OliverWillis.com | Forum | News | Research | Celebrity Pictures | Liberal T-Shirts
The Deniers
Redskins vs. Cowboys
From 1997 to 2002, the Dallas Cowboys won ten straight games over the Washington Redskins. Ten straight. Some games were close, others were blowouts, but they were all losses. Now, I am a diehard Washington Redskins fan. I worship at the altar of the burgundy and gold, I consume the most banal and mundane news that comes out of Redskins park, and my most beloved sports figure is Redskins head coach Joe Gibbs - the winner of three Superbowls. But no matter what I do, no matter what rituals I perform as I hope for the game winning field goal to split the uprights, the Redskins lost those ten games. It is immutable, concrete, unchangeable, fact.
Yet, when it comes to issues much more vital to democracy than a football game - namely science, medicine, and the very survival of man, conservatives and their political representatives in the Republican party are no better than the rabid football fan who talks your ear of years after the game explaining why, exactly, their team should have won the game. They are Deniers.
Where I'm Coming From
The Deniers reflexively lash out at their critics, usually by one tired, shopworn tactic: faith. They accuse their opponents of representing the secular, godless left who wishes to oppress Christians with atheism. The argument is fallacious. One's personal faith, no matter how strongly held the beliefs are, cannot change fact. The likelihood of up transmuting into down simply because someone prayed is about zero.
I was personally raised in a Christian household, christened in the Anglican church. While I haven't been to a church in over fifteen years and have never been a regular churchgoer, I would clearly classify myself as something of an agnostic or Deist like the founding fathers. I think the basic idea is that there is a higher power to the universe, but I couldn't begin to define who or what it is. I believe that the goal of man on earth is to improve himself and his society for the better. I think you get what you put in, so you should err on the side of caution and put good stuff in. That said, what I believe is mostly immaterial. Facts are facts and truth is truth whether I disagree with it or not. If an atheist were to say that red is blue, he would be no more correct than if the pope or an imam said so.
Denial Is A Threat
The Deniers of the right seek to limit or expunge from the public sphere that which they disagree with or what clashes with their religious or social dogma. This is unequivocally the wrong thing to do, and hurtful to American society. As a nation we strive endlessly to be better and greater. In order to accomplish this, their is a long national tradition of innovation, criticism, peer review, study, research, and more. These are all focused on the creation of ideas, refining those ideas and adding new data to those ideas in order to network them together in what we call "knowledge". Every nation does this in one form or another, and America has traditionally been a leader in this area and it is a clear contributor to our status as international leader and superpower.
Yet, in order to further their personal pet agendas, the deniers seek to undermine this basic idea. Take, for instance, the promoters of creationism (in the guise of "intelligent design"). There is nothing inherently wrong or bad in questioning accepted scientific principles like evolution. But in order to do so, you must similarly back up your critique with evidence. The entire sound and fury behind the creationist movement is simply the denial of the scientific evidence in evolution. There is no factual basis for it, no peer reviewed work validating it. Yet, the deniers seek to infect our already ailing school system with their ill-considered and ill-constructed ideology. It may help them demonstrate support to their supporters and possibly deliver a few votes for the Republican party, but in exchange it pours nonsense into the heads of our children. This bilge is mainstreamed at an early age, substituting theology and hogwash for years of scientific research and theory. What happens to these children when they begin working with biology beyond the lectures of a teacher? Evolution theory is a critical building block of so many sciences, but by pumping up creationism - even with marketing terms like "intelligent design" - you're instantly kneecapping the academic pursuits of millions of children. The next great drug or medical innovation or leap forward in science isn't going to come from a child indoctrinated in a dogma which has no basis in reality.
For the sake of the conservative movement, should we sacrifice children's brains? That is the ultimate choice.
They Are Deniers
Denial is more than just a river in Egypt. Many deniers reject the label because they see it as too closely aligned with "holocaust denial". But the sick set of people who deny that the systematic extermination of Jews and others under the reign of Hitler never happened used the exact same "reasoning" now exhibited by people like Senator James Inhofe who doesn't just quibble with the details of global warming but flat out decries the entire field of science and research as a "hoax". There is honest discussion about what amount of global warming can be directly attributed to mankind, but people like Sen. Inhofe and his many followers deny the entire concept outright no mind the peer-reviewed scientific research and discovery to the contrary. Inhofe and his supporters (many of them in the oil industry who profit over government inaction on climate change) would have allies at least in how they reject basic evidence with the people who clearly are aware of the existence of Nazi death camps but still deny their systematic operation.
They are deniers.
How Do You Fight Them?
For too long, moderates and liberals have sought to give the deniers a seat at the table. Thinking that by simply discussing the issue and by "teaching the controversy" to children, they stupidly think that the deniers can be satiated. But the bloodlust of the denial crowd is infinite. They do not seek to even debate issues - mostly because their assertions cannot stand up to honest debate - but rather they seek to wipe thousands of years of human triumph off the map.
Deniers like to stress that the numbers are on their side. In the case of global warming, this is not true. The majority of Americans believe in the science and some level of human culpability in it. In the case of evolution, the opposite is true. More Americans believe in creationism than they do evolution. But here is the great thing about both cases and others like them: it doesn't matter. Once again, if you put 100 people in a blue room and they all believe that it is red - the room is still red.
Defeating the deniers is vital to the continued survival of common sense in America. What someone believes in their home and in their house of worship is whatever they wish to believe, but when those beliefs enter the public sphere and seek to contradict real research and objective truth, they must be beaten down until they are bloody and dead. In our public schools our children must be taught real science, not radical nonsense or watered down committee approved bites of nothingness. Our children must learn real science, as practiced by men and women of knowledge for thousands of years. It is our only hope for continued survival as a planet and as a nation.
At every turn, objective reality must not only have people standing behind it but vigorous supporters who will defend it to the hilt. The very notion of accommodating the denial crowd should be anaethema to any sane human being. If you give them an inch, they will take a mile and pull us all down with them.
Faith does not automatically lead to denial, because while the denial crowd is often made up of those who claim to be religious, contrary to their assertions the worlds do not exclude each other. There are many who have made big and small advances in science, knowledge, and research who prayed and worshipped their gods along the way. And there are some who don't. Yet, because their work product adheres to accepted standards, neither is denied by the rational.
That's how it ought to be in America, and in the rest of the world.
80 Comments
Leave a comment
About this Entry
This page contains a single entry by Oliver Willis published on March 22, 2007 4:11 AM.
Video: Tom DeLay: I Don't Know What's In My Own Book was the previous entry in this blog.
Fred Thompson Is A Denier is the next entry in this blog.
Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, they do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
Shouldn't that be "the room is still blue"?
Well said.
The Deniers of the right seek to limit or expunge from the public sphere that which they disagree with or what clashes with their religious or social dogma. This is unequivocally the wrong thing to do, and hurtful to American society
Not to totally disagree with you, but you could see it as I do: That “believers” (rightly or wrongly) see their beliefs as under attack, and think that “leftist unbelievers” are trying “to limit or expunge from the public sphere that which they disagree with or what clashes with their … dogma"
The entire sound and fury behind the creationist movement is simply the denial of the scientific evidence in evolution… It may help them demonstrate support to their supporters and possibly deliver a few votes for the Republican Party,...
First, you might say there are three types of creationists which you are lumping together:
1) The antievolutionists who, as you described them, are involved in the “denial of the scientific evidence in evolution”,
2) The creationists, who are actually divided into two subsets:
a) The fundamentalist creationists, who are trying to prove the literal seven day creation, and
b) the scientific creationists, who simply want to prove that the world and everything in it was created all at once, and that natural selection occurred afterwards; and
3) The intelligent design people, who are trying desperately to collect sufficient data to demonstrate that universe was created, which they view as a simpler task than the scientific creationists’.
It is these people (the ID people) who are, in my opinion, the “most scientific” (if there is such a thing); they are also taking the worst beating because of it.
These are the people “non believing” scientists wish would go away – because they question their (the “non believing” scientists) core ideology (dare I call it “faith”) that the world, and everything in it, came about from a totally random and coincidental circumstances.
Second, These issues have become important social issues. This is no longer an age where the King and Queen decide whether or not Columbus goes to the New World. We are all involved in the decisions to change our lifestyles because of global warming, or to have our children be taught that evolution, or a universe spontaneously spun from nothing, are unassailable facts.
Doesn’t just quibble with the details of global warming but flat out decries the entire field of science and research as a "hoax".
You may be referring to the ideas of Sen. Inhofe (who I don’t believe considers science and research to be a “hoax” – but if you say so…), but you are not accurately reflecting the beliefs of many “nonbelievers” in evolution or global warming. [For the record, I like the idea of being called a nonbeliever in evolution and global warming, because I simply do not believe in either one.]
Thinking that by simply discussing the issue and by "teaching the controversy" to children, they stupidly think that the deniers can be satiated. But the bloodlust of the denial crowd is infinite
I don’t believe “deniers” need to be satiated; nor is their bloodlust infinite. I think they are frustrated, and rightfully so, because they are more often dismissed than disproved. It’s easy to say, “You’re just talking nonsense”; it’s a lot harder to refute what they say. I believe “deniers” of all stripes (9/11 conspiracy, no Holocaust, no Armenian massacre, no moon landing) not only deserve refutation, but they require it.
Wait, FD, are you now admitting that "denier" is a perfectly cromnulent word? Guess you wish you had yesterday back, huh?
So has the leading ID proponent, Discovery Institute, uh, "discovered" anything yet, other than how to extract money from the Scaife Trust?
History can be viewed as a scale, as well as a telescope, microscope, or time machine. Sometimes, it is the job of history to balance untruth with truth. Someone mentioned yesterday that it took hundreds of years for the Church to "pardon" Galileo. It also took about a hundred years for the United States to pardon Doctor Mudd, 60 years to bring justice to the subjects of the Tuskegee experiments, 50 years to repay the interned Japanese, etc. History moves slowly, but surely, to right wrongs.
You may not have experienced this, but when a child asks a question over and over, there are only so many times you can say, “I’m watching a show”, or “Because, that’s why”. Sooner or later, that question must be answered.
Well, in my opinion, we, all of us, (especially political animals like the people who inhabit this blog), never lose that unquenchable thirst for an answer. Neither do “deniers”.
More Americans believe in creationism than they do evolution. But here is the great thing about both cases and others like them: it doesn't matter.
Ah, but it does matter. It may not matter to scientists, which I’m sure is your point. But it matters greatly to people whose careers and lives involve people and their beliefs.
If I, as a therapist, am dismissive of people who that I see professionally, who believe in God, for example, I cannot help them well, and I am behaving like a therapist with an agenda – in other words, I am no longer a therapist, I am a dogmatist.
Defeating the deniers is vital to the continued survival of common sense in America
As I said above, you are using the wrong terminology, and reflecting an unworkable strategy. A day or so ago, a commenter said, “It’s not my f*cking job to prove that God doesn’t exist.” But it is. It is the job of Globalwarmians to prove that global warming, and its dangers, is a reality. It is also their job to refute any evidence to the contrary. It is not ethical, nor is it in the interest of Globalwarmians to simply dismiss any evidence that reflects negatively on their agenda.
Make no mistake about it, global warming has been kicked up a notch from theory to agenda, and perhaps to dogma. Even if that is the case, you will not get what you want by chasing away “deniers” like flies off a cake. The flies will always return, and the child in us stubbornly waits for his question to be answered – “because, that’s why” is not an answer.
The very notion of accommodating the denial crowd should be anathema to any sane human being. If you give them an inch, they will take a mile and pull us all down with them.
Continuing the two points raised above, you are implying that answering questions or removing doubt is not your concern. And you are saying that accommodation is negative, undesirable. One of the definitions of “accommodation” is “reconciliation or settlement of opposing views.” But that’s not what you mean, is it? You want them to go away. That is not accommodation.
Faith does not automatically lead to denial, because while the denial crowd is often made up of those who claim to be religious, contrary to their assertions the worlds do not exclude each other
If it is so that “the worlds do not exclude each other”, why do you choose (or wish) to marginalize them? Aren’t you involved in a classic case of divisiveness?
Finally, I sincerely hope that my usual nemeses will use their heads for something besides keeping the blood from gushing out of their necks, and try to give some thought to this comment. If you want to use this as an excuse to flame me, you will be wasting your time.
...(the “non believing” scientists) core ideology... that the world, and everything in it, came about from a totally random and coincidental circumstances.
And here Frank demonstrates one of the bigger parts of the problem. He doesnt understand what Evolution is beyond the narrow definition given to him specificly for the purpose of publically deriding it. He doesn't care enough to figure out what the actual argument is because he only wants to attack it and not understand it. Evolution isnt the universe randomly coming together, and any thinking person understands that (or would seek to) but our countries Frank-ophile population doesnt think, they believe. They believe, and deny, and congradulate themselves for not being "perverted" by fact or reason.
Jimmmmmmmmm: I am using the word "denier" in quotes to indicate that it used that way by someone else, not me. I also made a very clear statement that I, personally prefer the more accurate term "nonbeliever".
I don't know anything about the Discovery Institute, but I just looked them up. Thanks for the tip.
Rex, calm down, before you burst a blood vessel. I understand perfectly well that the theory of evolution is not specifically concerned with the origin of the Universe. But the idea of a randomly formed Universe (the "Big Bang", for example) has always been tied to evolution (rightly or wrongly).
The sermonizing, on your part, is a waste of time, at best, and terribly annoying at worst.
"Congradulate" should be spelled "congratulate". Congradulations can be found on the Rolling Stones "12x5" album, and I believe it was the flip side of the single, Time is on my side
He doesn't understand what Evolution is beyond the narrow definition given to him specifically for the purpose of publicly deriding it
Rex: One of the main points of my comments is that it is the job of people who see untruth, or "incorrectness" to correct it.
If I make a statement to you,over coffee (assuming you and I might ever sit down over coffee for more than five minutes without creating a scene and getting thrown out of the restaurant) that I wish President Clinton would pull the troops out of Iraq, aren't you going to correct me, and tell me that Clinton isn't the President,bu Bush is the President?
Is it my job to question, and / or correct my beliefs? I believe it is not.
If I read online news, and it says "President Bush says we can in Iraq," then it will correct myself,and realize that Bush is President. But if I am not directed to a source of information, then how will I find it?
One of the main points of my comments is that it is the job of people who see untruth, or "incorrectness" to correct it.
...I'm sorry, could you please tell me what you think I've been doing this whole time in, for instance, the GW threads? See, cause it seems to me I'm citing evidence and making argument in an effort to demonstrate how criticisms (if they can be called that) of Global Warming are either unfounded or insubstantial, which amounts to banging my head against a wall full of people who, for instance, are under the impression that no scientist ever considered previous large-scale climate shifts into the equation when, as Ive pointed out, they have. It seems to me that when I link to an article that points out that the current rate of temperature change is ten times greater than it should be, and then told that the article doesnt say that at all, that doesnt strike me as indicitive of an "unquenchable thirst for an answer" as much as a desire to not know. But then thats just me, and I'm a petulant child.
To clarify, the consensus is not that the universe formed randomly, neither in the Big Bang nor the Evolutionary plane. BB as a hypothesis is tricky to prove or disprove for myriad reasons, but the argument isnt that it just happened randomly. Soon as I finish the Mook-On-MP3 of Breif History of Time (and understand half of the damn thing) I'll let you know.
One of the main points of my comments is that it is the job of people who see untruth, or "incorrectness" to correct it.
...I'm sorry, could you please tell me what you think I've been doing this whole time in, for instance, the GW threads? See, cause it seems to me I'm citing evidence and making argument in an effort to demonstrate how criticisms (if they can be called that) of Global Warming are either unfounded or insubstantial, which amounts to banging my head against a wall full of people who, for instance, are under the impression that no scientist ever considered previous large-scale climate shifts into the equation when, as Ive pointed out, they have. It seems to me that when I link to an article that points out that the current rate of temperature change is ten times greater than it should be, and then told that the article doesnt say that at all, that doesnt strike me as indicitive of an "unquenchable thirst for an answer" as much as a desire to not know. But then thats just me, and I'm a petulant child.
To clarify, the consensus is not that the universe formed randomly, neither in the Big Bang nor the Evolutionary plane. BB as a hypothesis is tricky to prove or disprove for myriad reasons, but the argument isnt that it just happened randomly. Soon as I finish the Book-On-MP3 of Breif History of Time (and understand half of the damn thing) I'll let you know.
crud... sorry for doubleposting while trying to fix "Mook-on-MP3"
Rex: Did you know doctors are predicting that a guy your age could live to be 150?
If you want to make it, you have got to tone it down a notch. Seriously, man, from me to you.
I'm sorry, could you please tell me what you think I've been doing this whole time
I wasn't speaking about individuals, and neither was Oliver, to the best of my knowledge. You and I are jousting.
I was referring to a systemic problem, where people like you and I can argue 'til the cows come home, but there are no truly authoritative figures willing to settle an argument.
Why do I think that is so? Because most of us, in America (I don't know about elsewhere) have lost sight of the value of truth. Objectivity has become almost undesirable. As Harry Truman said about economists, Give me a one-handed economist," President Truman once supposedly demanded of his White House staff. "All my economists say, 'On the one hand ... on the other.'"
For most intelligent Americans, there is always an "other hand." But, there should be "one hand."
Instead of trying to crush enemies, or make others' ideas "anathema", we should be seeking THE TRUTH, and as a note to Globalwarmians, stop treating predictions like THE TRUTH.
By the way, when are going to fix that apostrophe?
Good luck with that Hawking -- I hope he isn't reading it!
I tried reading the book years ago. I won't even pretend I understood it. But I learned two important things: Don't go near a black hole, and don't go into a wormhole without a map.
I don’t believe “deniers” need to be satiated; nor is their bloodlust infinite. I think they are frustrated, and rightfully so, because they are more often dismissed than disproved. It’s easy to say, “You’re just talking nonsense”; it’s a lot harder to refute what they say. I believe “deniers” of all stripes (9/11 conspiracy, no Holocaust, no Armenian massacre, no moon landing) not only deserve refutation, but they require it.
Hilarious.
I deny the belief that you've never been convicted of sexually molesting a farm animal. Not only does this denial deserve refutation, it requires it. You can imagine how frustrated I'll be if I'm merely dismissed and not actually disproved.
For the sake of the conservative movement, should we sacrifice children's brains?
Mmmmm, brains....
Great piece, Oliver. ha ve you submitted it as an Op-ed somewhere? You should.
If I make a statement to you...that I wish President Clinton would pull the troops out of Iraq, aren't you going to correct me, and tell me that Clinton isn't the President,bu Bush is the President?
Frank, are you saying that, without further evidence, you would still believe Clinton was President, even though Rex corrected you?
So it isn't so much as a child asking a question over and over until they get an answer as much as it is asking a question over and over until they get the answer that fits their mindset. Because that's what it seems has been going on here for weeks. You make an assertion. Rex demonstrates with citations and facts that your assertions are incorrect (or at least flawed), and you remain unconvinced. To the point of being abusive.
Is it my job to question, and / or correct my beliefs? I believe it is not.
Then you leave it entirely up to others to correct you when you are wrong? That seems pretty risky to me. How would you know if you are getting correct "corrections?"
Brief History of Time is great. Haven't read it in years.
One more thing;
Once again, if you put 100 people in a blue room and they all believe that it is red - the room is still red.
Bill's right. It would be blue. Unless you turned the lights off. Which has been a question I have struggled with for years. If color only exists in the presence of light, would the room be blue when there is no light?
Discuss.
My favorite quote from Hawking;
Einstein said that God does not play dice. Not only does God play dice, but sometimes he throws them where they cannot be found.
OW is turning over a new leaf as an essayist...good on you.
I wish you would actually spend all those extra words proving your thesis though. You continually make statements that need to be proven. By couching your arguments in your own opinion, you destroy any validity to them.
There are certainly religious "deniers" But most scientists consider scepticism to be a virtue.
Like many americans, you have no training in science, yet you feel you can make pronouncements about it at every turn.
You mock Inhofe as a denier, but his conclusions are carefully researched, and well substantiated by current peer reviewed literature.link
I have been "lashing out" here for years against the pseudoscience that the left likes to spew. Yet, I am not religious, and my arguments are never based on faith.
Based on your essay, how can I be a Denier?
Frank: "Is it my job to question, and / or correct my beliefs? I believe it is not."
Ah yes. It is one of the hallmarks of the great seekers of truth that they never question the things they already believe.
Keep up the good work, Frank.
Is it my job to question, and / or correct my beliefs? I believe it is not.
Then I believe you are a dogmatist. Is there any point to having a discussion with you, if you're not going to question your beliefs? I believe there is not.
How hypocritical, to adamantly refuse to question your own beliefs yet in the same breath ask us to question ours.
If I read online news, and it says "President Bush says we can in Iraq," then it will correct myself,and realize that Bush is President.
That is what I wrote. Clearly, the idea is that I can correct my own incorrect idea. My point was, and is,that the lack of authority is the problem. As my friend said yesterday, "Information isn't data."
If color only exists in the presence of light, would the room be blue when there is no light?
You have asked a question that goes right to my point. Why should there be any doubt that whatever properties that make wall paint blue, for example, would continue to exist without light?
It is not the light that makes the wall blue. Any light, with a color filter added, would make the wall appear to be another color. But it would still be blue.
That's because whatever properties make the wall paint blue persist with the lights off, and persist in the presence of a variety of colored lights.
In fact, it is quality of "persistence" that leads to a very interesting proof of the existence of an impersonal God, by Mortimer Adler (he suggests that it should be called "exnihilation").
If color only exists in the presence of light, would the room be blue when there is no light?
Discuss.
I always liked Schrodinger's Cat...
You mock Inhofe as a denier, but his conclusions are carefully researched, and well substantiated by current peer reviewed literature.link
"Substantiated by current peer reviewed literature?" HE WROTE THAT REPORT HIMSELF WHEN HE WAS CHAIR OF THE EPW COMMITTEE. Jesus tap-dancing CHRIST.
Sorry August, I forget we have cartoonists here...
In science, you define a thesis and then prove it with data. That data often takes the form of other researchers work. We scientists refer to it as "referencing"....
so if you read the report you will note that Inhofe didn't write:
st/financialpost/story.html?id=371
1460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-
4db87559d605" rel="nofollow">link
or this
link
or this
link
And that article also references a whole bunch of other news articles debunking much of the global warming "science".
Anyway, maybe take a science course or two august. I promise I will take an art class prior to trying to tell you how to draw a comic strip (You DID take an art class didn't you?)
nihilistic_disintegration: I had asked that commenters use their heads for something besides keeping the blood from gushing out of their necks. You, apparently, have chosen to go in another direction.
It should be understood (except, of course, by you, since you find looking for the cheap shot more interesting then a real discussion), that I meant that given no further corrective information, I have no reason to change my own mind. No one who is pro - abortion wakes up one day and says, "It's warm out today -- I think I'll be pro - life."
Nice talking to you.
You mock Inhofe as a denier, but his conclusions are carefully researched
Inhofe's report is about the media being libergaytarded. Seriously, thats what the entire last half is dedicated to. How is that a "carefully researched conclusion"?
More to the point, given that all the "facts" he presents to discredit climate scientists have already been incorporated into their climate models, how does this contribute anything to the debate? Seems to my infantile brain that he's trying to discredit messenger and not message, which is what the "global-warmians-hur-hur-clever" keep getting accused of.
An afterthought: It seems some of you like to argue about words, and not pay any attention to context. This, too, is one of the failings of modern day information gathering: That things, somehow, are not what they are, but what we say they are.
As ridiculous as that may sound it is true.
Next time you prepare a comment, ask yourself, "Do I want to get at the truth of this guy's statement, or do I want to make hay with his words?
given that all the "facts" he presents to discredit climate scientists have already been incorporated into their climate models
Could you explain that, please. It's not the first time you've said it, and I am not clear as to what you mean.
You're amazing, pedro. When you're finished pretending to make cutesy insults at me and suggest I "didn't read the links," maybe you should go ahead and read that last one, which Inhofe linked to because of the writer's quote that it was bad to use climate change as a scare tactic, not that global warming wasn't real. In fact, the article is about how is it real and that climate change is something that need immediate attention. We'll ignore your immediate cowardly ducking of the original issue- that Inhofe's personal term paper was certainly never "peer-reviewed," because I'm sure you'll never confess to pulling that out of your ass anyway.
So, umm.. yeah. "In science, you define a thesis and then prove it with data." In debate, you tend to try and prove your point, not prove how you're wrong. But thanks for helping me on that, champ!
And by all means, feel free to read cartoons as much as you want. Unlike certain folks around here, at least I'm not pretending to be a cartoonist. And you don't need classes anyway- your foolishness is ample proof of how funny you can be ;)
For too long, moderates and liberals have sought to give the deniers a seat at the table. Thinking that by simply discussing the issue and by "teaching the controversy" to children, they stupidly think that the deniers can be satiated. But the bloodlust of the denial crowd is infinite. They do not seek to even debate issues - mostly because their assertions cannot stand up to honest debate - but rather they seek to wipe thousands of years of human triumph off the map.
Absolutely right. Although I personally use the phrase "willfully ignorant", instead of deniers.
Oh wait... wait a sec! And here's the concluding paragraph from the second of pedro's links! Remember, though, it's just stupid me, stupid for apparently "not reading the links..."
This discussion refers to CO2 emissions during the next few decades. The (uncaptured) CO2 emissions in both the 2 °C and 1 °C scenarios must begin to decrease prior to mid-century to achieve stabilization of atmospheric CO2 amount, as agreed in the Framework Convention on Climate Change. To keep additional global warming from exceeding 1 °C, which I have argued is the most plausible value for the level of dangerous anthropogenic interference, implies the need for a change in CO2 emission rates at least as dramatic as that initiated in 1973. This will require an unprecedented level of international cooperation.
Well, that is certainly one of "a whole bunch of other news articles debunking much of the global warming "science"," isn't it? In a "actually says it's real and needs to be addressed immediately" kind of way.
Wait, just a sec. Gotta catch my breath from laughing. Okay, here we go: Did you even click to page one to read the title of that report? You want the spoiler? It's titled "Can we defuse The Global Warming Time Bomb?"
Hmm... where did I hear some smarmy prick a little earlier? Oh, right. He said: "In science, you define a thesis and then prove it with data. That data often takes the form of other researchers work. We scientists refer to it as 'referencing.'"
Pedro, are you in fact the stupidest person on earth? I think there may be a scientific case here... thanks for providing the data.
Could you explain that, please. It's not the first time you've said it, and I am not clear as to what you mean.
Well Inhofe has a graph or two in there that shows temperature change that shows highs and lows over a hundred years or so. This graph shows, as do others, that the Earth has seen temperatures at higher levels than they are currently. Also that there have been long periods of cold spells across the globe that, do dredge up that old chestnut, are responsible for Greenland and Iceland now being "misnamed." This is proof that climate does, yes, show a range of levels throughout the history of the Earth, and that the current temperature is not exactly an "all time high." (This is not me losing the argument, since my argument actually sort of hinges on this)
Now, when we look at the temperature changes over these long stretches of time we see a sort of cycle. Warm ages and cold ages both appear in varying durations over time. Over about a half-million years the trend shows sharp increases in temperatures and slow declines. The increases are key to this, because its not the temperature level thats important so much as the temperature rate of increase. These large temperature increase-spikes that occur happen at a fairly sudden rate, geologically speaking. And looking at the data we see that we are either at or near another peak, which suggests initially that the currently observed temperature increase might be due to this natural cycle.
I still havent conceded the argument, because the big problem is this: If we're at the peak of this trend then we should either start slowly dropping sometime soon, or if to continue warming then to do it at predictable rates. Neither of these is happening.
The globe is warming at a rate ten times faster than it ever has before. We are seeing a change at an order of magnitude greater than what we've ever seen. This is the core of the problem, that even accounting for the cyclical nature of global temperature, we're still seeing a massive, massive increase in temperature. Global Warming.
Inhofe's (and, I notice, Dugger's) pretense that these cycles and other factors are not up for discussion is immensely intellectually dishonest, since the science not only accounts for cyclical changes but very nearly relys on them in order to demonstrate how the current change is not indicative of that same cycle and requires other factors. The anthropogenic factor is the most likely cause, but explaining it is another deal altogether as it requires graphs of CO2 levels vs temperature and demonstration of that equally marked increase since industrialization, but there it is.
Here's that link yet again.
10 comments between 8:55 and 9:05?
Switch to decaf, fd!
Frank: "I meant that given no further corrective information, I have no reason to change my own mind."
Sorry, Frank. I haven't mastered mind-reading yet. I'll make an effort, in the future, to read what you meant to type, instead of what you actually typed.
Have a nice day.
"It’s easy to say, 'You’re just talking nonsense'; it’s a lot harder to refute what they say."
Hogwash. Anyone today trying to argue that there's "scientific evidence" that an intelligent being created the universe is talking nonsense.
There is no reason to spend anytime "refuting" someone who argues that the "design" of a banana is evidence of an intelligent creator. It's the laziest kind of thinking imaginable being passed off as worthy of respect because it's got something to do with "faith."
You mock Inhofe as a denier, but his conclusions are carefully researched
Say no more, you're just embarrassing yourself and the rest of the deniers.
And Frank, why do you say in 20 responses what you could say in 3? Please stop monopolizing the comments.
...that Inhofe's personal term paper was certainly never "peer-reviewed,"
C'mon, August, he must have shown it to his wife or something first.
What, no one is saying that Mount Rushmore could have happened naturally? I'm disappointed. I love that one.
Quaker: That was one big comment regarding Oliver's essay. I broke it into pieces,because I wasn't sure how WordPress would react.
Rex: the sudden ... jumps up in temperature every ~100,000 years represent a rate of change roughly ten times slower what we are currently witnessing.
Is that really the same as "the globe is warming at a rate ten times faster than it ever has before"
And, exactly how (why?) is that cause for alarm? If the picture
"if the picture"? I have no idea where that came from...
Well, it appears that Frank's new self-serving strategy is to post every comment in the comment section.
If you have a point to make, Frank, make a damn point. If you want to write an essay, start your own blog.
"the sudden ... jumps up in temperature every ~100,000 years represent a rate of change roughly ten times slower what we are currently witnessing."
Is that really the same as "the globe is warming at a rate ten times faster than it ever has before"
...I'm sorry, isnt it? What we're currently witnessing in an increase in temperature after all. An increase such that all the other massive, sharp increases happened at a rate of being ten times slower than the current rate. Are you trying to say that if A is ten times slower than B that B isnt therefore ten times faster than A? If not, please clarify, what are you asking?
And, exactly how (why?) is that cause for alarm?
Well some people such as the evil Mr. Gore suggest that the Earth cant properly handle a temperature increase at the rate we're seeing. He's arguing essentially that in the entire global ecosystem that changes like this end up having drastic consequences not least of all for people who end up surviving more floods and more droughts as a result. I'm personally not as alarmist as he is, but cannot refute the science he presents. The cause is most definately though the marked increase in atmospheric CO2 caused almost entirely due to human activity during and since the industrial revolution (could show this if I had the time, hit up Google if you like), which is something we should, climate crisis or no, be working to cut back on.
zadura: {I'm tempted to say, "Who died and left you boss", but I won't}
I responded to Oliver's essay piecemeal because I wasn't sure how WordPress would react. I commented on the whole of the essay. I made several points, but apparently you didn't notice.
Quelle dommage
As for being "self - serving", I suppose your comments are altruistic attempts to change the world, one pixel at a time. I'm a baby boomer -- it's my job to save the world.
I have admitted that I am here for the fun of it -- why are you here? To serve humanity?
And I have a blog, in my profile, and it is not political.
BTW, Oliver, I'm getting that Capcha thing every time I post, even the first post of the day, with our without URL's, no matter the length of the post, or how frequently I post
Frank, this is a place of public discourse. When in a place of public discourse, think about the way you feel about the guy who screams over everybody and dominates 80% of the bandwidth. I didn't say you couldn't be that guy, but it doesn't make you honorable, considerate or intelligent.
Rex: I ask that question, because I was wondering if the rate matters, if we don't exceed a historical peak. Also, I have seen most of, but not all, "An Inconvenient Truth", and as I have been saying, it's not authoritative enough.
As someone over at RealClimate.org said, "We need something more than a PowerPoint presentation."
I would add we need some white - coated, bushy haired scientists, and it needs to be on ABCCBSNBC, CNNFOX, etc., simulcast on all the networks, (like a Presidential News Conference), and it needs to be several hours long, captivating and attention grabbing, with PRO's and CON's. ["Next Thursday... A special presentation -- a program you'll want to watch with the whole family -- "Is the Earth in trouble?")
Otherwise, I don't think you're going to convince "Joe Six - Pack", and that's what counts.
it doesn't make you honorable, considerate or intelligent.
And it doesn't make me dishonorable, inconsiderate or unintelligent.
In fact, it really shouldn't matter to you at all.
Frank, I have never met a 59 year old with less self-awareness.
I ask that question, because I was wondering if the rate matters, if we don't exceed a historical peak.
If the rate shows no sign of significant diminishing, what makes you think we aren't destined to exceed that peak given enough time?
As far as the Science TV Special, I agree that we do need this whole issue to be aired out and spoken, all issues presented, all questions answered, all politics kicked out of the room until we can establish the core truths of the issue. I have argued though that this has already happened off the TV screen. It's called "The Scientific Consensus" and apparently it gives Dugger night-terrors considering the disdain he lumps on it. Maybe we needed it to happen on Sci-Span or something.
Didn't Tom Brokaw do one just about 2 weeks ago? I think there was another on HBO.
Denizens of Liberal iniquity that they are, of course...
Frank, I have never met a 59 year old with less self-awareness.
Before we get into the issue of self-awareness, it's important for me to ask, "How many 59 year olds do you know?" By what means did you assess their self - awareness? Have you used those instruments on me, without my knowledge?
And, finally, did you know:
I think that by "self - awareness" you mean, "aware of zadura's wants".
And, second, I'm 60 years old, going on 61.
Please, zadura, if you have a point to make, make a damn point.
If I want psychoanalysis, I'll pay Lucy a nickel.
Frank, I work in the real world. I manage a business in which I work with people in construction, architecture, engineering and banking. Many of those people are in their 40's, 50's and 60's, so as a matter of fact I do know a fair number of your vintage.
Sir, I have tried to be considerate of you in the past but it is of no consequence. You are the drunk at the party who doesn't realize it's time to go home, the village idiot wailing in the plaza, the birthday clown who makes all the kids cry. Had you a sense of self-awareness, you'd understand that.
Frank: "I ask that question, because I was wondering if the rate matters, if we don't exceed a historical peak."
Frank, if we do "exceed a historical peak" will you then consider it time to act?
z adura: You haven't got the message yet, have you? Here's the initials: MYOFB
nihilistic_disintegration: People are already "acting". The point is, do we need some sort of national campaign (for "national" read "Federal" = expenseeeve)?
Whether I think it's time to act is irrelevant. What matters is what it is going to cost all of us if, and / or when the gummint gets into the act.
"Retooling America's infrastructure could be costly."
Frank in English: "gummint should stay out of it. If there's any problem the smart folks who gave us Love Canal, Bhopal and Three Mile Island will take care of it."
If the government had been responsible for only two and a half (Three Mile Island was a case of nothing happening, because things that were supposed to prevent a catastrophe, worked) catastrophes, I wouldn't be complaining about their performance.
z adura | Mar 22, 2007 4:35:16 PM
"Frank, I have never met a 59 year old with less self-awareness."
Very succinctly phrased, z_adura.
Interesting post. That same connection between Global Warming Deniers and Holocaust Deniers popped into my head yesterday listening to Inhofe on NPR.
Frank: "Whether I think it's time to act is irrelevant."
Actually, Frank, it's totally relevant. My question was whether you would consider it time to act if temperatures "exceed a historical peak."
However, since you then said, "What matters is what it is going to cost all of us if, and / or when the gummint gets into the act." I have a new question.
If the Democrat who becomes president on January 20, 2009 can end the Iraq war, would you support funneling the billions and billions of tax dollars the Bush regime is wasting on that folly and directing it toward research in alternative energy sources? Would you support reducing our bloated defense industry and instead funding carbon-emmission-reduction programs?
I guess my question boils down to this: are you opposed to the government spending tax dollars, or are you opposed to the government spending tax dollars on Liberal programs?
nihilistic_disintegration: First of all, let me advise of of two salient facts:
All the money spent in Iraq will not be available for whatever purpose. Most of that money pays for soldiers and equipment, that don't go away when the war end.
Second, I learned many years ago that for every dollar the government receives, only 65 cents actually benefits taxpayers. Thirty five cents is absorbed by government employees and their offices, supplies and equipment. That was a long time ago, but I would be greatly surprised if the number had changed for the better.
What does that mean?
It means there will be little or no "treasure" when the Republicans end the war.
And it means that the government spends money so inefficiently, that they can't be trusted to handle a catastrophe, without wasting a gazillion dollars, or possibly, a bajillion dollars.
So, where do we end up?
First, it is estimated that the kinds of things being suggested to slow or end global warming will pull 2 - 5% out of the Gross Domestic Product -- loss #1
Second, there will be very money available from the Republicans' ending the war in Iraq, for the reason I already stated, and because the war spending has generated a deficit -- shortfall #2
Third, the government spends money so inefficiently that what ever it is proposed the global warming fix will cost, you can count on it to be double that amount.
Finally, you referred to "liberal programs". If by liberal programs, you mean money spent to accomplish nothing, which is what most "liberal programs" turn out to be, then yes, I'm opposed to spending on liberal programs.
See if you can find the estimates for reconstructing New Orleans after Katrina.
Compare those estimates with what has been spent to date. And recall that N'Awlins iis crying for more money, because "the job isn't done yet."
Frank:
"Most of that money pays for soldiers and equipment"
Do you have some evidence to back that up? My understanding was that most of the money went to defense contractors and pork projects.
For example: "Independent experts estimate that as much as one-third of the monthly $3.9 billion cost of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq is going to independent contractors."
And, of course, This.
"If by liberal programs, you mean money spent to accomplish nothing ... then yes, I'm opposed to spending on liberal programs."
Two not-so-salient points on that: First, how the hell could you not be against the Iraq war, if your main opposition is to "money spent to accomplish nothing"? Second, if the "global warming fix" could be paid for entirely with a tax of, let's say, $.02 per gallon on gas, would you support it? Or how about adding $.001 per KWh onto electric bills? that way it would encourage people to use less electricity, and your arch nemesis Al Gore would have to pay 100x as much toward it as everyone else. That's Win-Win!
Well that's funny... pedro left comments in later threads but he decided to stop commenting in this one. I can't imagine why.
I'm sure you'll never admit you're wrong, pedro, but you can at least apologize for the way you acted and reduce some of the sting of how embarrassing that was for you.
Do you have some evidence to back that up?
You provided it.
"Independent experts estimate that as much as one-third of the monthly $3.9 billion cost of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq is going to independent contractors."
When I was growing up, "as much as one - third was not most. Two - thirds might be most -- that's $2.6 billion a month. But one - third? Nah.
Showing me that pork was attached to a military appropriations bill, only strengthens my case that the government cannot spend money wisely.
And, again, how do you know that all the independent contractors will be gone when the war is over? Any number of them could be doing things that they will continue to do, after the war.
If the global warming crisis could be fixed by relocating some caribou, would you support that? Apparently not. I'm talking about ANWR.
Neither one of those additional amounts would discourage anyone from doing anything, especially if it might not happen. And what makes you think the gummint would stop at pennies on the dollar?
Frank, you are half right that we will be paying significantly for this war long after we leave. Joseph Stiglitz had that cost at $750-1,200 billion based on our leaving in 2006. Now, the number starts to touch $2 trillion. But what you don't say is that the longer we stay, the more it will cost. That is what explains the difference between $750 billion, $2 trillion and what we will ultimately pay.
z: The important thing is not the cost of the war. It's whether or not ending the war will somehow result in a bunch of extra money being available once the war ends.
The math is simple. Let's say I'm spending $100 a month over what I'm making, and charging the difference.
Now, let's say that part of the hundred a month was being spent a movie, every month (about $20 a person).
Suppose I get cable and PPV. Now my movie expense goes down to $3.95 a month, but I'm still overspending on other things.
What have I gained? Nothing...
I have gone from being $100 in debt to being $100 in debt to being $100.00 - ($20 - $3.95), or $83.95 in debt, but now you have to add the cost of the cable. Let's say the cable is $10 a month. Now, your indebtedness is $93.95 a month!
It means there will be little or no "treasure" when the Republicans end the war.
And it means that the government spends money so inefficiently, that they can't be trusted to handle a catastrophe, without wasting a gazillion dollars
Thank you for finally admitting at least that much. And I seriously doubt that it will be Republans who end this war.
(I am taking a cue from Jurassic Pork and leaving off the "ic" in Republican and they will be referred to as such henceforth. AKA, "the defendant.")
What have I gained? Nothing...
Well, that's simple, really. Keep on spending like that and make your kids pay for it.
Actually, Frank, the reason I mentioned the war in Iraq was not because I thought that there would be a windfall of cash once the Democrat who becomes President ends the clusterfuck. I mentioned it because it is a huge drain on our country that is going to produce zero benefit. It seems to me that if conservatives are gung-ho about going a couple trillion dollars into debt for something that will only serve to damage the US and the world, they'd be willing to pony up a fraction of that amount to fix the global warming crisis. Or at least fund the science to determine if we can fix it.
But that's just me.
"Neither one of those additional amounts would discourage anyone from doing anything, especially if it might not happen. And what makes you think the gummint would stop at pennies on the dollar?"
So you would support a gas tax? I can't tell from your non-answer. (Again, not a mind-reader.)
"I'm talking about ANWR."
How the fuck would drilling for oil in ANWR solve the global warming crisis?
Frank, your numbers are not honest either on the income or the expense side.
First, George Bush convinced us that we could cut government income by $50, to use your analogy. Second, the amount of the difference between the deficit with the war and without is about $33. Take care of these things and the income/expense imbalance is manageable.
So you would support a gas tax?
My answer was pretty straightforward -- a little tiny tax won't discourage consumption,and I don't believe that the government would stop at pennies, and I also don't believe that the money would be used to combat global warming.
Congress would convince themselves that discouraging people from driving and using a lot of electricity was sufficient. Why? So they could keep, and then spend the money.
But that's just me.
Indeed it is. I think toppling Hussein was "something". I think bringing a duly elected government to Iraq was "something." I think the opportunity for us to be on truly good terms with a rich oil - producing country is "something". And I think having forces on the ground in the middle of the middle east is "something".
Thank you for finally admitting at least that much.
Admitting what? That I don't trust the government? That I believe the government couldn't figure out how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for less than $500.00 ?
Are you kidding? I've been saying that for years. Where have you been?
sorry august, I didn't realize you were just hanging out here for my wisdom....
Stick to drawing bad cartoons august, global warming science is not as yet decided, not by a long shot. My point remains, as always, no one knows whether or not warming is anthropomophic or not, and all the chicken little sky-is-falling bullshit from people flying around the world in private jets isn't convincing anyone.
That doesn't really sound like an apology, pedro. But like I said I didn't think you'd be man enough to offer one.
I really could care less if you enjoy my cartoons or not. It has nothing to do with this argument, and is once again your pathetic defense mechanism about being called on how embarrassingly ignorant you are. Just so we're clear, since you refuse to acknowledge it: in a smarmy, juvenile tone of "teaching me how science works," you told me I knew nothing about global warming and didn't even read the links in Inhofe's report. You then linked to three articles to "educate me." One of them didn't even appear in Inhofe's report. Two of them concluded that global warming was both real and an immediate threat.
You, by your own links, proved you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about, and that your reponse to that is to be the world's biggest asshole about it. So what's your "point" again? That you think you can "win" a debate on global warming by insulting me and linking to evidence that's the opposite of your theory? Which science class taught that one, "doctor?"
I'm sure it must hurt for a mere cartoonist to point this out, but you really are a loser. You got smacked down here and you're too much of a coward to admit it. "Bad cartoons?" Well, that really refutes your own link about how global warming is threatening us, skippy.
If you want to continue with some last-word grade-school self-satisfaction, go right ahead. I'm sure you've got a third attack on my cartoons rearing and ready to go. Because that's all you have. Prove me right, fool.
jxwgiovcn cfhsmyp wsuxngi tyiomjsp cgtdjfymv gwbhvckz dfusmgj