New Rule: Al Gore must come out with a sequel to his movie about climate change and call it, An Inconvenient Truth 2: What the Fuck Is Wrong with You People? A bunch of depressing new surveys reveal that people in droves are starting to believe that global warming is a hoax -- and this time, it's not just us. People are always accusing me of hating America and calling it stupid, so tonight I'd like to take a few moments to hate England and call it stupid. Because now English people don't believe in global warming either. I thought the English were smarter than that. The home of Newton and Darwin. I can't believe we let these people build our exploding oil platforms.
Even scarier is why people have stopped thinking global warming is real. One major reason pollsters say is we had a very cold, snowy winter. Which is like saying the sun might not be real because last night it got dark. And my car's not real because I can't find my keys.
That's the problem with our obsession with always seeing two sides of every issue equally -- especially when one side has a lot of money. It means we have to pretend there are always two truths, and the side that doesn't know anything has something to say. On this side of the debate: Every scientist in the world. On the other: Mr. Potato Head.
There is no debate here -- just scientists vs. non-scientists, and since the topic is science, the non-scientists don't get a vote. We shouldn't decide everything by polling the masses. Just because most people believe something doesn't make it true. This is the fallacy called argumentum ad numeram: the idea that something is true because great numbers believe it. As in: Eat shit, 20 trillion flies can't be wrong.
Or take this recent headline: "TV weathercasters divided on global warming." Who gives a shit? My TV weathercaster is a bimbo with big tits who used to be on a soap opera on Telemundo. Media, could you please stop pitting the ignorant vs. the educated and framing it as a "debate." The other day, I saw a professor from the Union of Concerned Scientists face off against a distinguished expert on Tea Partying, whose brilliant analysis, recently published in the New England Journal of Grasping at Straws, was that we shouldn't teach climate science in schools because kids find it scary. As they should. I hope they're peeing in their pants.
The last decade, year, and month are all the hottest on record. Then there's the killing of the oceans, floods, Category 5 hurricanes, heat waves, giant wild fires, and the vanishing water supply. You know, the little things. And yet deniers say, it's just a theory. As is gravity. For progress to happen, certain things have to become not an issue anymore, so we can go on to the next issue. Evolution was an issue until overwhelming consensus among scientists made it not an issue.
When I was 6-years-old, it was an issue how babies were born. There were conflicting theories, and there was not a consensus -- some thought a stork brought babies, others contended you bought them at the hospital, the Catholic boys said the Holy Ghost brought them -- and one kid said that girls had sort of a -- as he described it -- flap in front and that men put their penises in it. This seemed the least likely. And yet by the time we reached age 11, even though we still had, none of us, actually seen the flap -- the consensus of opinion was overwhelming for the penis-vagina theory -- it was no longer an issue.
Devastating, worldwide climate change is happening, whether you phone in and vote for it or not. You can't vote for rain. What's real is what's real, and, like it or not, no one can change the nature of reality. Except, of course, with mushrooms.
Follow Bill Maher on Twitter: www.twitter.com/billmaher
Whether Gore said exactly that or not (got a reliable reference?), man-made CO2 differs in two important ways from natural CO2:
1: Natural CO2 is a natural part of the earth's carbon cycle, which is why natural CO2 emissions do not increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle
The close to 30 gigatonnes of man-made CO2 that man is now putting into the atmosphere each year by fossil fuel burning is only partly re-absorbed by the earth, however, resulting in increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations. As such atmospheric CO2 has increased by almost 40% since the dawn of the fossil fuel era, going from a previously relatively stable level of about 280 ppm to now over 390 ppm - the highest atmospheric CO2 level in over 800,000 years.
2: Carbon in CO2 has two isotopes - C12 and C13 (carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7). Land-based plants take up less C13, which is why CO2 from fossil fuels (which are derived from land-based plant decay) has a lower C13/C12 ratio than natural atmospheric CO2. This is in turn is why man-made CO2 lowers the atmospheric C13/C12 ratio, a decline reflected in the data since ~1850 when humans began burning fossil fuels in earnest.
I hope they reach some of those who seem to prefer clinging to ignorance or denial.
Like most online writers these days, however, you (i.e., Wikipedia) could use more clarifying commas; e.g., a comma after "As such "( followed by the word atmosphere) would change the meaning of the sentence.
The use of grammar seems trivial in this deeply troubling context, but I think we need to address it in our increasingly illiterate, online world, where meaning is so mutable and fragile.
People (as opposed to inanimate objects) should be referred to as 'who,' never as 'that,' the latter being a particularly obnoxious legacy of "technical" English, as Bulldogdan did in his "... Al Gore that..." sentence.
You might also take the technology down a notch by listing fewer specific numbers -- of neutrons, etc., in an attempt to simplify it even more for us scientifically non-literate readers; while placing this sentence first, as a paragraph, might more effectively capture our interest:
"... atmospheric CO2 has increased by almost 40% since the dawn of the fossil fuel era, going from a previously relatively stable level of about 280 ppm to now over 390 ppm - the highest atmospheric CO2 level in over 800,000 years." Then translate "stable," as in physics, to a more immediate (perceivable) effect?
Thanks for explaining!
Pat Bliznik
7 Lennox Drive
Binghamton, NY 13903
PS Please pass on this quote & link from Union of Concerned Scientists:
" In this culture of transparency where climate scientists describe degrees of certainty and confidence in their findings, climate change deniers have linked less than complete certainty with not knowing anything.
But the truth is, scientists know a great deal about climate change. We have learned, for example, that the burning of fossil fuels and the clearing of forests release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. There is no uncertainty about this. We have learned that carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere trap heat through the greenhouse effect. Again, there is no uncertainty about this. It is very likely (greater than 90 percent probability) that human activities are the main reason for the world's temperature increase in the past 50 years."
Read more: http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=Ec80gVxZ989-SbDzY17Hrg..
You are welcome.
Nikian: "You might also take the technology down a notch by listing fewer specific numbers -- of neutrons, etc., in an attempt to simplify it even more for us scientifically non-literate readers; while placing this sentence first, as a paragraph, might more effectively capture our interest.."
It can be difficult to distill relatively complex science into a small number of words for a lay audience, and the act of doing so can lead to some dense reading. For example a non-science audience in the main doesn't know what "C12" or "C13" mean, let alone why the ratio of the two is a reason why man-made CO2 is indeed different from "natural" CO2. So while I understand that explaining what an "isotope" is in this context can make for some dense reading without that background the C13/C12 ratio means nothing that a lay-person can interpret, so that's why I included it. I hope I'm in the main erring on the right side with respect to effective communication but in any event thanks for the advice and especially the sentence placement advice; I'll do my best to incorporate it effectively.
In any event what you fail to mention is that, unlike non-scientist global warming science deniers, non-scientists like Maher are not denying but instead in agreement with the scientific consensus on global warming.
I'm not a biologist but I don't deny the scientific consensus on evolution - do you, drphilosopher? And if not why the apparent double-standard with respect to anthropogenic global warming?
When a scientist says they have a theory, it is not just an idea that pops into your mind like the non-scientist who is walking down the street and says, 'I have a theory about X'. Instead the scientific theory is first an hypothesis (an idea) that gets tested over and over... even then it is still not a theory, other scientists test that hypothesis over and over... they want to disprove it, they want credit for refining it, it is a real competition that vets the hypothesis... the result is more than what most call a 'theory'. Because, philosophically there is no such thing as 'Absolute Truth', scientists don't say: we have a truth, instead we have a theory... We need a less confusing word!
haha.. Bill, Bill, Bill...
... the public is too dumb to do what is right, this country will do everything wrong and stupid past the time to fix anything, then turn around and blame people like Gore for not being honest enough to tell them how bad it really is going to be.
haha.. sit back and enjoy the second fall of Rome..
you have a front seat my friend.
Straight-edge folks will disagree, but I will always thank my experience with psychedelic substances for the reasonable person I've become. When the world thinks you're crazy because you're high, you've got to become smarter and know more stuff to show them you're not.
Does anybody else think it's strange that people that admire my intelligence and knowledge on many areas, also think I'm stupid just because I do the occasional recreational mind-altering? I know many people go through the same.
Maher's closing sentence seems ludicrous and nothing more than comedy. But I have reasons to believe he's dead serious about this.
http://flawsophy.blogspot.com/2010/05/paranoia.html
-----------------
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
(The Onion,com)
KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed...
"Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force...
Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis...
"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."
"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"
--------
http://www.theonion.com/articles/evangelical-scientists-refute-gravity-with-new-int,1778/
The theory of Evolution has been refined to the point where scientists do not argue over whether it occurred but rather how it occurred... was it very quick (punctuated) or was it gradual over time. Evolutionists argue over this and the outcome will refine the theory.
People who won't accept scientific theories or science should really do us all a favor and not use any benefits of this false profit known as science. Please don't drive cars, don't use A/C, don't use plastic, fertilizers, antibiotics, etc, etc. In this manner natural selection will adjust the population accordingly ;-)
It's both. The law describes the Newtonian view and the theory includes Newton all the stuff built upon it. Like relativity and directional gravitation theory.
we can beat this thing if we just all pitch in together:
and turn our air conditioners around!
they're just heat pumps after all and if everyone would just use them to heat the house in the winter..
and not heat the outside air in the summer..
the globe would be right as rain again!
West Side Highway NOT QUITE YET SUBMERGED!!!
Rob Reiss:
While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, "If what you're saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?" He looked for a while and was quiet and didn't say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, "Well, there will be more traffic." I, of course, didn't think he heard the question right. Then he explained, "The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won't be there. The trees in the median strip will change." Then he said, "There will be more police cars." Why? "Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up."
http://dir.salon.com/books/int/2001/10/23/weather/print.html
"And so far, over the last 10 years, we've had 10 of the hottest years on record."
And the West Side Highway was redone about 10 years after Hanson's observation. The road was raised in many places and its fronting with the river was augmented.
"Construction of the new West Side Highway began in April 1996. The first section of the project, between Clarkson Street and Horatio Street, was finished in August 1998. The entire "NY 9A Reconstruction Project" was completed in August 2001."
http://www.nycroads.com/roads/west-side/
Got any other talking points?
despite the ten hottest years on record..
the west side highway is still not underwater!
unless of course you think that new construction kept it dry..
The reporter subsequently claims that he checked again with Hansen "a few months ago", which would have been mid-2001, and that Hansen said he had changed none of his opinions. So we are supposed to believe that Hansen was still predicting that in seven years the West Side Highway would be underwater and that there would be all different birds and trees.
I am not buying it. Something is seriously wrong with this. Either Reiss is lying or Hansen misunderstood the timeframe.
attaboy..
Do you ever ask yourself if something in Denier World seems reasonable? Ever? Does it seem reasonable that Hansen would predict that massive flooding and sufficient climate change to alter the entire ecosystem to the extent of replacing all the trees and birds would occur IN EIGHT YEARS?
Really? Does this seriously pass the smell test?
Site Of Human Evolution Was Scorching
June 8, 2010
If you think summer in your hometown is hot, consider it fortunate that you don't live in the Turkana Basin of Kenya, where the average daily temperature has reached the mid-90s or higher, year-round, for the past 4 million years.
http://www.physorg.com/news195213629.html
"THe death toll expected to rise as India faces record temperatures of up to 122F in hottest summer on record this summer."
Me: "Um, really. That's not something I was taught while studying atmospheric physics in graduate school, SecondTime - perhaps you can enlighten me as to how the moon violates the Stefan-Boltzmann LAW of physics."
SecondTime: [ cites ClimateChangeFraud.com, which asserts: "Stefan-Boltzmann never intended for his numbers to be applied to a three-dimensional rotating planet."]
Me: "Do you agree with that assertion?"
SecondTime: "of course I agree that their equations were not intended to be applied to real bodies... They invented an abstract construct, the black-body... [the Earth is not] a black-body."
Me: [ downthread I explain in part why SecondTime is wrong ]
SecondTime: "All a bit scrambled up, Publicola."
In your mind what of the following are "scrambled up," SecondTime?
1: ClimateChangeFraud.com's assertion that "Stefan-Boltzmann never intended for his numbers to be..." is as clueless and as laughably ridiculous as claiming that "Lennon-McCartney never intended for his songs to be..."
2: In non-upper-boundary scenarios the Stefan-Boltzmann grey body equation is applied to planet and moons, not the Stefan-Boltzmann black body equation.
Please be specific as to which (or both) of these statements you are denying as true and why - thanks in advance
This link is to an excerpt from director Frank Capra's 1958 - for the folks keeping score at home, that's over a half-century ago - documentary "The Unchained Goddess":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lgzz-L7GFg
Per the IMDB:
"Fourth of four educational films produced by Bell Laboratories and directed by Frank Capra on the subjects of the sun, the human circulatory system, radioactivity and the weather. These films were used regularly in classrooms since they were well produced and Bell Laboratories would supply 16mm copies of the films to schools free of charge. "
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0157135/
Frank Capra ... and Bell Telephone ... were also part of the Great Global Global Warming Conspiracy ... back in 1958?!?
Who knew.
*looks at polar bear roommate* *checks watch*
Niiiiiiiiiiiice...