who does not accept the theory of human-caused global warming. He was trying to convince me that environmentalism is ‘a religion’, since greens believe in global warming and other absurdities.

Can I just say, Gracchus, that I am a big fan of your posts.  Funny AND smart: perfect together

All I’m saying, there are very intelligent peope who, while we think they are warring against reality, they think we are warring against their reality.

Shorter me:
“Reality” is just as political as anything else.

”...why is almost no one pushing for the obvious Big Solution, namely, to start replacing all oil, coal, and gas power plants with nuclear?”

...um, ‘cause those Big Oil and Big Coal interests have a lot of money they can sprinkle around to ensure things go their way?

The same thing is going on right now with Universal Healthcare vs. Big Insurance / Big Hospital / Big Pharma (the actual pharmaceutical co.s, not Limbaugh).  On one side you have people, including big industrial firms and other large employers, talking about how paying for health insurance is a barrier to competitiveness, and advocates for the lower half of American citizenry and the huge obstacles they face, which are bad for America over the long term;  on the other side you have huge, powerful, entrenched interests who see no reason to change our current system (which is oh so profitable for them) in any substantial way.

So who wins when the people with the money face the powerless who have more interest in helping people rather than lining their pockets?  Usually money wins.  Not always, but almost always…

commonsensepoliticalthought.com

Isn’t this the problem, here. That we naively depend on our common sense (“heavy objects must fall faster than lighter objects!”) rather than paying attention to science?

The next problem, as outlined, is that once again, this has more to do with conservative hatred of Al Gore. Look, you got Bush into office. Bush turned out to be a failure. You were wrong. What Al Gore has said is right. I suggest you stop grinding your anti-Gore ax, who managed not to be fooled and duped by the republican cult, and actually grapple with the science. It’s sad that your Al Gore fixation has turned you into an anti-science ranter… but this is the problem with supporting republicans—they demand that you lie for them, knowingly or unknowingly. Your problem, Eric, is that I think you’re being manipulated as tool and the conservatives have taken advantage of your emotional hangups.

“From its inception eugenics was supported by prominent people, including Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes, H. G. Wells, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, William Keith Kellogg, Winston Churchill, Linus Pauling[11] and Sidney Webb.[12][13][14] “

...you know, there was this group of cultists who spread around some crazy idea about how some big powerful guy created the Sun and the Earth out of nothing.  And then they claim he created all of the plant, and animals, and people out of nothing too.  And despite the collected scientific evidence of the advanced age of the Earth, and the evolutionary origins of life on Earth, there are still plenty of these crazy cultists who believe the same rancid pile of ignorant crap about god and creation.

The difference is that when a scientific idea turns out to be a mistake, it gets discarded and replaced with a more accurate idea.

When some bullshit is unsupported, nonsensical, religious hoo ha, the religiously inclined cling to it ever tighter in the face of facts and reason.

So don’t trot out your references to past mistakes and claim that invalidates science.  Science gave you the computer and the internet through which you shared your droolings with us helpless victims.  What the hell has religion done for anybody recently, beside make people’s lives even more miserable?...

“Here’s another issue in which debate was over and the scientific value was unquestioned. ”  But it was questioned and disproven. 

The beauty of science is not that it is always right, but that it is self correcting.  Scientists do not believe that there is a link between human activity and global climate change because Al Gore told them so.  They believe it because the data supports that conclusion.  If evidence disproving the link were to be discovered the scientific perception would change.  However we can only work with the knowledge we currently have, and that is that there is no substantive evidence to suggest that global climate change is wholly unconnected to human activities.  Therefore if we wish to mitigate the effects of global climate change we should work with the model of human effected global climate change.

1. We’re naturally skeptical

<wipes tears of laughter from eyes>

“In contrast, at about the same time another politician, Ronald Reagan, also looked at the problem and came up with a much simpler solution - get rid of Communism.”

Wow!

My whole view of the world has changed!

If we:

Get rid of hunger
Get rid of hatred
Get rid of fear
Get rid of misunderstanding

...just imagine what a great place this would be!...

“Not that someone who bitterly grouses about “Al Gore and his Hollywood friends” needs any help making a fool of himself. Seriously, EricJG, your use of that phrase conjures up the classic image of some middle-aged right-wing loser sitting in his mom’s dark basement, simultaneously coveting and loathing what he sees on celebrity gossip Web sites.”

Oh, I like it when the celebrity airheads buy those private jets. I used to work for a company that made these high end jets, and it put plenty of money in my pocket.

I’m only saying that, if these people (including Gore) want to be taken seriously, then they should lead by example. Show that THEY are willing to make some sacrifices, and not just shoot off their mouths about what everyone else should do.

Earth in the Balance - by Al Bore

Al Bore. I get it! A pun. ‘Cause he’s boring!

An excellent start to the review, with wit to rival Voltaire’s…

In contrast, at about the same time another politician, Ronald Reagan, also looked at the problem and came up with a much simpler solution - get rid of Communism.

I remember that day, in 1989, when the nuclear weapons started vanishing from Soviet stockpiles. Unfortunately some of them started re-appearing elsewhere, but let’s stick to St. Ronnie’s miracle.

Part of me thinks it’s unfair to poke fun at this book; after all, Al Gore takes his subject matter (and himself) so very seriously.

Four grafs in, and nothing to show but ad hominem attacks on the author rather than addressing the topic of the book. Wait, what’s the I see ...?

Actually, to be fair to Gore, so long as he sticks to actual facts, and policy specifics for dealing with them when it comes to the environment, he’s on fairly solid ground.

Wait, is EricJG acknowledging that Al Gore (and his Hollywood friends) may have a point when it comes to empirical evidence of a serious problem? Yes! But the more important thing is that Al Gore is a Democrat, and you know how those libruls solve things…

This is because, for most people, Big Ideas invariably lead to Bad Ideas, and this book contains a veritable boatload of them, the most notable being that Global Warming is nothing less than the coming Apocalypse and that we must mobilize Heaven and Earth in our efforts to stop it.

Big ideas = big government. Big government = baaad! (BTW, would you like to take the world’s shortest political test?)

Gore’s fundamental problem is his dogmatism on the subject, not only has he breezily dismissed any and all skeptics

... along with 99.8% of peer-reviewed scientific journals, which were a little less breezy in pointing out the bad data, and bad methodology of these “skeptics.”

he’s also concluded that it is without question a brewing catastrophe of Biblical proportions.

Ah, an accusation of unfair hyperbole on Gore’s part. Sort of like the time EricJG said Gore compared the empirically observed effects of high carbon emissions to the Bronze Age fantasies in the Book of Revelations.

As a result, all reason, common sense, and self-restraint go out the window in his efforts to marshal the entire globe in his Final Crusade against … warm weather!

Right, that’s what Gore’s fighting: the Global War on Pleasant Balmy Weather.

Which is probably why he and his fellow Chicken Littles have met with a wall of indifference from the general populace.

Lots of indifference. I mean, really, who talks about environmentalism these days (except for Democrats, eggheads, librul schoolteachers—and their Hollywood friends)?

Most of us don’t think Global Warming is real

I’m sure there were polls in the original that he linked to in order to demonstrate his point. Could you re-post those, EricJG?

Oh, wait, by “us” he means anti-intellectual fantasists like himself and Dana. My bad.

And even if it is, it will probably make things better, not worse.

Exactly! Who doesn’t want warm weather, except for Commie Pinkos? Why d’ya think those Russians (and Canadians!) live up north?

And Americans, who have rousted themselves in the past and sacrificed to confront evil in the form of slavery, Nazism, and Communism, are not about to work themselves into a frenzy of patriotic fervor to wage war against a bunch of hot air.

At which point I picture Grampa Simpson, shaking his fist at the clouds like he did at the Nazis, decades earlier.

I will admit that I found your review entertaining, EricJG, but probably not in the way you intended.

That Earth In The Balance review repost from Eric was some of the best self-ownage I’ve seen in a while.  A perfect example of what Posner was talking about when he posted about there being no party for conservative intellectuals.

Also, I gotta ask, is that Sir Gracchus, the Paladin of Love?

Oh, I like it when the celebrity airheads buy those private jets. I used to work for a company that made these high end jets, and it put plenty of money in my pocket.

Janitorial work at Gulfstream pays that well, does it?

As to your point about hypocrisy, see my comment about the tu quoque fallacy above.

Also, I gotta ask, is that Sir Gracchus, the Paladin of Love?

No, I’m not familiar with that (although I’m intrigued). While I have indeed been called “Sir,” and called things somewhat similar to “paladin of love,” I’m just plain Timmy Gracchus, savior of the city during the famous fish-sauce shortage.

Guess not, then.  You’d know it if you were. 

It’s a long story.

Libertarian, that’s really impressive.

I bet I could come up with a list at least that long of holocaust deniers.  Probably a similar length list of people who have proof we never went to the moon.  A similar list of people who still believe the eart is flat.

The existence of groups of people who deny reality is something we just have to put up with.  Otherwise the Republican Party would have disappeared 30-years ago…

BTW, sometimes I speak of the pompatus of love, but I’ve never been called The Joker…

LIbertarian,

For that list to be truly convincing, we need to see scientific disciplines, credentials, and (if they’re doing research in the area) funding sources. To use one glaring example of why a lack of this additional data is a problem, consider:

Bob Breck Ams, Broadcaster Of The Year 2008

A full-time TV weatherman—even one from New Orleans(!)—is not really considered the equivalent of a research scientist. Bet he sports some wacky neckties, though!

Arthur G. Anderson, Ph.D, Director Of Research, IBM (retired)

While IBM research, in its heyday, did a lot of diverse research, I don’t think they retained any climate scientists.

Schockley, nobel prize winning inventor of the transistor, went to the grave espousing creepy, incorrect views of IQ and race, and he was a pretty smart guy.

It strikes me, Libertarian, that you did not look at that list of people very closely or have any idea what their arguments were, but merely pasted a list that a bunch of anti-climate-change shills fed to you.

Of the 3146 scientists surveyed by UICs Earth and Environmental Sciences department, 3064 agreed that humans effect global climate change.  Of course I don’t feel that this page would be served by a list that long.

On a planet of 7-Billion people, I bet you can come up with a list of people as long as Libertarian’s on any side of any topic you can conceive.

I myself have a theory that there aren’t really multiple trolls, there’s an AI that the NSA has been working on that is an advanced troll emulator.  Well, I guess it’s not really that advanced…

I get it! A pun… wit to rival Voltaire’s

I know—wingnut humor is so adorable that it just makes me want to pinch their little well-fed jowls.

The funny thing is that I don’t remember Al Gore telling anyone to do anything that he himself doesn’t do—he has modernized his house, bought hybrids, tried to offset travel emissions (and does not actually own a private jet), opted to subsidize cleaner energy on his utility bills, does his non-traveling work at home, and so on.  He eats meat, but doesn’t tell anyone else not to, although he acknowledges that we need to work on how we produce & consume animal foods.  He doesn’t tell anyone to never ever travel because it’s evil or anything, nor does he advocate moving to teeny houses.  He basically just says that while we as individuals can do certain things to minimize both our energy use & the damaging effects it causes, we really need to revamp national & worldwide energy policies to deal with the many externalities and other indirect costs of our currently unsustainable and destructive habits.  And all we get in response is ‘but, but… fat… mansion… destroying bidnesses, blahbity blah blah.’

“I will admit that I found your review entertaining, EricJG, but probably not in the way you intended.”

Hey, just as long as you were entertained!

BTW, I wrote a review of one of Coulter’s books over there. Gave her a few kudos, but took some serious swipes as well. If you’re curious, it’s under the heading of “Eric’s book and movie reviews”

Paranoia and skepticism are not the same thing.

Quoted for truth.

BTW, I wrote a review of one of Coulter’s books over there. Gave her a few kudos, but took some serious swipes as well. If you’re curious, it’s under the heading of “Eric’s book and movie reviews”

I’m not curious (having been sated by the Gore review), but since you’re a conservative talking about Coulter I’m betting those “swipes” you took sounded something like “fwap-fwap-fwap…”

Not to mention that nearly all university departments have what we tenderly call “wet noodles”—incompetent, careless, or cracked-out fringe elements.  (Not one but two experts from my own university are on that list, and as someone with some familiarity with a few of its science departments, I know that there be dragons among the eminent researchers we support.)

Plus, unless provided with more than a mere name, I’m inclined to discount anything said about GW from a “petroleum geologist” and anything out of Alberta that relates to the oil industry (generally not particularly objective).

“Janitorial work at Gulfstream pays that well, does it?”

Actually, Flight Test Engineer. And the company was one of Gulfstream’s competitors. Worked on some VERY cool stuff, avionics mostly, really cutting edge at the time.

Franklin Raines is gone, btw.

Actually, Flight Test Engineer. And the company was one of Gulfstream’s competitors.

Let’s just say you’re wise not to mention the name of the company.

Franklin Raines is gone, btw.
Auguste on 05/15 at 02:33 PM

Meaning, Auguste?

I’m a little late to this thread, but…

catgirl: But the thing is, even if [conservatives] don’t believe in global warming, or that pollution is a problem, they still should see polluting as morally neutral, and not actually as a good thing.

Conservatives see pollution—-or, to be precise, weak regulations against pollution—-as a good thing because it’s easier and cheaper for businesses to pollute than to clean up their messes. “Competitiveness” is the be-all and end-all, and if citizens choke or get cancer, TS.

Actually, Flight Test Engineer.

Gee whiz. An *engineer*. Huffing and puffing, making himself look all bigshot and claiming to have some sort of grasp of the actual theoretical sciences instead of acknowledging he’s just a trained applied sciences monkey. AND he’s a libertarian and self-proclaimed expert on economics too.

Wow. I’ve NEVER seen THAT before. <rolls eyes>

no concensus at all.

That’s like saying there’s no consensus about the fact that evolution has occurred. Sure you can find plenty of people that dispute it and several people who will sign a petition, but these things generally turn out to be bogus as well as not being reflective of the modern science.

The question is why, once again, people are being told to lie about the scientific reality and the science as a condition of adherence to a certain political position about taxes and economics. Nothing obligates you, Libertarian, to act as a shill for anti-climate-science schemes. But you do, anyway, even though it’s not connected to what are supposed to be the core of the libertarian or conservative philosophies. However, their political branches demand it of their followers, to the point were personal grudges and hostilities that people like EricJG harbor towards Al Gore are manipulated into giving him opinions to hold about scientific issues.

If consensus is defined as unanimity there will never be consensus, however scientific consensus is not unanimity.  That we keep saying that there is consensus on global warming absolutely does not make it so.  What makes it so is the 97%+ scientists that agree that humans effect global climate change.

Libertarian, your central problem is consistency.  You on the right are dismissive of what you are prone to call wackadoole far-out ideas.  Fine, in so far as it goes, but you don’t change your tune if the notion in question is buttressed by evidence and consensus: if almost all of the scientific community is on one side of a debate and only a tiny fraction on another we can safely draw the conclusion that (a) global warming is real; and (b) human activity plays a significant role.  Dissenters point a way to closer examination of the data, they don’t necessarily invalidate the near-unanimous consensus.

BlackBloc, some of us engineers form hypotheses, develop models, and run experiments and use the scientific method. But then, I’m no mere test and assembly monkey.

But yeah, many engineers have an inflated sense of their own mental capacities and importance of their opinions outside of their given fields. When you generally hear of someone in “science” who argues against evolution, they turn out to be engineers.

I remember seeing similar lists of ever-so-credentialed people supporting Intelligent Design and the Discovery Institute.  (Never mind that Cato is not widely renowned for being a source of quality peer-reviewed climate science.)  Few of the people on that list were biologists, as I recall.

Tyro: I have great respect for engineers. In general. Because most of them don’t assume that their training makes them a scientist, or have better grasp of the sciences than research and theoretical scientists.

But it’s funny how many of the engineer weenies who puff themselves up as scientists are Libertarians.

Meaning he’s banned. Nothing particular he did wrong in this thread, just the sense of the meeting. Also, because I finally got around to it.

Libertarian, you’re really losing it.  What do you think the word “consensus” means anyway?

There are scientists to this very day who believe that tobacco has no link to human disease.  Does that mean the other 99.9 percent who agree it does are wrong?

You behavior smacks of plain simple Rightwing Authoritarian Cultism.  You believe the majority of experts, who don’t say what you want to hear, are wrong, but some tiny minority who nobody else knows, is correct simply because they say what you want…

You don’t seem to be in a good position to talk about reality, now do you…

BTW, I’m pretty sure it’s not turtles all the way down either…

I actually looked up the credentials of a few people on that list, and found several already that are not experts in a relevant field.  I’ll make a list of all the credentials I can find, if you want.  So far I’ve found:

Syun Akasofu, Ph.D, University Of Alaska
B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. in geophysics from 1953, 1957, and 1961 respectively.  This one might actually be credible in this field.

Arthur G. Anderson, Ph.D, Director Of Research, IBM (retired)
B.S. and Ph.D. in physics, Ph.D. from 1958. 

Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D, Anderson Materials Evaluation
I couldn’t find any specific data without a more thorough search, but according to his blog, he is a materials scientist.

J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D, University Of Pennsylvania
B.A. in applied science (1959), B.S. in industrial engineering (1960), M.S. in industrial administration (1965), Ph.D. in management (1968).  He currently works as a professor of marketing.  Impressive, but not terribly relevant to climate change.

Robert Ashworth, Clearstack LLC
I couldn’t find any information on his name or company, other than appearing on the list that Libertarian copied and pasted.  I will look deeper later.

Ismail Baht, Ph.D, University Of Kashmir
Again, his name only appears only on this list of climate change deniers.  I will continue my search later.

Colin Barton Csiro, (retired)
Appears to have a Ph.D. in earth science, but does not say when or where he got it.  This one might be credible too.

David J. Bellamy, OBE, The British Natural Association
I didn’t find any specific degrees, but it appears that he has studied botany.  Close, but still not relevant.

John Blaylock, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired)
No specific information yet, but a caption from a photo on the website of his company says “John Blaylock, left, of High Performance Computing Systems (CCN-7)”.

Edward F. Blick, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma (emeritus)
I didn’t find any specific degrees for him yet, he appears to be a young-earth creationist, with a pretty clear goal of making science fit into his religious views.  Seriously, he’s a young-earth creationist.

So, out of a quick search for these 10 people, I could find information for 8 of them.  Of those 8, only 2 of them are experts in a relevant field (although geophysics is stretching it a bit).  One of them is actually a young earth creationist.  Being an expert in one scientific field does not make anyone an expert in any other scientific field.

To add to catgirl’s prelims, Wayne Goodfellow / University of Ottawa appears to do “research” on behalf of the Canadian mining industry.  So scratch that one out for conflict of interest.

My point:  There are many, many educated knowledgeable people who do not agree that GW is as established as gravity.

Being educated in one field does not make them experts in another.  I know a lot about chemistry, and I even have a few fancy letters and titles after my name (not Ph.D. though), but if you ask me about neurology, I’m no more reliable than some other random person you might ask.

When those in power actually acknowledge empirical reality and use it to strike down ignorance and BS, the results can sometimes be positive.

LOL! That happens on the regular I’m sure.

Ranylt, there were many conflicts of interest that I found, but I felt like I shouldn’t mention them, because it doesn’t necessarily mean that someone is dishonest, and I didn’t want it to distract from the most important issue.  For example, Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D, is extremely Libertarian, and his main reason for denying climate change is that he doesn’t like the idea of a carbon tax.  However, Libertarian or not, being a materials scientist simply does not make him an expert on climate change.

I did not say they were all experts in the field.  I said that many intellegent and educated people are not convinced or disagree.

Because when people talk about a scientific consensus, they usually don’t mean that the people *in that field of research* all agree, but that *educated people* in general, some of whom are not even scientists, most of which are scientists in unrelated fields, all agree. Right.

I did not say they were all experts in the field.  I said that many intellegent [sic] and educated people are not convinced or disagree.

If they are not experts in that field, then why would you consider them to be credible?  It would be just as effective to ask a bunch a random of strangers their opinion.

Go on.

Say it over and over.

Concensus.[sic]

No, I prefer to say consensus.  Doesn’t your browser have a spell-checker?  I won’t repeat the same thing that others have already explained to you, because you clearly choose to ignore anything you don’t like.

Uhura, the “science” behind female inferiority is actually evidence-free bullshitting pretending to be science.  Actual scientific research points to female equality—-there is no actual evidence for the idea, for instance, that a woman can operate a uterus or a brain but not both.  Science actually disproved sexism, and a lot of the critique of how science is just another way of establishing reality that is comparable to religion, etc. stems from, I suspect, some academic types who are trying to take the sciences down a notch by theorying at them.

You’re not preaching at me or attempting to educate me are you?

Did I not use quotation marks for the word “science” in my comments? Said quotation marks mean that I am stating it ain’t real science.

I sincerely hope I am misunderstanding your intent.

Libertarian is not doing much to dispel the notion that his philsophy is rooted in anything other than a desire to engage in disingenuous juvenile taunting.

Seriously, Libertarian? You’re defending that list?

To be honest, I agree with Uhura, and wish more liberals would realize this as well. I don’t, of course, mean that objective reality actually changes in accord with people’s beliefs. I mean that consensus reality is more powerful than many people realize.

Yes, this is how underwear can be come outerwear…If most people agree that it’s more appropriate to wear a bra on the outside of your shirt - guess what will happen?

Maybe Libertarian is a Quaker.

Libertarian is not doing much to dispel the notion that his philsophy is rooted in anything other than a desire to engage in disingenuous juvenile taunting.

No, I’m sure that Libertarian’s view on this is the same as Charles R. Anderson’s.  He thinks that climate change will lead to carbon taxes, which may or may not be true, but it’s not relevant to the reality of climate change.  So, since he doesn’t want climate change to exist, he pretends that it doesn’t.  It’s just too bad that climate change is a scientific reality, and not a social one, so it won’t change just because we want it to, like wearing underwear on the outside.

“Go on.
Say it over and over.
Concensus.
Just keep saying it until you believe it.”

Consensus = Whatever EricJG needs it to mean during the current discussion. 

How about if I said “Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a dinosaur” over and over.  If I said it enough times would it be true?

How about if i said “Fire cannot harm me because it’s only a figment of my imagination”?  Would the fire not burn me if I stuck my hand in it?...

Abraham Lincoln: “How many legs does a horse have if you call its tail a leg?”
Answer: “Four.  Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it so…”

Yeah, I think it’s great that liberals care about science and believe that folks should accept experimentally verified truths. I just wish that liberals would waste less time being mad at folks for not knowing science, or for being uneducated, or for being stupid. Guess what, lots of people are ignorant and/or stupid. This is the reality of the USA.

...as the ghost of Franklin Raines returns to haunt us once again…

Most are critical not of the actual warming, although it’s been cooling for this last dacade, but for the level of responsibility man’s activities have.

Perhaps. The debate about whether it’s happening and the fact that human-caused reasons are a cause is indisputable, however. What happens is that, like HIV/AIDS denialists and Holocaust deniers, you have people disingenuously saying, “there are certain aspects and mechanisms people aren’t sure about! the science doesn’t agree! it’s a fraud!” That the science has established that human-caused climate change is real and happening is a simple fact. Trying to claim otherwise by engaging in sophistry over differences of opinion about mechanisms and corner-cases within the scientific community is just a bunch of right-wing ax grinding.

Atheist - that concept is key.

Shit - some of the folks here couldn’t resist jumping at the chance to show off how intelligent they are….they took the thread in the direction of a scientific discussion when it was clear that the thread was intended to be about how conservatives ignore facts and bend reality.

If you want to win, you need to tailor your message for your audience.

Roughly 27% of Americans have 4 year degrees - Most of our country is uneducated.

Also, people with higher IQs have LESS children…so you do the math - LOL!

Bye, Frankie.  Gonna miss ya (not).

I state unequivacably that Elephants have wings.  Large quantum wings that fold up into special pockets in their sides.

As I have a degree in Computer Science, therefore making me officially a scientist, my word on this subject must be accepted without question…

And atheist, you are right—liberals can’t simply curse the darkness when it comes to being annoyed at the unscientific. Even if we ultimately “win” the climate schange debate, there will still be 27% of the people who believe, despite everything, that it’s all a lie. I think some policymakers are worried that they don’t have enough energy to form and research good policies and win a public relations pissing match at the same time.

How do you response to Cato’s PR spam and Inhofe’s dishonesty on the issue? You can’t simply “counter them with facts.” The facts are already there. Something else is required.

Most are critical not of the actual warming, although it’s been cooling for this last dacade, but for the level of responsibility man’s activities have.

This is a non-sequitur.  Even if climate change isn’t caused by human activity, the effects will still be the same.  People’s homes will be flooded whether we caused it or not.

Here’s a great poster boy for EricJG:  Harry R. Truman...

Wow, that’s weird. I’ll have to figure out how he did that.

IQ measures what?

I did not say they were all experts in the field.  I said that many intellegent and educated people are not convinced or disagree.

And ... ?  I’m reasonably intelligent and educated, what with my master’s degree and all, and yet I am not under the illusion that I understand physics better than Nobel Prize-winning physicist Dr. Stephen Chu.

As I said above, a lot of intelligent and educated people love to think that if they personally don’t understand or believe something, it must not be true.  That’s why intelligent and educated people are very vulnerable to quack science—they understand just enough to get the gist, but don’t know enough to genuinely understand the subject, so they turn to quacks and cranks to fill in the gaps.

I just wish that liberals would waste less time being mad at folks for not knowing science, or for being uneducated, or for being stupid.

Honestly, I respect people who actually admit they don’t know science, or that they’re not formally educated. Admitting “I don’t know” in a debate is usually the sign of a smart and mature person who’s open to learning something new.

That leaves me to get mad at (or, more precisely, mock) the obviously stupid people who insist that they do know science or are formally educated (or that they aren’t stupid)—generally on-line trolls, since the people I have political discussions with in meatspace are usually smart, whatever their education or political leanings.

Libertarian’s list is has been answered by the likes of talkorgin.com’s Project Steve List.  In that case, Project Steve is people with science degrees whose first name is Steve who believe the evidence supports evolution.  (Full disclosure: my name is on that list).  At some point last year, the Project Steve List was longer than the list of scientists (but not generally biologists) the Discover Institute claims that evolution is a lie.

I am fairly certain that a similar project either exists now or could be set up quickly that would be longer that the list s/he posted.

“I’m not curious (having been sated by the Gore review), but since you’re a conservative talking about Coulter I’m betting those “swipes” you took sounded something like “fwap-fwap-fwap…”

OK, but if you change your mind, here: http://commonsensepoliticalthought.com/?p=1182

Here’s a short excerpt:

“Instead, it’s basically a melee of unrestrained liberal bashing, which unfortunately is unlikely to persuade fair-minded people of anything. She picks the most extreme attitudes and behavior from selected people on the Left, and then glibly presumes to paint them as being characteristic of liberals everywhere, which is, of course, ridiculous. And she also conveniently neglects to mention that the Right had its share of kooks and villains as well, perhaps most notable being the almost rabidly insane John Birch Society.”

“Instead, it’s basically a melee of unrestrained liberal bashing, which unfortunately is unlikely to persuade fair-minded people of anything.”

See, right there, you make the category error that Coulter assumes her readers are fair-minded people. That’s no way to sell your review.

Catgirl, I only half agree; actual field credentials is the stronger case against the list, but damn, research surrounding questions of environment/pollution/industry is fraught with these problems, so IMO pointing to suspicious links is relevant indeed here (and dishonesty isn’t the first thing that comes to my mind, since a lot of these people seem to genuinely believe the results they arrive at ass-backwards). 

But bottom line—that list is a mite smelly, and in no way points to Libertarian’s idea of “concensus” (his extra C, not mine).

““Go on.
Say it over and over.
Concensus.
Just keep saying it until you believe it.”
Consensus = Whatever EricJG needs it to mean during the current discussion”

Sorry, but you’re quoting the wrong guy. I’m not making a “scientific” opinion on GW, since it’s not my area of expertise. However, as a purely personal opinion, I’m inclined to dismiss it as mostly a bunch of baloney.  In short, I just don’t take it that seriously. JMO, of course ...

I just don’t take it that seriously

Which is perfectly within your rights, of course, just as it’s within others’ rights (and their good sense) not to take your opinions seriously.

Classic right/glibertarian retreat, though…

“However, as a purely personal opinion, I’m inclined to dismiss it as mostly a bunch of baloney.  In short, I just don’t take it that seriously.”

...I guess we’ll all wait to do anything until the water is lapping up against EricJG’s front door.  Anything else would be a radical, imprudent, over-reaction, and giving in to Al Gore.

At least my dad, who has been a Global Warming denier in the past, has changed his tune somewhat.  He’ll admit its occurring, isn’t sure is human-caused, but he’s arrived at his own personal solution: He’s in his ‘70s, so he’ll go on as if nothing is changing because he won’t live long enough for it to matter…to him anyway.  What a great attitude to have, “I got mine, screw all the rest of you…”

I don’t know if you are still reading this Libertarian, but if you are you should look up what people mean when they refer to scientific consensus.  From Wikipedia: “Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.”

Ranylt, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with pointing it out.  I just didn’t include conflicts of interest because I thought it would distract from the actual point, which the trolls have completely missed anyway.  I also didn’t make a point that of all the degrees I found enough information for, the most recent one was from 1968, and that one wasn’t even in any scientific field.  I suspect that a lot of people on that list deny climate change simply because they desperately don’t want it to be true.  Whether it’s a Libertarian who doesn’t want it to be true because it conflicts with his worldview that regulation is never necessary under any circumstance, or it’s the young earth creationist who wants to force science to fit into the mold of his view of the Bible, they just don’t want climate change to exist, so they pretend it doesn’t.  But none of this is relevant to the simple fact they are just unqualified in the field of climate research.

Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.

But more importantly, what does concensus mean?  Maybe Libertarian is actually using a different word, so he can just make up the definition.

“‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’”
— Lewis Carroll (Through The Looking Glass)

...

Catgirl, point taken re. not confusing the easily confused, aka trolls. 

Hopefully mine can be taken, too: as a researcher, I can’t let an opportunity pass to widen discussion and remind folks that all researchers exist on a continuum of personal bias and outside pressures (funding agency, departmental politics, social trends) that can affect outcomes, but that some researchers, given their employer, need that second glance*.  You’ll just have to live with me!

*Which doesn’t automatically discredit any scientist, and I hate to think I suggested otherwise.

Sorry, but you’re quoting the wrong guy. I’m not making a “scientific” opinion on GW, since it’s not my area of expertise. However, as a purely personal opinion, I’m inclined to dismiss it as mostly a bunch of baloney.  In short, I just don’t take it that seriously. JMO, of course ...

As a matter of personal opinion, quantum mechanics sounds like bullshit to me, too.

And yet here we are using equipment that depends on it…

On 8 Jan 2009, two tourists were killed here by a glacier.  They ignored the warning signs and walked over to the face of the Fox Glacier to take their pictures, smugly assuming the cordon didn’t apply to them.  They were then crushed by 100 tonnes of melting ice.

If only they had been American, I’d be tempted to try using them as a metaphor…

I myself have a theory that there aren’t really multiple trolls, there’s an AI that the NSA has been working on that is an advanced troll emulator.  Well, I guess it’s not really that advanced…

Mike, you ignorant slut, it’s incredibly advanced.  Look how close our trolls have come to passing the Turing test…

Catgirl: “But the weather has actually been getting noticeably warmer where I live.”

No surprise, considering we’re moving from spring into summer, which tends to be hotter…..
(just teasing, luv).

Anyway, I don’t buy into the whole “ZOMG TEH ICEKAPS R MELTING GET UR LIFEJAKIT!!!!1!” insanity, because, well, this year the climate doesn’t seem any different to me than any other year, at least noticeably so. Some experts believe the planet is just going through a phase, which it has done for eons (saw this on the Discovery Channel last year).

Oprah wasn’t the first one to highlight the pollution in the Pacific, but since the vast majority of people are too lazy/apathetic to read and learn on their own, she is credited for bringing it to light. And yes, I agree it is good to see her focus on things like that than that chrome-domed dipshit No-Fuckin’-Way-He’s-A-Doctor Phil.

One final note: while it is sad that eco-friendliness has to become chic and turned into bags and clothes that cost more than my first car, at least its a step in the right direction.

I guess corwin is behind, and hasn’t heard that Freeman Dyson pretty much dinged that article, with the only really accurate part being his belief that humans will adjust…

And,why would you want to be on the opposite of Freeman Dyson,on anything.

She’s not:

Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written “One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas.”[17]

They may disagree about solutions, but Dyson’s completely on board with global warming being anthropogenic.  Quoting Dyson to support your denialist views of global warming is like quoting Stephen Jay Gould to support creationism—if you do it, it only proves you have no idea what they actually said.

Can you imagine being the (likely fictitious) person who had to edit corwin’s articles? His posts here are so riddled with mechanical errors that they’re almost incoherent, and that’s just one measly paragraph of his writing.

corwin is a competing AI troll emulator from Russia that hasn’t advanced enough to get language right…

it’s basically a melee of unrestrained liberal bashing, which unfortunately is unlikely to persuade fair-minded people of anything.

This is like watching a romantic comedy and then complaining that the characters and situations weren’t realistic.

EricJG, based on this and your comments of “in my personal opinion, I just don’t take global warming that seriously,” your problem is that you use sanctimonious ignorance as a stand-in for sophistication… once again, a problem in which you’re using your ideology and the culture of movement conservatism to determine which “pose” you decide to take. That’s all well and good when it comes to taste in music and movies, but when it comes to science, it’s a behavior of the wilfully ignorant.

Shorter EricJG: Americans won’t give up their big fucking houses and big fucking cars and big fucking air conditioners and they can come up with all manner of rationales for it.

“As a matter of personal opinion, quantum mechanics sounds like bullshit to me, too.”

Well, so does the Theory of Relativity, yet no Christians are objecting to it. It may be rather “mind-bending”, but so far has not proven to be untrue.

Of course, Relativity remains unproven There’s the notion out there that the Speed of Light isn’t constant, but rather varies with time, and that it was actually faster during the early stages of the Big Bang. Evidence for such appears in the book “Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries” by Neil deGrasse Tyson. If this were true, it would radically change our views of the Universe, namely, that it could be much bigger than we previously thought.

“Shorter EricJG: Americans won’t give up their big fucking houses and big fucking cars and big fucking air conditioners and they can come up with all manner of rationales for it.”

Well, maybe. The more relevant question, now that China and India are rapidly entering the realm of having a growing middle class is - Are the Chinese and Indians going to give up the things Americans take for granted, like cars and air conditioning? Answer - probably not. That’s maybe 2 billion people who expect to live exactly like we do. And all the Kyoto treaties in the world ain’t gonna stop that.

“EricJG, based on this and your comments of “in my personal opinion, I just don’t take global warming that seriously,” your problem is that you use sanctimonious ignorance as a stand-in for sophistication… once again, a problem in which you’re using your ideology and the culture of movement conservatism to determine which “pose” you decide to take. That’s all well and good when it comes to taste in music and movies, but when it comes to science, it’s a behavior of the wilfully ignorant.”

Well maybe. But honestly, does anyone REALLY take Al Gore’s Globaloney seriously? Anyone at all? Or is it basically a secular version of the End Times, a Global Apocalypse that’s supposed to scare the diapers off everybody so Al Gore can sell a few more books?

Well maybe. But honestly, does anyone REALLY take Al Gore’s Globaloney seriously? Anyone at all?

And the reason not to is because he’s a bore (ha ha Al Bore ha - get it?)? Or because you think he’s a “goofball”? Or is because he’s fat?  Or because he has a bigger than average house?  Help us out here - what personal foible do you want us to sneer at to discredit his science?

Al Gore is no hemp-clothing-wearing hippie telling everyone to live a mellow life in a commune to save the planet. 

Having attended one of his An Inconvenient Truth presentations, one of the things that surprised me is his strong emphasis on seeing Global Warming not as a sign of mankind’s impending doom, but as a business opportunity, as a reason to press harder to develop alternate energy, creatively improve our efficiency, use innovation to adjust our techniques for living on Earth and make it all sustainable.

Honestly, using our minds to solve important problems having to do with the future of mankind is a hell of a lot more appealing than coming up with new financial instruments that will be profitable for a few years before biting us all in the ass.  Or using our minds to arrive at even more innovative techniques for killing civilians in some other country whose resources we want.

I was born in 1960, and have been aware of the concept of Global Warming for probably 35-years or more.  Al Gore didn’t invent it.  The science is solid and the evidence is clear.  All he did was package a lot of the evidence into a compelling presentation.  Just because you don’t like the messenger, don’t assume the message is BS.

So, to answer your snotty question, yes, I take Al Gore seriously.  And so do a lot of other people whose minds have not been poisoned by a diet of Limbaugh-style arrogant denial washed down with wingnut Koolaid…

Well maybe. But honestly, does anyone REALLY take Al Gore’s Globaloney seriously?

I see what you did there! You combined Global and baloney! Well, I guess that proves it!

People do take the science seriously. I think your problem is that you view climate change science in the same way a creationist views evolution—creationists think that evolutionists “follow Darwin” in the same way that creationists “follow the Bible” and that it’s just a dispute between which ideology you wish to follow. You’re doing the same thing.

Al Gore is a spokesman for environmental issues. People take climate change seriously, because it’s a serious issue that scientists have been grappling with.

Anyone at all?

Yup. If you asked a scientist, he’d tell you, “he’s promoting our research to the general public.”

Or is it basically a secular version of the End Times, a Global Apocalypse that’s supposed to scare the diapers off everybody so Al Gore can sell a few more books?

Nope. As I said, it’s a reflection of the science on this issue, which you could compare to that of other climate scientists and the climatologists who deal with this.

Since it’s clear that in your worldview, you view beliefs/facts as things whom you follow based on the spokespeople, you think that Al Gore made up climate change and that everyone who is dealing with how to mitigate the effects of human-caused climate change is like you—someone who’s following a leader based on what he says. I wouldn’t call it “projection” so much as the fact that you can’t conceive of someone thinking in any way other that you do. Since your ideology doesn’t allow you to like Al Gore, you reject something just because he happens to accept and promote certain ideas.

It’s actually sad… somewhere along the line, a bunch of Republicans got a serious bug up their collective asses about Al Gore, who for the most part was a fairly benign character. Since that point, it’s become a litmus test for membership in the right wing “club” to mock Al Gore disbelieve everything he happens to say as a means of proving that one is “cool” within the right-wing community. Unfortunately, such a mindset makes is awfully difficult to have an adult conversation with such people, because they’ve been so given over the the juvenile, wilful ignorance that is demanded from the right-wing-American community.

Well, so does the Theory of Relativity, yet no Christians are objecting to it.

They don’t object to it because they think it proves that God created the universe.  They haven’t accepted it on the scientific merits after looking at all of the evidence.  They looked at it and said, “See, it proves that God created it all!  We are justified!”

Are the Chinese and Indians going to give up the things Americans take for granted, like cars and air conditioning? Answer - probably not.

There’s a difference between addressing the implicit claims of China and India that they should be able to industrialise on the same dirty, unchecked terms as the developed world did in the 1800s and treating the American Way of Excess as a stable normative goal, as opposed to the byproduct of finite resources. That’s why the US example going forward is deeply relevant.

But again, you’re only displaying your apparently infinite capacity to make excuses.

rainy frank = franklin raines, i assume. good god man, get a life.

You’re absolutely right, chibi. On both counts.

Well, so does the Theory of Relativity, yet no Christians are objecting to it. It may be rather “mind-bending”, but so far has not proven to be untrue.

Actually, there are some that do.  Check the loony <a href=“http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_Relativity>Conservapedia</a>:

<blockquote>Relativity is a mathematical system built on untestable hypotheses. By relying on assumptions about nature rather than observations, the theories of relativity violate Isaac Newton’s rule against the use of hypotheses: “>

Much more, go have a laugh.

Anyway.  As to consensus, I would love to hear which scientific theories you *do* think are not bullshit.  We could then find groups of people with Ph.D.s who disagree with those theories.  And then you can explain how that list is any different from your list.

Gah, sorry about the borken link hence borken blockquote.  Again:

Well, so does the Theory of Relativity, yet no Christians are objecting to it. It may be rather “mind-bending”, but so far has not proven to be untrue.

Actually, there are some that do.  Check the loony Conservapedia:

Relativity is a mathematical system built on untestable hypotheses. By relying on assumptions about nature rather than observations, the theories of relativity violate Isaac Newton’s rule against the use of hypotheses: “Hypotheses non fingo” (“I feign no hypotheses)”.[4] Relativity also rejects—without any experimental evidence—Newton’s action at a distance, which is basic to Newtonian gravity and quantum mechanics.

Much more, go have a laugh.

Anyway.  As to consensus, I would love to hear which scientific theories you *do* think are not bullshit.  We could then find groups of people with Ph.D.s who disagree with those theories.  And then you can explain how that list is any different from your list.

Oh, and PS Here’s another example of me goofing on Al Gore over at Dana’s Site:

http://commonsensepoliticalthought.com/?p=1351#comments

Funny, seems every time I goof on goofy ol’ Gore, it always seems to attract hordes of responses over there.

Pay Attention to me! Pay attention to me!

EricJG on 05/17 at 01:09 AM

FTFY

catgirl: David Bellamy is best known as a TV naturalist from the 1970s and 80s; he had endorsed the consensus on climate change as late as 2000. He appears to have gone crackers in the last five years.

(Here’s an account of a howler from him.)

Wingnuts are not only terrified of change, they get irrationally pissed off at ANYONE telling them that they might have to do something different from the way they want to do it. That is called privilege. They believe the world was created to suit them and how DARE any dirty fucking hippies point out to them the fact that it isn’t?

Anyway, I don’t buy into the whole “ZOMG TEH ICEKAPS R MELTING GET UR LIFEJAKIT!!!!1!” insanity, because, well, this year the climate doesn’t seem any different to me than any other year, at least noticeably so.

I mentioned it once, but it’s worth repeating.  Climate is not synonymous with weather.  Your weather might not be noticeably different, but the climate where you are living may be changing without you noticing, because climate is different than weather.  Is that really so difficult to understand?  Even so, the weather has been getting noticeably warmer where I live, just over the past decade.  It has been about 12 years since we’ve had a blizzard.  There is a blizzard cycle, but we were due for one about 4 years ago.  In fact, the 3 most recent winters have had hardly any snow at all.

Miein=white idiot.