Newsweek conducts some actual journalism on the oil-industry shills dressed up as scientists and the like who deny global warming in opposition to scientific evidence.
Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. “They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry,” says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. “Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That’s had a huge impact on both the public and Congress.”
John F. Kennedy: “In the final analysis, we all inhabit the same small planet, we all breathe the same air, we all cherish our children’s future, and we are all mortal.”
The oil industry and their tools in the Republican party are going to deny global warming because doing anything about it is bad for the oil business.
Republican pundits are going to tow the party line because it’s good for Republicans.
These people aren’t confused about the issue. They are just flat out lying.
The people who have genuine doubts, based on ignorance of the issue, are being confused not by the oil industry but by the MEDIA, who insist on giving these fringe propagandists equal time with legitimate science.
It starts with the media. They are the enablers.
I am a regular reader of your article. And I am very impress with your blog upon Global Warming. Now I am also write a blog upon effects and causes of Global Warming. This blog is collection of news & reviews like the study found that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays. Some researchers had also suggested that the latter might influence global warming because the rays trigger cloud formation.
Horse hockey. This would be the same Newsweek that just a few decades earlier was out peddling the nonsense that we needed to coat the Poles with soot to prevent global cooling. I mean who could deny global cooling? A group of scientists said it was so. They are all part of the disaster lobby: a group of well-connected big money liberals who thrive on pursuing ostensible public interest causes but are really nothing more than the same old leftist political ideologues pursuing an anti-capitalist agenda. Global warming is great for them because it really can’t be proven or disproven and every time an elephant farts in the veldt, they can run around screaming
“Global warming! See I told you so.”
This would be the same Newsweek that just a few decades earlier was out peddling the nonsense that we needed to coat the Poles with soot to prevent global cooling.
Awesome point Dugger. That’s irrefutable proof that there is absolutely no concerted effort by the Oil Industry to use deceitful Tobacco Industry tactics to cloud the Global Warming Issue. Great job as usual!
Good people like you, me, and Rush Limbaugh know that Global Warming totally isn’t happening and that a consensus of relevant scientists means nothing in this debate. We’re right because we’re right but also because there was an apparantly contradictory article in Newsweek several decades ago. By the way, could I have the link to that article that will single-handedly render any Lib Global Warming Argument moot? Thanks in advance.
This would be the same Newsweek that just a few decades earlier was out peddling the nonsense that we needed to coat the Poles with soot to prevent global cooling
Anyone who knows anything about the subject knows that the “new ice age” kerfuffle of the 1970’s was a minor tempest brewed up in the popular press as a result of a few highly tentative reports from climate scientists.
That bears no comparison whatsoever to the massive scientific consensus that currently reigns on the issue of global warming.
But keep sticking your head in the sand and throwing dust in other people’s eyes, Dugger. In paradise seventy Exxon virgins will service your every need.
For fuck’s sake, Dugger, quit embarrassing yourself. Only a braindead conservative could be so fucking arrogant as to think that he knows better than the consensus of climate scientists. Only a braindead conservative thinks that we can pump millions of tons of a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere without increasing global temperatures. Only a braindead conservative looks at the near-perfect correlation of the Industrial Age, increase in atmospheric CO2 and the increase in global temperature and concludes that manmade global warming is NOT happening.
Jesus tapdancing Christ…
For a good time, read the MRC’s blog newsbusters.org They are positiviely outraged, OUTRAGED that Newsweek imply that they are wrong.
Wait. What’s today’s position again, Dugger? Is it that warming is natural or that warming isn’t happening at all?
“… a group of well-connected big money liberals who thrive on pursuing ostensible public interest causes but are really nothing more than the same old leftist political ideologues pursuing an anti-capitalist agenda.”
Don’t you just love all those super rich liberals who are willing to spend their billions of dollars to bring down capitalism? I love those guys …
“Horse hockey. This would be the same Newsweek that just a few decades earlier was out peddling the nonsense that we needed to coat the Poles with soot to prevent global cooling.”
You realize global cooling was never a serious scientific issue. It was just media hype.
Global warming is a serious scientific issue. The science is sound and deniers like you are just like creationists.
You need to shut the fuck up before your stupidity causes a cerebral hemorrhage.
In paradise seventy Exxon virgins will service your every need.
Too bad they all look like Ernest Borgnine.
Quaker
You tell me what today’s position on global warming is or have the liberal scientists voted yet - you know, so that we know the scientific consensus.
And I love it. “Oh, that was just Newsweek hype, Dugger. Don’t take it seriously. ” Except OW is ballyhooing the very same ’soot the poles’ Newsweek on global warming.
Why, Newsweek and those scientists were all wrong about that. Why Newsweek and these scientists are all right about this. I know, they didn’t vote on the science back then like they do now.
And it must be true, because its a consensus - which,as we all know, is how true scientists determine fact from fiction - a vote.
And I suppose ‘good science’ requires doubters of the ‘concensus” to be called deniers - similar to holocaust deniers- and have their careers ruined. After all, the science is settled.*
*Footnote. Well, nearly settled. The ‘consensus’ has decided to allow a little ‘re-settling’ concerning scientist Gore’s rising ocean level ’science’.
Great points again Duggmeister! You’ve firmly establiished that it’s inconceivable that
1. Global Warming is even happening.
2. The Oil Industry tried to cloud the issue (which totallly isn’t happening anyway).
Since this was in Newsweek, it’s obviously false, since there was an article in the publication of the same name that had an apparently contradictary article several decades ago. Brav-o, my well-reasoned compadre. Bravo, indeed.
Oh, and still waiting for the link to the afforementioned Newsweek piece that totally proves the Libs to be totally lying about Global Warming.
Thanks again in advance.
The Anti “Man-Made” Global Warming Resource:
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050
Quick Facts:
- Global surface temperatures have increased only about 0.6°C in the last 100 years. (IPCC)
- Global average sea level has risen only about 6 inches in the last 100 years. (Based on tidal guage data) (IPCC)
- Global mean sea level rise is in the range of 1.0 to 2.0 mm/yr. (Based on tidal guage data) (IPCC)
- No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected. (IPCC)
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere have risen by about 30% (280-370 ppmv) over the past 100 years. (IPCC)
- Ice core records show Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels lag behind Temperature changes by hundreds of years. (Source)
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is only about 0.038% of the atmosphere. (NASA)
- Carbon Dioxide accounts for about 4.2-8.4% of the greenhouse effect. (Source)
- Humans can only claim responsibility for about 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually. (Source)
- Water Vapor + Clouds account for about 90-95% of the greenhouse effect. (Source) (NASA)
- Global temperature has averaged only 57°F in the last 100 years. (NOAA)
* Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming is an unproven Theory.
* There is no “scientific consensus” that global warming will cause catastrophic climate change.
* Science is not determined by “consensus” but by the Scientific Method.
Consensus? What Consensus?
“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. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” - Michael Crichton, M.D. Harvard
Scientists Disputing “Man-Made” Global Warming Theory:
August H. Auer Jr., AMS Certified Meteorologist, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, University of Wyoming, USA
Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of California, San Diego, USA
Arthur Rorsch, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Benny Peiser, Ph.D. Professor of Social Anthropology, Liverpool John Moores University, UK
Bjørn Lomborg, Ph.D. Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Chris de Freitas, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Geography and Environmental Science, University of Auckland, Australia
Claude Allegre, Ph.D. Physics, University of Paris, France
Christopher Essex, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics Professor, University of Western Ontario, Canada
David Deming, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Utah, USA
David Evans, B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, M.S. Statistics, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Stanford, USA
David J. Bellamy, B.Sc. Botany, Ph.D. Ecology, Durham University, UK
David R. Legates, Ph.D. Climatology, University of Delaware, USA
Dennis Avery, M.S. Agricultural Economics, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Dennis P. Lettenmaier, Ph.D. Professor of Hydrology, University of Washington, USA
Douglas Leahey, Meteorologist, Calgary, Canada
Douglas V. Hoyt, Solar Physicist and Climatologist, Retired, Raytheon, USA
Frederick Seitz, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA
Fred Singer, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA
Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus, Physics, Princeton, USA
Gary D. Sharp, Ph.D. Marine Biology, University of California, USA
Gary Novak, M.S. Microbiology, USA
George H. Taylor, M.S. Meteorology, University of Utah, USA
George V. Chilingarian, Ph.D. Geology, University of Southern California, USA
Habibullo Abdussamatov, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, The University of Leningrad, Russia
Henrik Svensmark, Solar System Physics, Danish National Space Center, Denmark
Howard Hayden, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut, USA
Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D. Meteorology, Formerly with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USA
Ian D. Clark, Professor Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, University of Adelaide, Australia
Jack Barrett, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Manchester, UK
James Spann, AMS Certified Meteorologist, USA
Ján Veizer, Professor Emeritus Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
John J. Ray, Ph.D. Psychology, Macquarie University, Mensa, Sydney, Australia
John R. Christy, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, USA
Joseph Conklin, M.S. Meteorology, Rutgers University, USA
Keith D. Hage, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, University of Alberta, Canada
Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist, Harvard, USA
Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida State University, USA
Marcel Leroux, Professor Emeritus, Climatology, University of Lyon, France
Michael Crichton, M.D. Harvard, USA
Michael Savage, B.S. Biology, M.S. Anthropology, M.S. Ethnobotany, Ph.D. Nutritional Ethnomedicine, USA
Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, Israel Institute of Technology, Israel
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Petr Chylek, Ph.D. Physics, University of California, USA
Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biogeography, University of London, UK
Reid A. Bryson, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA
Richard S. Courtney, PhD. Geography, The Ohio State University, USA
Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT, USA
Roger A. Pielke, Ph.D. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Robert C. Balling, Ph.D. Geography, University of Oklahoma, USA
Robert Giegengack, Ph.D. Geology, Yale, USA
Robert H. Essenhigh, M.S. Natural Sciences, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, University of Sheffield, UK
Robert Johnston, M.S. Physics, B.A. Astronomy, USA
Robert M. Carter, Geologist, James Cook University, Australia
Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, University of British Columbia, Canada
Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, USA
Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard, USA
Sami Solanki, Ph.D Astronomy, EHT Zurich, Switzerland
Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D. Soil Science, University of Minnesota, USA
Simon C. Brassell, B.Sc. Chemistry & Geology, Ph.D. Organic Geochemistry, University of Bristol, UK
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D. Department of Geography, University of Hull, UK
Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Sciences, M.S. Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, USA
Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, University of Toronto, Canada
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Ph.D. Founding Director International Arctic Research Center, USA
Tad S. Murty, Ph.D. Oceanography and Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA
Tim Patterson, Ph.D. Professor of Geology, Carleton University, Canada
Timothy F. Ball, Ph.D. Geography, Historical Climatology, University of London, UK
Vaclav Klaus, app. Ph.D. Economics, University of Economics, Prague, Czechoslovakia
Vincent Gray, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Cambridge University, UK
Wibjorn Karlen, Ph.D, Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
William J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa
William M. Gray, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, USA
Willie Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, USA
Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D. Ph.D., Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Poland
Yes, the consensus on global warming is clearly refuted by science fiction author Michael Crichton, he of the cool big-ass dinosaurs of Jurassic Park.
…oh good lord wait, this whole time, this whole time you’ve been so fucking stupid about the 3vul ghey consensus, its because you think that means they just arbitrarily vote on what theory is true? You think they all actually just got together at the shadow-scientist summit one year and decided on what they’re going to pretend the truth is? That Global Warming beat out Natural Climate Fluctuations by a thin margin and only because it ran attack ads? You’ve been bitching about the consensus this whole time without actually understanding (along with the esteemed Dr. Michael Dinamasaur Chrichton) what the fuck the term even means?
I… good lord I have no idea how even to start explaining this, but Scientific Consensus is not a fucking Vote! Jesus damn fuck titty shit hell cunt how do I even begin explaining without talking down to you man, I mean this is seriously a horrifyingly drastic error on your part…
Okay, Scientific Consensus doesn’t mean everyone on the surface of the Earth who considers themself a scientist agrees (pop, oh and cute list btw, thats like that 100 scientists who disagree with evolution thing, right? Which website did you copy-paste if from? I ask because I’m curious and so certain that those PhDs in Psychology, Economics and Mathematics have done all kinds of meteorological study and have every right to speak to… ah but here your personal retardation causes me to digress. Now returning you to your regularly scheduled sentence, already in progress) or that only a bare majority (or a plurality in the case of a 3rd party theory) endorse the idea (dugg). Voting is arbitrary and based on personal predilictions. Consensus means they CONCEDE that an idea is correct, based on the rules of evidence and experimentation, and the available evidence, that it is the best explanation for observed phenomena. If a piece of evidence is legitimately disputed, if an inference can be shown to be in error, if the theory is rightly cast into doubt, then that too is conceeded, irrespective of the popularity of the theory (its part of the reason why Global Cooling didnt last past the mid 70s as a theory). If, within that framework of rules of evidence, experimentation, demonstration, etc., Anthropogenic Climate Change could be disproven, then it would have been. And yet the number of peer-reviewed (read: error-checked) literature on the subject that disagrees with Global Warming Theory is negligible (and thats even taking into account pop’s marvelous little list of geographers and political scisntists).
Honestly, your inability to work out that much is just fucking staggeringly stupid… not as staggeringly stupid as your forthcoming attempt to say that no, in fact, consensus is only a vote (from which it follows that science too is only a conspiracy) but pretty damn staggering nonetheless. I’d hope that your attention can be held long enough and that you pay introspective consideration to how you’re approaching the issue, and rethink whether or not its possible that you personally know something that just about every other scientist doesnt, or have worked things out differently than they ever could, and though it may land a blow to your ego I would also hope that you stop advancing “MARS! GR33NLAND! GLOBABL COOLING!” as scientific arguments.
I wonder, even if, and that’s a big IF, global warming is wrong, what’s the harm? Is asking people to treat the planet better so wrong? We’re not saying stop using gas and so forth, we’re just saying stop treating the planet like its a hotel room and The Who are in town. Methinks thou doth protest too much…
Poptech, I’m only going to respond to the points you made that I can refute now, as I have no time to do the requisite research to dispense with all your info.
“- Global surface temperatures have increased only about 0.6°C in the last 100 years. (IPCC)”
OK….? You’re using this to try and say global warming isn’t happening?…
“- Global average sea level has risen only about 6 inches in the last 100 years. (Based on tidal guage data) (IPCC)”
Again… ok? Six inches isn’t trivial by any standard for sea level rise. How does this help your contention?
“- Global mean sea level rise is in the range of 1.0 to 2.0 mm/yr. (Based on tidal guage data) (IPCC)”
Alright…
“- No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected. (IPCC)”
Yet. Let’s see what happens when ice sheets off Antarctica, or Greenland, break off into the ocean.
“- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere have risen by about 30% (280-370 ppmv) over the past 100 years. (IPCC)”
Awesome.
“- Ice core records show Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels lag behind Temperature changes by hundreds of years. (Source)”
In the past, that may be true (link?). But that doesn’t necessarily suggest that the manmade CO2 pumped into the air should have the same effect as natural causes from centuries or millenia before. Besides, what are you saying here? It’s ok to fuck up the planet for the future. Yeah, fuck those assholes living 200 years from now. They totally have it comin’ to ‘em.
“- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is only about 0.038% of the atmosphere. (NASA)”
What’s your point? If coral snake venom composes 0.038% of your body mass, you’ll die a gruesome death. Who gives a shit how much CO2 there is?
- Carbon Dioxide accounts for about 4.2-8.4% of the greenhouse effect. (Source)
I’d love to see a reputable link for this.
“- Humans can only claim responsibility for about 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually. (Source)”
Hmm… link? Even if that’s true, again, who gives a shit? Are you saying that’s a trivial amount? Again, raw volume or percentages matter very little… what matters is whether the additional CO2 causes warming. Does that 3.4% put us over a threshold?
“- Water Vapor + Clouds account for about 90-95% of the greenhouse effect. (Source) (NASA)”
Really? Well, I guess a warmer globe, and warmer surface temperatures over the oceans would likely have no effect on the rate of evaporation, or cloud formation. Nah, that’s unpossible!
“- Global temperature has averaged only 57°F in the last 100 years. (NOAA)”
What’s your point? Who gives a shit? The change in temperature matters, idiot, not the average temperature in a vacuum. Your points are getting dumber.
“* Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming is an unproven Theory.”
What? Are you serious? Do you know what the word “theory” means in scientific parlance? I don’t think you do. Dumber yet, poptech.
“* There is no “scientific consensus” that global warming will cause catastrophic climate change.”
There are enough scientists (e.g., a whole fuckload) that say that we are in serious jeopardy that we should be paying attention. Not obfuscating, not lying, not ignoring the facts that stare us in the face plain as day.
“* Science is not determined by “consensus” but by the Scientific Method.”
You’re kinda right here, but not in a way that helps your argument. It’s true that what we know to be “truth” in science is found through the scientific method. However, when we intelligent folks speak of the “consensus” of scientists on the matter of global warming, we aren’t talking about a bunch of people getting in a room and saying, “Hey, you know, I agree with Ed! Global warming is real! Let’s go get some lunch now.” No, we’re talking about individual scientists that, working independently, have come to the same or similar conclusions about global climate change. When we talk of “consensus” we’re talking of people in agreement based on the fucking evidence, you dumb bastard.
OK, I’m spent. It’s hard work and tiring to deal with this idiocy.
Actually, I guess I got to everything.
And damn you, Rex, for beating me to the punch!
Bwahahaha!
Let it be noted that of that -like- really impressive list of global warming deniers posted by poptech, that fewer than twenty are actually climatologists or meteorologists, and of that number about half are either retired or lack a terminal degree.
And I wonder how many of them took Exxon’s $10,000 bribe to produce anti-global-warming propaganda.
Personally, I’d be wary of any scientist who allowed himself to be listed as an authority alongside…
Michael Savage, B.S. Biology, M.S. Anthropology, M.S. Ethnobotany, Ph.D. Nutritional Ethnomedicine, USA
Yes, that’s -the- Michael Savage.
Keep plugging away, poptart, dugger. The 70 virgins are getting ready for you, and they’re greasing up the dildoes with the finest light sweet crude.
I wonder, even if, and that’s a big IF, global warming is wrong, what’s the harm? Is asking people to treat the planet better so wrong? We’re not saying stop using gas and so forth, we’re just saying stop treating the planet like its a hotel room and The Who are in town. Methinks thou doth protest too much…
I wonder this as well, and what it comes down to, as far as I can see, is that the deniers don’t want to give anything up in their comfortable lives. The deniers really really want their giant fucking cars, so climate change can’t be an issue. They really really want to crank the air conditioning all the way up, so climate change can’t be an issue. The people who insist that climate change is real are just trying to make the deniers’ lives miserable, because human resource consumption is divine and infallible, and there could never be any way that our persistent burn across the planet could create any consequences, ever.
Dugger, that list of scientist comprises some of the biggest frauds and Big Oil shills ever to walk this earth. If you did any kind of research on any of these so-called scientists, you’d find that out for yourself.
Meanwhile, the list of scientists who *do* believe in AGW is about 100x as long.
I don’t understand, though, why you’d doubt it when even George W. Bush now admits that AGW is real. And it is. The science is sound, verifiable, and well understood.
Oh, and “global cooling”? Come on, that was a *handful* of scientists, and climatology has advanced by leaps and bounds since then. Or does your science-deprived brain not recognize that scientific models and computer’s power have improved since the 70s?
Oops, I though I was responding to Dugger, when in fact the Big Oil Shill that posted the link was poptech. Oh well, who cares, individuals like him and Dugger have lost any relevance now. AGW deniers are now viewed as flat earthers. No one really believes them anymore.
I wonder this as well, and what it comes down to, as far as I can see, is that the deniers don’t want to give anything up in their comfortable lives.
Nor do the global warming doomsayers. If those talking the talk would actually walk the walk, they might be taken more seriously than simple brazen hucksters.
“I wonder, even if, and that’s a big IF, global warming is wrong, what’s the harm? Is asking people to treat the planet better so wrong? We’re not saying stop using gas and so forth, we’re just saying stop treating the planet like its a hotel room and The Who are in town. Methinks thou doth protest too much…”
Well some is OK and some is not. Those twisty bulbs are fine. But obviously Kyoto is not OK.
And this breaking news.
“Dugger, that list of scientist comprises some of the biggest frauds and Big Oil shills ever to walk this earth. If you did any kind of research on any of these so-called scientists, you’d find that out for yourself.”
Archie, tells us that the consensus is well, a consensus of those who already believe in predominant man made global warming and that all scientists who support the oil comapnies are immoral liars. Right, Archie? Your side is all virtue and principal, and the other side is the dark forces of BIG OIL. But nevertheless, its a little less ‘consensusy” isn’t it? If a scientist doesn’t swear fealty to the PMMGWer’s then his vote doesn’t count. So your consensus on global warming ia among all those scientists who have already drunk your Kool Aid. Hmmm.
Greenland was green. There were tin mines under the Alps. There were glaciers in Illinois. We has massive climate change before man dominated. But now, man does it all, right?
If those talking the talk would actually walk the walk, they might be taken more seriously than simple brazen hucksters.
*sigh* I’m a big fat guy. I realize that I should eat better and exercise more, and so too should some people I know. Thing is I don’t, hence the big fat guy-ed-ness. Now, I will grant in a cholesterol-laden heartbeat that I’m probably a poor spokesperson for nutrition, but does my weak example mean that people, in fact, shouldn’t eat better and get more exercise?
My mother used to smoke constantly, and as kids she’d hide it, and still try to tell us not to. Poor example of taking her own advice, but does that make cigarettes good for you?
My lady (incidentally, is there a better term for girlfriend than “girlfriend?” One that doesn’t make us seem 15 years old perhaps?) before I knew her was trying to help a close friend of hers leave her abusive boyfriend, at the same time that she herself was in an abusive relationship. Does this mean her friend ought have just taken the beatings?
You know, Ive actually got a dozen or so other examples from people I know personally, and I’m fucking positive so do you. People are kinda fucked up, and change for a person is a challenge, but it doesn’t change facts. Abusive men are scum, smoking is bad, I oughtta exercise more, and Global Warming is not, in fact, a conspiracy by wealthy anti-capitalist scientists.
If a scientist doesn’t swear fealty to the PMMGWer’s then his vote doesn’t count.
Look, fuckstain, either produce an actual ballot or quit with this Vote-shit. Its a tiresome lie to have to listen to.
Greenland was green. There were tin mines under the Alps. There were glaciers in Illinois.
Oh you forgot Mars’ Ice Caps. Thats another 2-second talking point that completely refutes the entirety of the Global Warming argument. Not sure why you forgot to mention it, you do seem such a fan of it. Oh, also you should’ve called it a religion since that would make you feel all awesome to do so.
Come to that, where exactly do you keep cut-pasting these five-word sound bites from anyways? I cant find a good concatenated list of all the factoids that no scientist in the history of the world has ever accounted for because they’re too stupid. That is your argument, right? That these people never actually noticed the existence of Mars, Greenland, and The Past when cobbling the theory together, right?
First of all, I take a back seat to noone when it comes to fat-guy-ed-ness. Second, while on the surface your comparison might seem apt, there are some striking differences.
If someone were to consume an unhealthy diet and refuse to exercise, would their entire neighborhood die? Would 75% of the world’s population keel over if you ate another slice of pizza? I doubt it. The consequences of your actions (and inactions) are limited to you and (if you’re the breadwinner) your immediate family.
By contrast, those who promote others radically change their lifestyle by refusing to change their own are preaching that if these actions are taken, the entire planet will die. With such a dire forecast, you’d think the least they could do is fly coach and take the bus.
Did this renowned “scientist” escape everyone’s scrutiny?
Michael Savage, B.S. Biology, M.S. Anthropology, M.S. Ethnobotany, Ph.D. Nutritional Ethnomedicine, USA
Yep, that’s the same guy, the homophobe radio announcer. Because you KNOW that a botanist that spews eliminationist rhetoric against liberals, Muslims, gays and everyone who doesn’t tow the fascist line is the expert on climate change.
” If those talking the talk would actually walk the walk, they might be taken more seriously than simple brazen hucksters.”
I see where you’re coming from ferris. When does your enlistment in the military start?
The average first 100 degree day here in North Texas is June 30th.
On August 9th, we’re expected to finally have our first 100-degree day. Last year, it occurred on April 17th.
So is global warming to blame for that?
So is global warming to blame for that?
No.
You’re confusing “climate” with “weather.”
You tell me what today’s position on global warming is or have the liberal scientists voted yet - you know, so that we know the scientific consensus.
OK, I will.
Last I checked, the general (but, no, not unanimous) consensus was that the climate is getting warmer and is projected to continue to do so, and that the environmental impact of fossil fuel consumption is very llkely the cause.
Now you’re turn. Not happening? Or natural? Or ‘who cares, let’s fight’?
“Did this renowned “scientist” escape everyone’s scrutiny?
Michael Savage, B.S. Biology, M.S. Anthropology, M.S. Ethnobotany, Ph.D. Nutritional Ethnomedicine, USA”
Whose credentials undoubtedly surpass those of the number one spokesman for the ‘the world is going to end soon due to global deep frying’ - Uberscientist and Debonair Man About Town,
Al- those sea levels may be above our heads tomorrow -Gore.
I guess the difference is that Gore doesn’t claim to be a climatologist, he just supports their peer-reviewed conclusions. And Michael Savage hates teh gay. Yep, they’re similar.
Credentials? If you’re just looking at the list of letters after his name, I’d remind you that plenty of monsters, idiots, and nutcases have also come with “credentials.”
Has Michael Savage spent even half the time that Gore has spent doing research on this topic? Or was he too busy trying to write barely clever falsehoods about gays?
I wonder this as well, and what it comes down to, as far as I can see, is that the deniers don’t want to give anything up in their comfortable lives.
They also cannot cannot cannot accept that Teh Libs just might have got one right. Kind of like Iraq or Teh Gay Marriage or other no-brainers. It’s the thin end of the wedge: If they admit that the Libs were right about Global Warming, then they could be right about anything. Ergo, they cannot cannot cannot be right about Global Warming (or anything else).
Hey, Duggs, Ferris, ever get around to answering my question? Or are you too chickenshit to admit that you’re pro-cancer?
Hey Dugger, I’m still waiting for that link to the old Newsweek article that totally disproves Global Warming. Thanks again, and keep up the good fight.
“Last I checked, the general (but, no, not unanimous) consensus was that the climate is getting warmer and is projected to continue to do so, and that the environmental impact of fossil fuel consumption is very llkely the cause.”
Well,I believe it has gotten warmer since about 1900 - about 1 degree. The only problem is that is has gottemn(evidently) much warmer for much longer in previous times when there wasn’t a hint of significant man made factors. How do we know how much is man made now and how much is not? How do we know if this little spike is permanent. Were those global cooling scientists idiots? That was in the 70s. I doubt it. They were sure they knew and it was the ‘deniers’ who were wrong. Just as you all are sure you know now.
And I still don’t believe in science by consensus. I really don’t think scientists who might well be enamored to either political ideology themselves or getting money from political ideologues of any stripe, are any smarter or more virtuous than those scientists who work for oil companies.
If your case was so solid, you wouldn’t be out smearing those who disagree with you as ‘deniers’ and trying to ruin their careers.
Ed
I have no idea what you are talking about. My positon is that predominant man made, permanent global warming has not been proven.
zython, grow up.
I must say this thread is a fine illustration of modern conservative reasoning. So far we’ve had the following excellent arguments…
1. Several decades ago some scientists thought that there might actually be global cooling, so global warming is nonsense
2. If 100% of the world’s scientists can’t agree that something is occurring, then there’s no reason to think it might be occurring.
3. Michael Savage, Michael Crichton and 98 other “scientists”, a few of whom are actually climatologists, are skeptical about some global warming claims, therefore global warming is a massive hoax.
4. Al Gore doesn’t live like a hermit, therefore the vast number of climatologists who think global warming is a serious threat are rank hypocrites.
5. North Texas didn’t get as hot this summer as it normally does, so global warming can’t be happening. After all, North Texas is part of the globe, isn’t it?
6. Exxon and conservative interest groups are suborning people to doctor science on the issue, but that’s neither here nor there.a
All of which brings up the question: would a wingnut recognize critical thinking if it bit them on the ass with long sharp teeth? Or would they just think it was the 70 virgins giving them their just rewards, with 40-weight on top?
Dugger, this:
This would be the same Newsweek that just a few decades earlier was out peddling the nonsense that we needed to coat the Poles with soot to prevent global cooling.
A link would be awesome.
Oh, and you also brilliantly wrote: “[Monied Liberals] are all part of the disaster lobby.”
Yes, yes, exactly. The exact same bunch of Chicken Littles (paging Al Gore) who crowed about how stupid invading Iraq would be. Man, those losers never get anything right.
I’ll take that link now.
Nice work, Wilbur.
“If those talking the talk would actually walk the walk, they might be taken more seriously than simple brazen hucksters.”
You mean like the family value Republicans who can’t seem to keep their dicks out of the mouths and crotches of teenagers or gay prostitutes?
I concur. Except that unlike the overblown rhetoric of the hypocritical values-peddlers, global warming WILL actually have serious consequences on our society and world at large.
And I’m not even going to humor the ridiculous attacks on Al Gore when the global-warming-denial arguments are built around the empty words of a science fiction author. You guys are the Scientologists (more bunk based on a sci-fi writer) of the global warming debate.
Btw, it also the consensus of biologists that germs cause disease. It is the consensus of astronomers and physicists that the earth revolves around the sun.
Do you see any of them arguing against that just because it’s a consensus?
This attack and ridicule of the notion of scientific consensus is a meaningless smoke screen. Even they don’t actually believe it. You can bet your ass that if the consensus were that the earth wasn’t warming, they’d be shouting it to high heaven.
It’s a pack of lies and they know it. Dugger, Ferris and the others have no actual principles or beliefs. They are against it because liberals are for it. That’s the beginning and the end of the thought-process for them. They are clowns.
” Dugger, Ferris and the others have no actual principles or beliefs. They are against it because liberals are for it. That’s the beginning and the end of the thought-process for them. They are clowns.”
You have a winner. Well said. And I may add, they should be laughed at like clowns are.
“- Global surface temperatures have increased only about 0.6°C in the last 100 years. (IPCC)”
Average body temperature for a human is 39°C. A temperature of 42°C can cause brain damage. Minor changes in temperature can cause catastrophic events.
zython, grow up.
Ok, fine, I’ll give you one more chance to speak for yourself (but only because you begged). Here is a c&p of my original question:
It’s time I break out the old point that the anti-science loonies absolutely HATE;
Considering that the pollution that is responsible for global warming also leads to other problems, such as the depletion of the O-Zone layer, acid rain, and poisoning the air, and that developing a renewable clean source of energy would be cheaper in the long run as well as lessen our dependence on foreign oil, are you actually saying that we should continue to pollute and pretend these problems don’t exist?
I expect one of three responses:
1. Pretend that I never posted anything.
2. Refuse to answer the question for some idiotic reason.
3. Say what they think everyone wants to hear, and completely miss the point.
“My positon is that predominant man made, permanent global warming has not been proven.”
And you are wrong. Big shock there. You have a creationist’s contempt for science and reasoning. No wonder you vote Republican.
The Poorman is also on the case:
“Archie, tells us that the consensus is well, a consensus of those who already believe in predominant man made global warming and that all scientists who support the oil comapnies are immoral liars. Right, Archie?”
What in heavens are you talking about? When I talk about a consensus, it’s because upwards of 95% of Climate Scientists, Climatologists and other relevant scientists have said that the science is solid. Deniers are a very, very small minority in the scientific camp. In fact, they have virtually no credibility. This isn’t a matter of partisanship, but of science. Do you even understand why CO2 is a greenhouse gas? I understand the science - obviously, you don’t.
”
Your side is all virtue and principal, and the other side is the dark forces of BIG OIL. But nevertheless, its a little less ‘consensusy” isn’t it? If a scientist doesn’t swear fealty to the PMMGWer’s then his vote doesn’t count. So your consensus on global warming ia among all those scientists who have already drunk your Kool Aid. Hmmm.”
You’re a freaking idiot, Dugger. It’s *not* a matter of sides. It’s a matter of looking at the scientific evidence. When one does, one understands the risks, and what’s at stakes. Those VERY FEW scientists who are deniers all have ties to Big Oil. If you can’t see the conflict of interest here, well, let’s just say I’m amazed that you actually know how to use the Internet. I’m even amazed you’ve managed to live so old. In your case, not believing in Darwin is a personal matter, because for all practical purposes natural selection should have dealt with you a loooong time ago…
“Greenland was green. There were tin mines under the Alps. There were glaciers in Illinois. We has massive climate change before man dominated. But now, man does it all, right?”
There have been massive climate changes, but none with the speed of the current one, and none with so clear a link to the man-made increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
That’s your problem. You cherry-pick what you want from the history of climate, but you willfully take it out of its context in order to mislead others. Yes, there are times when the Earth was hotter. One of these times may even have led to the great Permian extinction, when 95% of Earth’s species died. Is that what you want for the future?
AGW deniers are more dangerous than terrorist sympathizers. Fortunately, they are increasingly irrelevant. How does it feel to be lumped in with the Flat Earthers, Dugger?
Zython
I actually did address the point you made - in response to Jack Larson.
The basic answer is that yeah many of the ‘global warming’ initiatives are just fine in isolation: conservation, etc. But some are not at all fine - like Kyoto. Its up there if you read.
Archie
A couple of problems with your post. Who counted the percentage and came up with 95%. What did you mean by relevant scientists. How about the long, long list up above. Are they all in the 5%? Where’s the list? Why do you use the term ‘denier’, Archie? Is it because you think those who think the science is not settled are equivalent to Holocaust deniers?
“but none with the speed of the current one, and none with so clear a link to the man-made increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”
You make my point in spades. The current change, whatever it is, is ongoing, we have no idea how long it will last and if it will intensify. So most of what you said is conjecture or what liberals call ’settled science’.
And linkage to greenhouse gases proves nothing. Water vapor is far the number one greenhouse gas. And ‘link’? Really. Thats how Dick Cheney described Iraq and AQ and progressives had a hissy fit.
I see where you’re coming from ferris. When does your enlistment in the military start?
I’m not the one advocating the invasion of Pakistan. You are, ya chickenhawk!
If your case was so solid, you wouldn’t be out smearing those who disagree with you as ‘deniers’ and trying to ruin their careers.
That’s good. A variation on the “teach the controversy” defense, eh?
Mathematicians who think the outcome of 2 + 2 is “still open to debate” are promoting a false controversy and don’t deserve a platform among reasonable people.
Why do you use the term ‘denier’
Because it fits?
Deny:
1 : to declare untrue
2 : to refuse to admit or acknowledge : DISAVOW
3 a : to give a negative answer to b : to refuse to grant c : to restrain (oneself) from gratification of desires
4 archaic : DECLINE
5 : to refuse to accept the existence, truth, or validity of
Quaker
A. It doesn’t fit. I don’t ‘deny’ global warming. I believe we have heated up about one degree. But I say we don’t if its permanent or how much is man made versus natural.
B. It is not quite like you to be so say ’sneaky.’ Do you truly consider the use of the epithet “denier” to be a coincidence? Do you consider it a good faith debate technique.
I give you the liberal Ellen Goodman:
“I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.”
“David Roberts wrote of global warming “deniers”: “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these b*****ds–some sort of climate Nuremberg.”
I firmly believe the Holocaust happened. Seems rather obvious to me. I have doubts about ‘global warming’s’ duration, origins, permanency, and criticality. And I am suspicious when the primary debate motif is ridcule, threat and intimidation. And I am always a little suspicious of any scientific or hsitorical finding so heavily vested in political ideology.
That the word “denier” has been applied to one group doesn’t make it invalid when applied to those who deny current theories on global warming. It’s still denial. (Am I now guilty of comparing you to Al Franken?)
As for the rest:
I have doubts about ‘global warming’s’ duration, origins, permanency, and criticality.
That’s because of who you read and believe. I’ll wager that the sources you cite are far more likely to shape their beliefs to their ideology than those who think warming is real and human-caused.
And I am suspicious when the primary debate motif is ridcule, threat and intimidation.
I think that’s overstated. The ridicule is mostly among people debating the issue at our level–you know, wise guys posting on blogs. Threat and intimidation? You’re on about that weather guy again, aren’t you?
And I am always a little suspicious of any scientific or hsitorical finding so heavily vested in political ideology.
Then you ought to be taking a really hard look at the people who say it ain’t so.
Oh, and please note: Ms. Goodman didn’t simply rely on using the word “denier” to equate global warming skeptics and historical revisionists. She had to take some pains to flesh out the comparison. Even the source you cite doesn’t seem to think the word is connotative.
@ed:
Google. Ever hear of it?
“Then you ought to be taking a really hard look at the people who say it ain’t so.”
You assume I haven’t. An ideologue of any stripe is likely an unreliable source of information. Remember,my position is that I don’t know (but I don’t think you or ‘the consensus’ know, either) not that it isn’t happening.
And for my $0.02, your discussion of ‘denier’ seems a little calculating. I could give examples but I have no wish to insult. We’re adults here. We know why the word ‘denier’ came in to being and is used.
I expect one of three responses:
Zython, you forgot these;
4. Al Gore flies on private jets.
5.Michael Moore is fat.
We’re adults here. We know why the word ‘denier’ came in to being and is used.
Most of the adults here can distinguish between the two and see no real connection.
Like Saddam and AQ.
Apple, meet orange.
We know why the word ‘denier’ came in to being
Wait. You’re saying the word was invented just to describe Holocaust revisionists?
Funny. If you look up the word in Webster’s it doesn’t say a thing about WWII.
Remember,my position is that I don’t know (but I don’t think you or ‘the consensus’ know, either) not that it isn’t happening.
Cute.
You can argue that the evidence supporting global warming is bogus, yet turn around and say “Golly, I don’t know.”
No Quaker. I argue that the jury is still out, that all of the evidence is not in, that there is a defense case to counter-balance the prosecution case. Again, I don’t doubt there has been a one degree rise, I do doubt that you, I, the consensus knows if that is permanent, how much of it is a man made and how much is natural - and we have strong evidence of the potential for much greater natural climate swings than we are seeing now.
And yes you are disingenuous on ‘denier’.
Enjoy.
And yes you are disingenuous on ‘denier’.
Then blame Mr. Webster.
Sorry, the one ignoring the modern code-word implications of ‘denier’ is the disingenuous Mr Quaker.
the one ignoring the imaginary modern code-word implications of ‘denier’
Didn’t you get the memo, Quaker? Only Republicans are allowed to use code words.
I gave you two examples where the association of Holocaust denier to global warming denier was anything but imaginary - from well known people of the left.
I gave you two examples where the association of Holocaust denier to global warming denier
And in both cases, the connotative power of the word “denier” was so weak the authors had to explain what they were talking about. The word all by itself wasn’t sufficient.
Before you were saying that the word “denier” was so readily associated with Holocaust deniers that it shouldn’t be used to describe anyone else.
Now you seem to be saying that because Ellen Goodman used it to equate Holocaust deniers with global warming skeptics, the meaning of the word is forever changed.
What a malleable language you speak.