Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
New at Reason
Gamblin' Ron Bailey settles an old bet and offers a new, long-term wager to both climate change skeptics and militants.
Comments to "New at Reason":
gaijin | January 17, 2008, 8:23am | #
I bet that there will be at least 3 comments accusing Ron Bailey of being a global warming denier.I'm surprised that more attention hasn't been given to the relatively flat temperature trend of the last decade. While timeframes like this are certainly short, do climate models output such 'pauses' from their overall upward trend forecasts?
Jackanapestarian | January 17, 2008, 8:32am | #
The only thing I'd be willing to bet on is that in a few thousand years we'll be entering another glacial period. Its severity will probably be tempered somewhat by the industrialization that has taken place during our current interglacial period. Or not. Nobody knows or will know. One other bet: if humans are still around by then, they'll be fretting over what to do about it.John-David | January 17, 2008, 8:41am | #
I thought we were on an accelerating warming path, like the "hockey stick". Did the "hockey stick" get tossed out?Jon | January 17, 2008, 8:44am | #
"One other bet: if humans are still around by then, they'll be fretting over what to do about it."Either that or they'll still be arguing about newsletters, paleos and cosmos...
DavidS | January 17, 2008, 8:52am | #
I'm surprised that more attention hasn't been given to the relatively flat temperature trend of the last decade.As 1998 was a particularly warm year due to El Nino - it's hardly surprising that a 10-year trend is fairly flat when that year is used as a starting point.
Ron mentions this in his article...
In 1998, the world experienced a huge El Nino event in which the tropical Pacific Ocean heated up the planet.
...though he could probably have done more to highlight the issue.
ithaqua | January 17, 2008, 9:01am | #
I'd be willing to bet that the RSS study will be trumpeted far and wide over the Internets as proof - PROOF! - that "global warming" is part of a socialist plot to nationalize the means of production, or whatever the liberal conspiracy du jour is, without any mention of the nuances and conflicting studies Mr, Bailey mentioned.Any takers? :)
I bet that people who believe in AGW will continue to believe in it no matter what evidence is shown to them, whether it is sunspots, no warming after all, cow farts, whatever. Religions are like that.
JeffK | January 17, 2008, 9:07am | #
The Hadley Centre prediction is a sucker bet. Using the annual United States temperature data gotten from the NOAA, the temperature for 2004 was over 1 degree Fahrenheit colder than the 1998 temperature (approximately .5 Celsius). If we get back to close to 1998's temperature, you would win the bet.Link to the page I used is:
http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/cag3/hr-display3.pl
gaijin | January 17, 2008, 9:10am | #
David S typed:Ron mentions this in his article...
In 1998, the world experienced a huge El Nino event in which the tropical Pacific Ocean heated up the planet.
...though he could probably have done more to highlight the issue.
Sorry, I was unclear...I meant I was surprised that the relatively flat trend hasn;t gotten more attention by other, more broadly distributed media. I wasn;t commenting on RB's attention to the data.
Mr. Nice Guy | January 17, 2008, 9:11am | #
"I bet that people who believe in AGW will continue to believe in it no matter what evidence is shown to them, whether it is sunspots, no warming after all, cow farts, whatever. Religions are like that."Religions are supported by a broad consensus of the experts who are especially trained to understand this and devote far more time to the meticulous examination of the relevant data? Geez, and all these years I've been an agnostic, d'oh!
I don't need no stinkin' bet; I'll be raking in the dough, up here in Montana on my banana plantation.
Mr. Nice Guy | January 17, 2008, 9:14am | #
EpisiarchYou think those thousands of scientists, scientists now, with Phd's, ten years plus of education and immersed daily in the relevant evidence, numbering thousands and scattered across nations, ethnicities, governments, industries, etc., are all being bamboozled or have fallen into a trance-like thrall of some Gaia worship?
And the only ones who see the truth are a small minority of folks, many of whom have a vested interest or ideological stake that would lead them to oppose Global Warming?
Now THAT'S a foolish bet I should think...
Anonymo the Anonymous | January 17, 2008, 9:19am | #
OT tech question: sometime between yesterday and this morning Firefox decided it was going to start rendering all reason.com pages weird. Hard to describe but in short, everything looks like it hopped in a time machine back to the Web circa 1995 -- it's all just left-justified black-on-white text devoid of any layout or style. Navigation bar on the left side (Home, Subscribe, Contact Us...) is plain text links. Oddly enough, the only image on the page is the little orange button for the RSS feed. All the text appears to be here far as I can tell.Can't think of any settings or software changes I may have made, and it displays normal in IE. Only other page I regularly visit that's messed up is Wikipedia, and it's not nearly as bad as HnR -- looks like it's just not showing up in the right font and text size, layout is otherwise intact. Everything else looks fine.
Some cursory Googling revealed nothing useful, but I'm not sure I was even looking in the right direction. Any ideas wtf is up? I'll just reinstall ff if necessary but this baffled me. Thanks.
Anonymo the Anonymous | January 17, 2008, 9:21am | #
OT continued: Even weirder still, as soon as I clicked submit comment, the page reloaded and displays as normal. Wikipedia still looks funny.Thank you, MNG, for proving my point. Your hysterical disbelief that anyone could reasonably be skeptical (not 100% against, just skeptical) is the most telling thing. "How can you not believe that JESUS is our SAVIOR?!?!?!? Thousands and thousands of priests agree!!!"
Anonymo, you may have had a bad download of the style sheet.
Mr. Nice Guy | January 17, 2008, 9:23am | #
I'll never understand the propensity of many folks to wrap scientific findings around their political or religious ideology rather than the other way around.One can be against any government that is not reasonably necessary to protect one from rather direct harm from the actions of others. Fine. That's an interesting view worth discussion.
But to then think that this ideology means you must strongly argue against any claim that the class of actions that inflict rather direct harm on others is wider than we once thought is goofy imo.
If there was a product, x, which was thought to be harmless when dumped into streams and rivers, a libertarian would of course be justified to oppose government attempts to prevent folks from dumping it into streams and rivers. If, though, it became the scientific consensus that this product was in fact harmful to any who came into contact with water contaminated by it, then a libertarian would be a fool to say "well, it's still wrong to coerce people from exposing others to this because coercion is wrong." It would be nearly just as foolish to feel obligated to say "the scientific consensus is wrong, we can't be sure this product is harmful to others, and trying to have government regulate it is creeping socialism, blah, blah."
If the actions of others cause direct harm to others and their property, then its OK to coerce them to stop, but that should be the limit of government. That seems an intelligent libertarian view. Then let science examine what falls into that class.
pedant | January 17, 2008, 9:23am | #
Wow, I figured "pedant" would be the first to post.Pedant likes a challenge. By the way, were the quotation marks necessary?
I read a great story that reminded me of the "global warming consensus". During the 1930s a bunch of Nazi scientists all signed a declaration that said that reletivity was false because it was Jewish Science, whatever that is. When asked about the delcaration and its many signers, Enstein responded something to the effect of, "if it were true, only one person would have to sign it." The fact that the global warming industry has to get 100s of scientists to swear it is true speaks I think to their insecurity over the issue rather than their confidence.
Mr. Nice Guy | January 17, 2008, 9:26am | #
Epi-you miss the mark. Your analogy is faulty because our "priests" are not like priests at all, and science is not like religion. Instead, my "priests" are a broad consensus of the highly trained experts in the relevant fields. Their "dogma" is peer review, the scientific method, replicable studies, careful observation and recording of phenomena, careful statistical modelling, etc.The "priests" on you side? People with strong ideological committments and those with vested interests.
Hallelujah, Brother!
Anonymo the Anonymous | January 17, 2008, 9:29am | #
Anonymo, you may have had a bad download of the style sheet.Yeah, that seems (at least in layman's terms) to make a lot of sense -- any way to force it to redownload the style sheet or whatever I need to do?
John | January 17, 2008, 9:31am | #
"Your analogy is faulty because our "priests" are not like priests at all, and science is not like religion. Instead, my "priests" are a broad consensus of the highly trained experts in the relevant fields."See Enstein, if it were true, only one person would have to say it. Does that mean it is untrue? Not necessarily. It just means that antropromorphic global warming is not established fact. If it were, no one would bother signing petitions and applealing to the "consensus" on the subject. When confronting creationists, no one talks about the consensus that supports evolution do they? No they don't because unlike global warming you can point to evidence and facts, not consensus to support to support evolution.
Anonymo the Anonymous | January 17, 2008, 9:31am | #
Ah, got it -- manually cleared the cache. Sorry for the interruption and thanks Epi.You keep touting "consensus". I know this has been said and doesn't seem to sink in, but there is no consensus science. Don't you know that dinosaurs were cold-blooded and slow? Everyone agrees.
A single decade is going to be too prone to noise and to cyclical events, like el Nino/la Nina, whose cycles are a single-digit number of years long.
sage | January 17, 2008, 9:36am | #
Pedant likes a challenge. By the way, were the quotation marks necessary?Well, yeah, unless that is in fact your real name. And unless you have "and old bet" to settle, you're slacking.
John | January 17, 2008, 9:36am | #
"The "priests" on you side? People with strong ideological committments and those with vested interests."And no one on the pro global warming side has any vested interest? No one sees it as an excuse to get every pet program they love enacted? No scientists anywhere who have recieved grants and tenure based on the support of the theory have any vested interest in it being true. If the solar physicists who claim that global warming is due to solar activity are correct, do you realize how many careers will end? A ton.
It is perfectly reasonable to believe in man made global warming. But it is not reasonable to claim that one side doesn't have a vested interest in the result.
Warty | January 17, 2008, 9:37am | #
"if it were true, only one person would have to sign it."That is a point that isn't made enough. Consensus is the opposite of science.
Michael Chrichton gave a speech about this that I liked.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
Disclaimer: I don't pretend to know anything about global warming. I do, however, know politics when I see it.
joe | January 17, 2008, 9:41am | #
Nyah nyah, Mr. Nice Guy.Someone who doesn't know the difference between a scientific researcher and a priest accused you of being unscientific.
Gee, I but that stung.
joe | January 17, 2008, 9:43am | #
See, as John points out, our problem is that there are just too many scientists who agree with us.That's how you know there's something fishy going on; because the scientists why study the issue keep coming to the same conclusions.
I mean, what else could possible cause such a thing to happen?
From The Keystrokes of John Q. Public | January 17, 2008, 9:45am | #
Mr Nice Guy,I definitely think the earth has been on a warming trend. As for the whole: This is the greatest threat to humanity to do special...
I'm not sold. First the earth was heating up and turning into a giant dustbowl. Then the earth was freezing. Time Magazine in the mid 70's printing expert concensus on how the earth is going to turn into an ice cube. Now the earth is warming again.
If you really believe all these future predictions by all these experts, ask them to tell you how next spring is going to be. They spend huge sums of grant money to generate computer models of the earth to show the future of the Earth's weather. So why don't they start selling the weather information for the future? Too many variables.
Ask someone who is roughly 100 years old what the most monumental thing's they've seen are, and I bet the Ocean rising a foot won't be one of them.Somehow we managed to make more land in Hong Kong? The Kyoto Accord is suppose to prevent the temperature change for a grand total of 7 years. Now THAT is a foolish bet I should think...
Episiarch | January 17, 2008, 9:46am | #
Someone who doesn't know the difference between a scientific researcher and a priest accused you of being unscientific.Gee, I but that stung.
Someone who doesn't have an education and background in science is mocking someone who does.
Gee, that stings.
John | January 17, 2008, 9:47am | #
Joe,Every scientist who studies the subject agrees with evolution to. Yet, no one ever resorts to argument by petition on that subject. The reason of course is that there is no need to. There are tons of irrefutable pieces of evidence to point to with regard to evolution. There isn't in global warming so people resort to argument by petition. Further, not every scientist believes in man made global warming. There are legitimately serious people who deny it completely and there is absolutely no consensus on the really dire forecasts. Most of the serious scientists on the subject, even if they agree with the theory are embarrassed by the exaggeration and politicization of the subject.
VM | January 17, 2008, 9:49am | #
MNG or Epi with the science education and background?genuine interest: which, and what area?
thx!
Mr. Nice Guy | January 17, 2008, 9:50am | #
The Germany example is again inapt. That scientists in a nation under political pressure from extremists can make wrong claims is actually more ammunition for me (since the ones strongly opposing global warming usually have strong ideological positions). Of course the consensus of scientists in the world, outside of Germany, though such a document was pretty funny. Just like they think the work of GW deniers is pretty funny.gaijin | January 17, 2008, 9:50am | #
John:...antropromorphic global warming...
Not a major deal, but I think you mean anthropogenic global warming.
Elemenope | January 17, 2008, 9:50am | #
The Global Warming Industry? Is that kind of like the ill-tempered sea bass industry?R C Dean | January 17, 2008, 9:54am | #
Religions are supported by a broad consensus of the experts who are especially trained to understand this and devote far more time to the meticulous examination of the relevant data?That's a fair description of the Catholic Church, yes.
See, also, above comments re vested data, etc. And if you think there isn't a robust peer review process for Christian and especially Catholic theology, well, you haven't seen the process at work.
Instead, my "priests" are a broad consensus of the highly trained experts in the relevant fields.
This is simply not true. A substantial fraction of the experts in the relevant fields don't buy the CO2 hypothesis or the AGW hypothesis.
Their "dogma" is peer review, the scientific method, replicable studies, careful observation and recording of phenomena, careful statistical modelling, etc.
Amusing, given the very poor predictive record of AGW models, the need to constantly correct them, or "correct" the dato to conform to the model, etc.
Mr. Nice Guy | January 17, 2008, 9:54am | #
"I know this has been said and doesn't seem to sink in, but there is no consensus science."You are missing the point. Yes, something is not true BECAUSE there is a consensus of the experts in that area on that topic. However, the consensus of the best trained folks devoting the most time to that topic is a STRONG reason to defer to their judgment on THAT issue.
In the course of the history of science certain scientific claims have ultimately been proven incorrect. Of course, non-science claims, including industry and ideological groups, has a much worse record.
Perhaps you anti-GW types can instruct us as to what other scientific claims which have a similar level of support from relevant experts you think are wrong? Are there any that you have no ideological problem with? What criteria do you use for rejecting scientific consensuses on various claims?
John | January 17, 2008, 9:56am | #
Mr. Nice Guy,It is not just whackjobs being forced at gunpoint to sign a petition. Are the solar guys in Russia just crazy? Further, even among the scientists are a part of the alleged consensus, there is no consensus on the actual extent of the "problem". We just don't understand our climate very well. It is enormously complex. Maybe the theory is right maybe it is wrong, time will tell. But the idea that our understanding of climate and man's effects on it is so developed that global warming can be equated with say relativity and evolution in terms of validity, is just ludicrous.
Mr. Nice Guy | January 17, 2008, 9:56am | #
"This is simply not true. A substantial fraction of the experts in the relevant fields don't buy the CO2 hypothesis or the AGW hypothesis."What fraction? And where do you get that from?
joe | January 17, 2008, 9:56am | #
If you don't know the difference between how scientists operate and how priests operate, it probably isn't terribly useful to argue science with you.I think this thread makes perfectly clear where the religious thinking comes from.
Mr. Nice Guy | January 17, 2008, 9:58am | #
"Every scientist who studies the subject agrees with evolution to. Yet, no one ever resorts to argument by petition on that subject."Actually the do all the time. Where do you get the idea they do not? It's quite reasonable, like expert testimony in courts of law. It establishes consensus.
VM | January 17, 2008, 9:59am | #
gaijin*giggles*
Mr. Nice Guy | January 17, 2008, 10:00am | #
Anti-GWers tend to not answer questions put to them, but instead try to keep picking at the long end of this claim of the GW consensus over here, and the long end of that claim over there, much like creationists.So how about an answer to my post way up-thread:
You think those thousands of scientists, scientists now, with Phd's, ten years plus of education and immersed daily in the relevant evidence, numbering thousands and scattered across nations, ethnicities, governments, industries, etc., are all being bamboozled or have fallen into a trance-like thrall of some Gaia worship?
VM | January 17, 2008, 10:01am | #
cool, Epi, thanks!Were you during or post Chagnon's Yanamamo "fierce people" phase?
(I've run across quite a few Anthro people in my world (pharma mktg/mktg research). Lots of fun to do work with them)
Episiarch | January 17, 2008, 10:02am | #
That scientists in a nation under political pressure from extremists can make wrong claims is actually more ammunition for me (since the ones strongly opposing global warming usually have strong ideological positions).It is? They do? And those who support it don't have strong ideological positions? People who call bullshit on "OH NOES THE SKY IS FALLING" have a really, really good track record. I will stick with that.
I'm sorry if I don't believe in ManBearPig, Al. Maybe when we open up the portal to Imaginationland I will.
Mr. Nice Guy | January 17, 2008, 10:03am | #
VMI have a doctorate in political science actually, (it would be nice if I worked in that field though!, I do social science research for a firm) but I'm not making my claims based on MY expertise, but the expertise of the bulk of scientists in various fields who study this subject.
I can't think of a single professional association of scientists who have concluded that GW is bunk. Can you? I can though provide you with a list of the ones that have backed the theory. Do you really need that?
joe | January 17, 2008, 10:04am | #
I consider evolution to be a settled truth, because the overwhelming majority of scientists who study the issue have concluded that it is the truth.If I was really, really motivated, I could find some hacks from the Discovery Institute who say otherwise, but it would take a lot of work. Nonetheless, they would have letters after their name.
Within the community of responsible, fair-minded scientists, there are large area of disagreement about whether ordinary genetic drift can account for species variability, or whether there had to be periods of increased genetic variability, just to pick one area where there is ongoing dispute. While the hacks at the Discovery Insitute like to point to such disputes as evidence that the case for evolution is weak, none of the responsible scientists on either side of that dispute would agree with them at all.
And so with climate science. Yes, John, the climate is enormously complex, and there is much to still learn. Each and every one of the climate scientists and biologists who has documented the evidence of global warming will tell you that. They will also tell you, just like biologists who study evolution, that the areas they do not understand in now way disprove those things they do understand.
John | January 17, 2008, 10:05am | #
"Perhaps you anti-GW types can instruct us as to what other scientific claims which have a similar level of support from relevant experts you think are wrong? Are there any that you have no ideological problem with? What criteria do you use for rejecting scientific consensuses on various claims?"I can certainly point you to any number of theories which had a lot better consensus than global warming and turned out to be wrong; that dinosaurs were cold blooded lizards, that acid and stress, not bacteria caused ulcers, that electrons orbited around a nucleus of an atom like planets, that there was such a thing as ether that everything moved through, just to name a few. The point is that it is a endless process of hypothesis and experiment. The climate is enormously complex. There is no guarantee right now if the theory is correct or if it is to what extent it is correct and to what extent we are better off adapting rather than preventing warming. If it were a risk that could be prevented by a few billion dollars like CFCs that would be one thing. But that is not what people are advocating. Further, I will believe it is a crisis when the people who say it is a crisis start acting like it is rather than taking private jets to conferences in Bali.
Mr. Nice Guy | January 17, 2008, 10:06am | #
"And those who support it don't have strong ideological positions?"No, no common one I can think of. It's a broad consensus covering a variety of fields, nations, and, yes, "political ideologies" (as John Derbyshire has pointed out in the evolution debate on the claim of IDers that evolution consensus is based on some ideological position of "scientists", most successful full time scientists are fairly non-ideological, they are immersed in their work for hte most part).
joe | January 17, 2008, 10:06am | #
I'm sorry if I don't believe in ManBearPig, Al. Maybe when we open up the portal to Imaginationland I will.Al? Al who?
But remember, kids, it's the people who agree with the scientific consensus who are letting their politics get in the way of their scientific understanding.
VM | January 17, 2008, 10:06am | #
"I do social science research for a firm"cool! and I'm just genuinely interested.
Same answer to you as to Epi - I run into Social science (poli sci, econ (natch), soc, anthro, etc) people all over the place. And considering the negative attitude hier that many have, it's always cool to see :)
joe | January 17, 2008, 10:09am | #
The point is that it is a endless process of hypothesis and experiment.Yes, there is. And as that process has continued and additional evidence collected, the consensus among the relevant scientists regarding global warming has become both broader and more certain, while exactly the opposite happened with each and every one of the other consensuses you mentioned.
VM | January 17, 2008, 10:11am | #
FYI, "A Call for a Presidential Debate on Science and Technology"seems kinda cool!
joe | January 17, 2008, 10:11am | #
BTW, I like Bailey's language. If you are on the side opposed to the IPCC, you are a "skeptic."If you agree with it, you are a "militant."
How do you cash in on the long bet that someone alive in 2000 is still alive in 2150 if you are not that person?
ithaqua | January 17, 2008, 10:11am | #
John wrote:Every scientist who studies the subject agrees with evolution to.
O RLY?
Episiarch | January 17, 2008, 10:12am | #
Were you during or post Chagnon's Yanamamo "fierce people" phase?During, and before the major controversies.
joe | January 17, 2008, 10:14am | #
ithaqua, I'm sure they're just fair-minded scientists who drew different conclusions from the data.I mean, if dinosaurs were cold-blooded, Jesus would have gotten a cold bum.
The best part is that joe is just as absolutely sure that AGW is happening the way he thinks it is, as Stephen Hawking was about the black hole information paradox.
John | January 17, 2008, 10:15am | #
"And so with climate science. Yes, John, the climate is enormously complex, and there is much to still learn. Each and every one of the climate scientists and biologists who has documented the evidence of global warming will tell you that. They will also tell you, just like biologists who study evolution, that the areas they do not understand in now way disprove those things they do understand."Biologists are not asking the world to give up trillions of dollars in standard of living as a result of evolution. The fact is the earth was three degrees warmed in 3000 BC when civilization arose than it is now. Yet, people claiming now that a 2 degree increase in temps are going to make the world uninhabitable. It is just politically driven bunk. Further, I have yet to see any realistic plan to actually do something about it if it were true. Most of what I have seen borders on the religious in that it is, make this sacrifice even though it will do no good, but at least you tried kind of thing. If warming happens humans will adapt just like they always have. Given a choice between spending trillions on projects that are unlikely to solve a problem that may or may not exist or doing nothing. I will take nothing and bet on it either not being true or humans adapting.
We read "Yanomamo: the Fierce People" as a text book when I took Anthropology.
ithaqua | January 17, 2008, 10:18am | #
John wrote:The fact that the global warming industry has to get 100s of scientists to swear it is true speaks I think to their insecurity over the issue rather than their confidence.
From The Global Warming Petition Project:
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
[...]
"This petition has been signed by over 19,000 American scientists."
The fact that the anti-global warming industry shills have to get 1000s of scientists to swear it is false speaks, I think, to their insecurity over the issue rather than their confidence.
Heh.
joe | January 17, 2008, 10:20am | #
John,You shouldn't let your opinions about science's political implications influence your understanding of science so much. You aand the Episiarch are the ones dragging politics into the discussion, while MNG and I have written only about science. Maybe that indicates something.
If your opinion would change 180 degrees, if only the people who agreed with the science tended to advocate for the political vision you support, you aren't really making a scientific judgement.
The best part is that joe is just as absolutely sure that AGW is happening the way he thinks it is, as Stephen Hawking was about the black hole information paradox.
Actually, I'm as certain that global warming is happening as Stephen Hawking is that black holes exist. Full stop.
VM | January 17, 2008, 10:21am | #
joe - I had figured you had, cuz we're about the same age. thanks Epi.Last night on WGN radio last night (missed Tuesday with Michael Shermer, dammit):
YOUR INNER FISH...
Where and how did humans evolve from water to a land living animal? This is the quintessential question, and Neil Shubin thinks he has the answer.
was really cool and some really fun people called in. I fell asleep (sigh) before they started talking about the Yanomamo.
SugarFree | January 17, 2008, 10:23am | #
I don't think the AGW religion is a product of climate scientists, but rather the celebrity layman on the street and the gullible public who listens to them.Now that so many people talk about AGW in moral rather than scientific terms -- a discussion that treats carbon emissions like a sin, and offer carbon offsets as papal indulgences for the rich to remain pious -- the religion mantle settles firmly on the movement.
Start looking at AGW as a scientific problem to solve and not a moral stain to scrub off the human soul and maybe the religion thing won't come up so much. Or be so obvious.
floccia | January 17, 2008, 10:25am | #
I would bet that AGW is real but will be a very small problem.BTW Lookup biochar for a potential solution.
Episiarch | January 17, 2008, 10:27am | #
Actually, I'm as certain that global warming is happening as Stephen Hawking is that black holes exist. Full stop.Great! So in other words, you will accept no evidence to the contrary. Good old-time religion.
Chuck | January 17, 2008, 10:32am | #
A big part of the problem is that we debate "global warming" as if it were one issue. There are really three or four distnct questions that need to be separated out:1. Is the earth getting warmer?
This is a fairly straightforward question (depending on what time scale you adopt), and nobody seriously disputes that there has been a significant upward trend over the last 50 or so years. HOWEVER...
2. How much of this trend is due to factors we can control?
I am not an expert on the subject, but I have seen claims ranging from zero to around 70%. If there is a consensus on this figure, I have not seen it and would appreciate any pointers.
3. Is this trend a Bad Thing?
This is not a question that science is equipped to answer, although a lot of people would like to believe that it is. Science can provide estimates of how much warming will occur (over a relatively short time frame), but warming will have positive effects in some areas and negative effects in others. Whether the net outcome is positive or negative (and in fact which outcomes actually count as "positive" or "negative") involves questions that science is not set up to answer.
4. What, if anything, can/should be done about this trend?
Science can--maybe--answer the "can" part, but again is not equipped to handle the "should" part.
IMHO, a big problem with the AGW scientific community is that many of them stray way too far into questions 3 and 4, and try to act as if science can provide clear answers to those, when in reality their positions on these questions are based mainly on their own values. If they want to express their opinions as individual members of society, they are of course free to do so, but they do everyone a disservice when they try to use their credentials to make it appear as if being a scientist gives them some special insight into questions involving value judgements.
joe | January 17, 2008, 10:32am | #
Biochar is one of the neatest ideas I've seen in a long time.SugarFree,
I see people on these threads making moralistic statements about the harm done to people by over-regulation and taxation every single day, and linking it to the moral shortcomings of a society that doesn't adequately value blabbitty blabbitty blah blah. And there's nothing wrong with that. If people are being harmed, there is a moral dimenstion to the issue.
Episiarch,
So in other words, you will accept no evidence to the contrary. No, genius, I would be just willing to accept evidence that there is no global warming as Stephen Hawking would accept evidence that there are no black holes. In both cases, we aren't moved, because there isn't any convincing evidence for the "skeptical" side, and a mountain of convincing evidence for the consensus position. Duh. Do you ever even think before you write this crap?
Episiarch | January 17, 2008, 10:36am | #
In both cases, we aren't moved, because there isn't any convincing evidence for the "skeptical" side, and a mountain of convincing evidence for the consensus position.joe, if you can't even be bothered to examine the skeptic side, you can't be taken seriously. Maybe you should think before writing your crap.
R C Dean | January 17, 2008, 10:37am | #
If you don't know the difference between how scientists operate and how priests operate, it probably isn't terribly useful to argue science with you.I'm quite aware of the differences. I just think its amusing that the social practices being put up as support for consensus science also exist to a not insignificant degree in academic theology.
What fraction? And where do you get that from?
See ithaqua's 10:18 post. Personally, I don't put much stock in petitions and consensus science, but the AGW folks are the ones who started this game. If a petition is taken as evidence of a consensus, then a counter-petition should refute claims of a consensus.
R C Dean | January 17, 2008, 10:39am | #
I don't think the AGW religion is a product of climate scientists, but rather the celebrity layman on the street and the gullible public who listens to them.I also don't think that climate scientists are immune to being seduced by movement politics that raises the profile of their work and strokes their egos.
John | January 17, 2008, 10:40am | #
"The fact that the anti-global warming industry shills have to get 1000s of scientists to swear it is false speaks, I think, to their insecurity over the issue rather than their confidence."No it says that we really don't know a lot that is concrete about climate so both sides have to resort to argument by petition. Let them settle it before you come and ask me for the trillion dollars.
R C Dean | January 17, 2008, 10:41am | #
In 1998, the world experienced a huge El Nino event in which the tropical Pacific Ocean heated up the planet.Since the 1998 warming spike was caused by an El Nino, doesn't that mean it wasn't caused by CO2?
SugarFree | January 17, 2008, 10:44am | #
joe,I see people on these threads making moralistic statements about the harm done to people by over-regulation and taxation every single day
I agree, but no one around here just banned the lightbulb. That's the difference.
The (non-scienist portion of the) AGW movement thinks that the fairly settled science proving AGW automatically implies the moralistic and, in my opinion, hysterical fixes that they advocate.
It would be useful if we could all move onto the arguing of solutions and not keep lapsing into the "skeptic = denier skeptic == denier" strange loop.
P Brooks | January 17, 2008, 10:47am | #
*zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz*[Dream Sequence]
General Uproar: "Is not!" Is so! "Is not!" "Is so!" "Notnotnot!" "Izzizzizz!!" "Liar!" "Stoopid!"
Kindly Old Priest: "Heer now, yooze fellers! What's all this distarbince?"
Kid: "That kid over there sez Roger Maris couldn't beat Babe Ruth in a fistfight. Wotta DOPE! Maris'd slaughter that old fat guy!"
Kindly Old Priest: "Ah, fer the luvva Pete! That's the dopiest t'ing oi've heard t'day.
Yooze fellers got no bizniss playin stickball in this semmeterry! Git along wit yiz, ya sacreligious little bastards!
"And anywayze, Koufax could take 'em both, wit' one hand inniz pocket! Keeeroist, Oi need a drink!"
SugarFree | January 17, 2008, 10:49am | #
R C Dean,I also don't think that climate scientists are immune to being seduced by movement politics that raises the profile of their work and strokes their egos.
Of course I agree. Everyone wants a hug from Bono. Don't you?
joe | January 17, 2008, 10:51am | #
Episiarch, did you not notice the word "convincing" in my comment?You're good at not noticing things, aren't you?
Personally, I don't put much stock in petitions and consensus science, but the AGW folks are the ones who started this game.
Bullshit! Against the scientific evidence of global warming, the denialists have been putting forward "Yeah, well, I found a scientists who says..." arguments for years. Pointing out just how lopsided the numbers of climatologists are on either side is a response to that. It has never been the basis of the scientific community's position on the issue; the evidence has been the basis, and the size of the consensus is a consequence of independent scientists overwhelmingly coming to the same conclusion.
Since the 1998 warming spike was caused by an El Nino, doesn't that mean it wasn't caused by CO2?
Since the warming in my car was caused by the greenhouse effect, does that mean it didn't get warmer when I turned on my heater?
joe | January 17, 2008, 10:53am | #
I agree, but no one around here just banned the lightbulb. That's the difference.Yes, SugarFree, that's the difference: people are allowing their political opinions to influence their understanding of the science.
The term is Lysenkonism, and I would hope we were beyond that.
Frankly, allowing your politics to cloud your opinion of the science is an admission that your political philosophy can't come up with an adequate solution.
joe | January 17, 2008, 10:55am | #
This paragraph should not have been in italics:Bullshit! Against the scientific evidence of global warming, the denialists have been putting forward "Yeah, well, I found a scientists who says..." arguments for years. Pointing out just how lopsided the numbers of climatologists are on either side is a response to that. It has never been the basis of the scientific community's position on the issue; the evidence has been the basis, and the size of the consensus is a consequence of independent scientists overwhelmingly coming to the same conclusion.
And, I wanted to post it again.
gaijin | January 17, 2008, 10:56am | #
I mean, if dinosaurs were cold-blooded, Jesus would have gotten a cold bum.That's funny!
Cosmo Kramer | January 17, 2008, 10:58am | #
Episiarch, did you not notice the word "convincing" in my comment?joe, nothing is "convincing" to you, you are a True Believer®. You have faith; Kierkegaard would be proud.
SugarFree | January 17, 2008, 10:58am | #
joe,people are allowing their political opinions to influence their understanding of the science.
A) You didn't read a damn thing I said, did you?
B) That's what we think you guys are doing. Therefore, we are at in impasse.
It is now my duty to remind you of your New Year's Resolution and the reason you made it in the first place.
joe | January 17, 2008, 11:06am | #
joe, nothing is "convincing" to you, you are a True Believer®. You have faith; Kierkegaard would be proud.Of course not. I mean, what other explanation could there possibly be for not finding evidence convincing other than an imperviousness to evidence?
You haven't written anything but personal insults for three consecutive posts, Episiarch.
Strike three, yer out!
joe | January 17, 2008, 11:10am | #
You're right, SugarFree, I shouldn't be wasting my time with the equivalent of creationists.Bye bye.
Mr. Nice Guy | January 17, 2008, 11:10am | #
"From The Global Warming Petition Project:"You're kidding right? The Oregon Institute of Science and Medecine? Well shit,THAT settles that, now doesn't it?
I mean, you can CLICK to get a form to "sign" the petition, and you have to admit the requirements are PRETTY high: "Signatories to the petition are required to have formal training or
specialized experience in the analysis of information in physical science. This includes many of
those with BS, MS, or PhD degrees in science, engineering, and related disciplines."
Wow, a BS degree! That is a substantial fraction of hte experts, there! Look at the box in which you write your "scientific experience."
C'mon guys, this is taking credulity a bit far, eh? Let's chuck the affirmation of GW by the following:
The 2001 joint statement was signed by the scientific academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germay, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the UK. The 2005 statement added Japan, Russia, and the U.S. The 2007 statement added Mexico, and South Africa. Professional societies include American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Astronomical Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London, Geological Society of America, American Chemical Society, and Engineers Australia.
Mr. Nice Guy | January 17, 2008, 11:12am | #
I mean, you think all those national academies of science and professional scientific organizations, though they come from nations that are have as thorny relations as China, Russia, the US, etc., are all driven by some made delusion of Gaia worship? That's incredible.Episiarch | January 17, 2008, 11:16am | #
Strike three, yer out!Can't argue with the religious. They believe, damn it!
John | January 17, 2008, 11:16am | #
The 2001 joint statement was signed by the scientific academies of Australia...Yeah nothing politically motivated in the action of scientific academies. Oh no, nothing at all. If they could point to concrete evidence that was beyond dispute, they wouldn't need to politic scientific academies. They would just show the evidence. Of course they can't because the tempature measurements and the models are all over the place. While there may be a "consensus" among some or even most that man contributes to global warming the extent of that contribution and the actual scope of the problem, which are the meaningful questions, are anything but a consensus. Again, let them get to a point where they are no longer arguing by petition before you ask me for the trillion dollars.
Mr. Nice Guy | January 17, 2008, 11:16am | #
"I can certainly point you to any number of theories which had a lot better consensus than global warming and turned out to be wrong;"Well, shit, hindsight is of course 20/20. What CURRENTLY supported scientific consensuses, other than GW, do you find false? Let's get you guys who have the amazing amatuer ability to discern which scientific conesnsuses are false and which are true to be on record on a few here!
tsehov | January 17, 2008, 11:18am | #
I think it would be healthy for both sides to consider what subjective, irrational and ego boosting factors encourage us to take passionate stands on certain issues (such as this) of which we ourselves don't know so much about.Most ideologies seem to get their fire from the conflict with the opposing ideology, At the root of it seldom is about immediate self-interest, at least not financial. I think it's more about a very irrational and pleasure generating emotion of being in a group and sharing it's aggression and loathing towards another group.
Deep down, don't you just love those Gaia worshiping GW-cult liberals? Those parasites, those Stalinists, those stupid, lazy misled welfare-hippies and those corrupt statists that exploit them and especially YOU... Aren't they the ones that create the contrasting background for your freedom loving, hard-work-loving, broad minded intellectual honesty and morality to shine?
Mr. Nice Guy | January 17, 2008, 11:21am | #
JohnAre you drunk, or lazy? The scientific academies don't just issue a sheet of paper with signatures on it. They release reports with copious data, and they actually work to get them public with the arguments and data.
Our national academies: http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/collection.html
Here's NOAA's page on it for example:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#INTRO
R C Dean | January 17, 2008, 11:22am | #
Since the warming in my car was caused by the greenhouse effect, does that mean it didn't get warmer when I turned on my heater?joe is just not getting it.
The basic problem here is that there have been warming and cooling trends throughout geologic history, without the benefit of man-made CO2. The difficulty that the AGW folks have yet to overcome, in my opinion, is demonstrating that the current warming trend isn't just more of the same.
So, when we hear that the warmest year on record was caused by an El Nino, this strikes me as being a real problem for AGW, because an El Nino is a natural phenomenon. You can't blame AGW for things that have been happening for eons.
joe's response? "It was so AGW, because it got warm!", which misses the point, that mere warming does not prove AGW. Here we have an alternate cause for this particular spike, which to my mind reinforces the fundamental weakness of the AGW hypothesis, and the response is the same old inadequate correlation-without-causation BS.
The 2001 joint statement was signed by . . .
And every one of those joint statements has been criticized and repudiated by qualified and respected members of the field.
Cmon, science isn't settled by statements issued by political bodies. It is settled when hypotheses are confirmed by data, something that has not happened yet for the AGW hypothesis. Indeed, that hypothesis is laboring under mountains of data that refuses to conform to its predictions.
I'm still waiting for an explanation of prior climate trends. We haven't even explained the baseline yet; how can we possibly claim to explain deviations from the baseline?
Mr. Nice Guy | January 17, 2008, 11:28am | #
"And every one of those joint statements has been criticized and repudiated by qualified and respected members of the field.Cmon, science isn't settled by statements issued by political bodies. It is settled when hypotheses are confirmed by data, something that has not happened yet for the AGW hypothesis. Indeed, that hypothesis is laboring under mountains of data that refuses to conform to its predictions."
RC-where do you think the majority of scientists, as represented by the recognized professional organizations in the relevant fields, are getting these conclusions? Scientists tend to be very careful folks, they don't want to look foolish. You don't think they reference copious amounts of data, highly advanced statistical analyses, hundreds of peer reviewed and replicable studies, to come to this conclusion?
Sure, there are some Phd's with peer reviewed work in the field questioning some of it in various areas. They are by far the minority of the qualified experts. You're not claiming that the vast majority is somehow motivated by foolish sentimental dogmatism and the minority is motivated by large amounts of data and analysis are you? WTF?
Mr. Nice Guy | January 17, 2008, 11:31am | #
"Indeed, that hypothesis is laboring under mountains of data that refuses to conform to its predictions." And somehow the majority of the most qualified scientists across the globe sharing various ideologies are somehow missing what you have discerned!Again, please let us know what other currently established scientific consensuses are false, wise amateur discerner of truth. If you can wade through the data here and see that most experts are wrong, then please let us know where else you have applied these powers. Let's get you on record now!
Sam Grove | January 17, 2008, 11:37am | #
Computer Models Fail to Predict Climatejoe | January 17, 2008, 11:38am | #
Can't argue with the religious. They believe, damn it!Yup, hence my bailing on you creationist wanna-be's.
I'll stick with the scientists, thanks.
Sam Grove | January 17, 2008, 11:43am | #
I am not a degreed scientist and I accept evolution because it is an elegant and non-mystical explanation that fits into my reasonably functional mind.Creationism requires that I forsake my own rational faculty and place unquestioning faith in someone else's assertion.
On GW: I don't know what's going to happen and I don't think anyone else KNOWS what's gong to happen either.
Very little is proven, aside from the fact of warming, and computer modeling can not possibly account for ALL relevant factors.
joe | January 17, 2008, 11:46am | #
Computer modeling can't predict all relevant factors in the creation of the solar system, either.Anyone want to deny that the sun expelled material during its creations which accumulated into bodies that settled into established orbits?
How about if I tell you that, if the above scenario was true, it would mean we needed to raise the top income tax rate to 40%?
T | January 17, 2008, 11:47am | #
Scientists tend to be very careful folks, they don't want to look foolish.I call bullshit. Have you seen how most PhDs dress? They obviously don't care about looking foolish.
Mr. Nice Guy | January 17, 2008, 11:48am | #
There has been a lot of talk lately about why the libertarian movement attracts people who would agree with the Ron Paul newsletters. I submit that the fact that on this thread that the only folks arguing for the scientific consensus on GW, me and joe, both admittedly not libertarians, forces the question: what is it about libertarianism that seems to convince most libertarians that mainstream scientific views, like GW, are very threatening and must be vigorously opposed? Is this healthy for any movement? Are their scientifically "with it" libertarians? If so, why is their voice not heard more? If not, then WTF is wrong with libertarianism?In theory, as I pointed out above, it should not be difficult to be convinced by the scientific consensus (which, my friends, is BASED on reams of recorded and replicable data processed by sophisticated statistical analyses by a broad range of highly educated and trained experts) on such subjects AND still be a good, principled libertarian. The fact that IN PRACTICE that does not seem to the case should be a very, very scary thing for bright libertarians (I'm thinking fluffy, cesar, neu mejican, and a bunch of others)...
Jackanapestarian | January 17, 2008, 11:48am | #
Shouldn't somebody be making a shitload of money right now on the certainty of the coming apocalypse? That's usually a pretty good indicator of the validity of an idea, but not always. Depends on when you sell your shares.Brian24 | January 17, 2008, 11:49am | #
Chuck at 10:32 wins the thread, for calmly summarizing the actual current state of what we know and what we need to consider going forward. My one quibble is that on item number 2 you could get a consensus on the proposition "probably above zero."Notice that Chuck got exactly zero responses. Chuck, try yelling names at somebody or accusing them of holding religious beliefs. You'll get a lot more attention.
Mr. Nice Guy | January 17, 2008, 11:50am | #
Well, joe, then it would be false of course, and our ideology, er, I mean, our higher amatuer discernment of scientific truth, would make it our duty to argue strongly that it is indeed false...Later gators, gotta eat :)
Episiarch | January 17, 2008, 11:53am | #
Anyone want to deny that the sun expelled material during its creations which accumulated into bodies that settled into established orbits?Yes. Good thing you're such a reliable source of knowledge and info, joe.
Well, MNG, since neither of us are scientists with a material interest in conforming to the consensus, and since we are, in fact, arguing a minority position, I guess that makes us right.
joe | January 17, 2008, 11:57am | #
Episiarch,Thank you for posting a link which demonstrates that all respected theories about planet formation are based on stars expelling material.
Oopsie, you confused disputes within the field about different models for how this happens with a confusion over whether it happened. Again.
joe | January 17, 2008, 11:58am | #
*Ha ha*Maybe you'd do better on these threads if you didn't make everything so personal.
Russell | January 17, 2008, 12:01pm | #
As this matter was examined 4 months ago on Adamant:A Brief History Of Global warming bets
http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2007/10/a-brief-history.html
And a clearer picture of the latest revisionist gambit is posted there now :
All Of The Data All Of The Time
http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2008/01/all-of-the-data.html
I'll bet Ron has been reading it too.
But I'm gladI read his latest here , for it enlarges my curiousity as to whence the latest K-Street effort to rewrite climatic history comes --
Have the ususal suspects been betting their advertorial paychecks on folks believing the next one they write?
Episiarch | January 17, 2008, 12:07pm | #
Thank you for posting a link which demonstrates that all respected theories about planet formation are based on stars expelling material.Thank you for proving you don't even read. You're so anxious for a gotcha you jumped the gun. Maybe you should go back and read again. If you can't understand what they are saying about protoplanetary disks, it just further proves the point that you should really keep quiet about science.
joe | January 17, 2008, 12:11pm | #
Actually, Episiarch's planet-formation gambit demonstrates very well the problem of selective skepticism that characterizes, er, what's the PC term for those people in 2008? "Catastrophic Climate Change Certainty Skeptics?"Anyhoo, the predominant theory is that our solar system was formed as I described, an idea first put forth in the 1700s. All evidence collected backs this theory up, though it has been modified to include the addition of new material from stray bodies from outside the solar system - bodies that were, themselves, formed from material expelled by other stars.
In some other solar systems, bodies have been found with different features than would be predicted from this model. Perhaps those bodies were formed some other way. Perhaps the process by which the formation of solar systems via solar expulsion operates differently than has been currently understood.
None of this undermines the basic thesis that our solar system was formed by materials being expelled from our sun, though it may demonstrate that our understanding of how that occured needs revision.
And yet, he presents the link as if it were a refutation of my statement the sun expelled material during its creation which accumulated into bodies that settled into established orbits
Why does he do this? Because he so desperately wants me to be wrong, not because there is any scientific reason to believe that my statement was untrue.
R C Dean | January 17, 2008, 12:11pm | #
Chuck at 10:32 wins the thread, for calmly summarizing the actual current state of what we know and what we need to consider going forward.True dat.
bendover | January 17, 2008, 12:12pm | #
Brian24 - I largely agree with your post. And also with Chuck's post at 10:32.As far as responses to the nonreponse of this board to Chuck's post - I visit Reason's blog mainly to laugh at the snark and to be entertained. Rarely does any actual enlightenment occur. ;~)
joe | January 17, 2008, 12:15pm | #
And there we go.Because the timing of the expulsion - was the Sun in its current condition, or was it more like a disk? - is not completely understood, that means that the sun expelled material during its creations which accumulated into bodies that settled into established orbits is not a true statement.
Got that? Because the theory of how everything in our solar system came to be is being modified, the sun has never expelled any materials which formed bodies and settled into orbits.
Episiarch is just as capable of understanding the flaw in that logic as I am, and yet he won't.
At this point, it's personal, and there's no way he'll walk it back.
joe | January 17, 2008, 12:16pm | #
...any more than he'll admit that the position he decided upon about global warming is refuted by the evidence.It's not about the evidence anymore. It's about proving that the bad people were SO not right, when he was wrong.
Paul | January 17, 2008, 12:18pm | #
I thought we were on an accelerating warming path, like the "hockey stick". Did the "hockey stick" get tossed out?The "hockey stick" is really considered a symbolic piece of scientific "turf" that obscures meaningful debate. It has been debunked, defended, redebunked, defended, and eventually, some have pointed out that while probably debunked, the errors in the data don't change the larger picture of AGW much.
Paul | January 17, 2008, 12:20pm | #
socialist plot to nationalize the means of production, or whatever the liberal conspiracy du jour isHasn't that always been the liberal conspiracy? It hasn't changed much in the last 100 years, really.
Episiarch | January 17, 2008, 12:22pm | #
joe, you are clearly unable to understand either accretion disks or the point of my link. The latter was merely to point out that you smugly made a point about solar expulsion (which is wrong, you can't be this stupid or bad of a reader) which was totally incorrect. I pointed this out, as an example of how you think you know something, yet are completely wrong--yet you are convinced that you are right. So convinced that you used it as an example. This then draws a parallel to your surety in AGW.Understand now? Read it slowly.
And let's just nip your usual tactic in the bud, which is to get nitpicky about (in this case) solar formation, in an attempt to divert attention from the fact that you made a huge mistake. I now look forward to you ignoring this and beating your misreading of accretion to death.
Guy Montag | January 17, 2008, 12:23pm | #
As I presented to Mr. Bailey at the last Reason council, over cheap cigars ignited with money of course, there should be no fear of sea level rise due to global warming of any cause.Something that has been left out of these calculations is that the whales will drink all of the extra water.
This, combined with the additional fertility effects of dihydrogen monoxide (not presented to the Council), that will be flooding the seas, there will be an endless supply of renewable, organic, cetacean-based oil to fuel humanity for the next 5 centuries.
toddb | January 17, 2008, 12:24pm | #
Echo about Chuck at 10:32...an attempt at a reasoned, logical argument gets totally ignored by a lot of pots calling kettles black, etc...joe | January 17, 2008, 12:24pm | #
you smugly made a point about solar expulsion (which is wrong, you can't be this stupid or bad of a reader) which was totally incorrectReally?
the sun expelled material during its creation which accumulated into bodies that settled into established orbits
Please, oh superior mind, point out the incorrect part.
Paul | January 17, 2008, 12:25pm | #
Personally, I would like to see more investigations (as hard as they may be) about the simultaneous warming occurring on Mars and Earth. If the two can be linked scientifically, I couldn't think of a more... inconvenient truth.joe | January 17, 2008, 12:28pm | #
Here's the entire comment, Episiarch.joe | January 17, 2008, 11:46am | #
Computer modeling can't predict all relevant factors in the creation of the solar system, either.
Anyone want to deny that the sun expelled material during its creations which accumulated into bodies that settled into established orbits?
How about if I tell you that, if the above scenario was true, it would mean we needed to raise the top income tax rate to 40%?
I eagerly await your beating.
joe | January 17, 2008, 12:29pm | #
Lemme guess:Yeah, well, that's just nitpicky. You must be stupid not to know that you're wrong. Why can't you read, joe? Why?
joe struggles vainly to ignore what I said and do exactly what I predicted. You make this too easy, joe.
joe | January 17, 2008, 12:33pm | #
Yeah, I didn't think so. Run home to mommy.I didn't ignore what I said, moron, I dispoved it. You said I was wrong, but so sure I was right that I used something I was wrong about as an example.
Except for that "wrong" part didn't quite work out, did it?
Episiarch | January 17, 2008, 12:38pm | #
I didn't ignore what I said, moron, I dispoved it.No, you ingnored what I said, joe. But keep on throwing "moron" around! It's a sure sign of victory in joetopia, the land where joe pwns everyone and joe understands science.
joe | January 17, 2008, 12:39pm | #
This could have a been a civil discussion, and was, but for you deciding to make it a treatise on my moral and intellectual failings.Stop that. It annoys everyone else, and doesn't work out very well for you.
joe | January 17, 2008, 12:41pm | #
I see we've reached "Yeah, well, I bet you think you pwned me!"I guess that's that. If it's any consolation, good catch on that "I/you" typo.
John | January 17, 2008, 12:51pm | #
There is so much dishonesty going on among AGW supporters. The Hockey Stick was put up as absolute proof time and again by the media. No one in the pro AGW community ever bothered to mention its limitations. Then when it is shown as bunk, the story changes to "the data doesn't change the larger picture of AGW much". Basically, the argument is that the hockey stick didn't really mean that much in the first place and therefore its debunking is also meaningless. Well, that may be true, but why the hell didn't anyone say that in the first place? The answer is that no one said anything because many AGW supporters don't really care if their cause is supported by bogus or misinterpreted data. The same thing happened with the recent correction to the "10 warmest years in the last century" figures. For years supporters threw out the fact that however many of the ten warmest years in the century have happened in the last decade. Then come to find out that wasn't true and that the temperature measurements were off and other years in the 20th Century were warmer. In response to this AGW supporters came out and said that the temperature correction wasn't that significant and it really doesn't matter how many of years of the last decade are among the ten warmest; basically again saying "the data doesn't change the larger picture of AGW much". Of course they never had a problem claiming the data was significant when it supported their position.Of course most of the lying is done by the media and nitwits like Al Gore. Whether it be the famous picture of polar bears allegedly trapped on the ice flow due to global warming (in reality polar bears can swim for miles and were anything but trapped) or blaming every hurricane on global warming, there is a tremendous amount of lying and exaggeration going on. If the scientists are really that committed to the truth, then they need to come out and stop their supporters from lying and exaggerating. Until they are willing to do that and show that they are actually committed to giving the unbiased truth, I frankly could not care less what the "consensus" is.
Paul | January 17, 2008, 1:02pm | #
MNG:what is it about libertarianism that seems to convince most libertarians that mainstream scientific views, like GW, are very threatening and must be vigorously opposed?
I'll bite.
A good question, and one with probably too complicated an answer to sum up succinctly, but I'll try.
First off, I bristle at the notion that libertarians dislike "mainstream scientific views". Let's focus on AGW, shall we? Because if we go into a broad range of "ma