Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (12 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
S E Martin
07:39 AM on 02/20/2010
Well, one thing has become clear from all of this "debate" in the last day:

If you want me to find a source that says volcanoes are more to blame than anything else, I can find that.

If you want me to find a source that says volcanoes are very little to blame, I can find that too.

If you want me to find a source that says cow farts are to blame, I can find that. Not to blame? I can find that too.

Most of these are simply UNKNOWABLE. We cannot really know how much a volcanoe produces because we DO NOT even know about every volcanoe.

We cannot know how much cows are really to blame because we really don't know how many cows there are on the planet.

One thing we can get pretty close to knowing, however, is HUMAN effects. We can get a pretty good measure of how much humans contribute to the problem. But, even here, we can find radically varying sources.

I must say, again, that my point is that we could bicker ad infinitum about the percentage of BLAME, but does it really matter? We CAN control and limit our pollution as humans, and we should regardless of how much "blame" we can push onto volcanoes, etc.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mahckz
09:13 AM on 02/20/2010
Go to this link: http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm
This is satellite data and analysis from NASA.
Global warming has been so highly politicised that, as you are well aware by what is happening recently in Washington, logical thinking has ceased to exist.
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
10:42 AM on 02/20/2010
"This is satellite data and analysis from NASA."

No it isn't. It is just someone who put "NASA" in their url. The article you link is nonsense and 13 years old.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Brendan H
02:47 PM on 02/20/2010
That's an article from 1997. In case you haven't heard, there have been advances in the last 13 years, particularly the fact that we know the reason satellites are recording lower temperatures is because CO2 in the atmosphere is holding heat in, making those reading appear lower every year. The disparity between satellite data and ground readings is the PRIMARY evidence that CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of the warming.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fumes
Old black water, keep on rollin'
11:41 AM on 02/20/2010
we could always just cap our volcanoes and trade them..

mount pinatubo would be a cool one to have and they could have our mount st helens!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
realpolitic
Obama does care!
03:39 AM on 02/20/2010
If it was one thing this thread proved is that it serves no point at all talking to deniers. They have no critical thinking skills and it is like trying to interact with a right-wing tape recorder.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
imfedup
Fight the lies.
08:17 AM on 02/20/2010
Excellent point. You're right that it comes down to critical thinking skills. They're so woefully absent, even in very bright right wing people.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
realpolitic
Obama does care!
04:31 PM on 02/20/2010
Yes, almost all on the far right are highly ideological and that quality does not lend itself well to critical thinking.
09:14 AM on 02/20/2010
The only reason to talk to deniers is to debunk their rhetoric with their potential readers. Deniers themselves are by definition not skeptics (since they already reached a conclusion about the validity of the science based on insufficient knowledge) and very likely cannot be made to change their mind or reconsider their position. Their position is entirely ideological and no reasonable discussion of the science is going to affect that.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
realpolitic
Obama does care!
04:30 PM on 02/20/2010
Very true, August!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
realpolitic
Obama does care!
01:17 AM on 02/20/2010
Well, we can see arguing with deniers is like arguing with a fence post. They have no flexibility and can not stand any cognitive dissonance, so when one talking point is exposed as a fraud they simply go on to the next. It is useless trying to reach them.
01:37 AM on 02/20/2010
It's a world where no consistency of argumentation is required, nor is it necessary to remember what happened the day before, it wingnutia ...
01:47 AM on 02/20/2010
I wonder how worried the leaders of the GOP are at what they've unleashed? While they are all free marketers of the Milton friedman variety, few of them are actually uniformed or anti-science. They've spent years playing upon silly cultural resentments and general ignorance. The result is they have a mob that they can rally to their causes that will ignore their shortcomings. Have they gone too far?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
imfedup
Fight the lies.
08:19 AM on 02/20/2010
I would amend that: When one talking point is exposed as a fraud, they keep repeating it anyway.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
realpolitic
Obama does care!
04:32 PM on 02/20/2010
Yes, and then they go on to the next one.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
realpolitic
Obama does care!
12:57 AM on 02/20/2010
Why did scientist Phil Jones not release certain FOI data requested by deniers that Noooorm gets so excited about. Salon magazine explains why.

"Since 2002, McIntyre has repeatedly asked Phil Jones, director of CRU, for access to the HadCRU data. Although the data are made available in a processed gridded format that shows the global temperature trend, the raw station data are currently restricted to academics. While Jones has made data available to some academics, he has refused to supply McIntyre with the data. Between 24 July and 29 July of this year, CRU received 58 freedom of information act requests from McIntyre and people affiliated with Climate Audit. In the past month, the UK Met Office, which receives a cleaned-up version of the raw data from CRU, has received ten requests of its own."

Fifty-eight FOI requests in five days!

So why won't CRU comply?

According to Heffernan:

"Jones says that he tried to help when he first received data requests from McIntyre back in 2002, but says that he soon became inundated with requests that he could not fulfill, or that he did not have the time to respond to. He says that, in some cases, he simply couldn't hand over entire data sets because of long-standing confidentiality agreements with other nations that restrict their use."

http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2009/11/23/the_case_of_the_hacked_climate_change_e_mails_part_2/index.html
01:00 AM on 02/20/2010
I'll be content if he is able to demonstrate that he knows the difference between NA-SCE and snow storms. (It is very simple and easy to demonstrate if you look out your door almost anywhere in the US right now.)
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
realpolitic
Obama does care!
01:05 AM on 02/20/2010
He still thinks he won the argument over the models being wrong. He has no idea what we are saying.
01:04 AM on 02/20/2010
deniers should lobby congress for increased science funding to hire support staff to satisfy their FOI.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
realpolitic
Obama does care!
01:13 AM on 02/20/2010
Good idea!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
realpolitic
Obama does care!
12:36 AM on 02/20/2010
Hey Nooorm, what happen to the post you kept repeating that climate science models said there would be less snow and therefore climate science is a hoax. You found out the post is mistaken and there has been less snow in the past several years. then do you ever reconsider your position? When, in the face of all the evidence contrary to the denier position, do you reconsider it? That is why deniers mystify me. When they find out they are wrong they simply go on unthinkingly to more talking points. What a game they play!
12:43 AM on 02/20/2010
The worse is that it never gets any better despite the years. Their purpose, whether conscious of it or not, is to delay like their predecessors did for asbestos, tobacco, etc ... Seeding doubt and confusion unfortunately can be enough to delay.
12:47 AM on 02/20/2010
Remember the hole in the ozone? They insisted it couldn't ever, ever be halogenated hydrocarbons. Yet we cut back on their use and the holes began to close within a year or two. How quickly we forget! All the same arguments!
08:53 PM on 02/21/2010
RP, while your obsession with me is flattering, you really should get back to the important work of insulting other posters while masturbating your own ego.

Over the last couple of months, we've been treated to story after story claiming that the record snows across the northern hemisphere was proof of global warming, and predicted by the global warming models.

All I did was post peer-reviewed studies which claimed that the northern hemisphere would see dramatically less snow, because of rising greenhouse gases.

This illustrates the magical world of "climate science". More snow, less snow, both prove global warming and both were predicted by the climate models.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
realpolitic
Obama does care!
08:59 PM on 02/21/2010
Hey Nooooorrmmrmrmr, I heard Phil Jones lost some emails, but we know it is not true!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
realpolitic
Obama does care!
12:08 AM on 02/20/2010
Well, the deniers are defeated again. The only point they have is that scientist Phil Jones may have lost some data in his office which is probably piled a mile high in documents. To them, this bit of information overturns climate science. Likely time to take a break, while deniers go back to their right-wing paranoid blogs for more disinformation.
12:09 AM on 02/20/2010
That's just this week. Next week they'll have a completely different 'proof' of a conspiracy.
12:17 AM on 02/20/2010
I'm telling you. We are plotting against you using some moderately abstract concept with a lot of arcane words to force you to change every aspect of your life. You will be bound into our one-world government and be forced to speak Esperanto.

(If we were clever we'd just use terrorism or vague threats, but you can't expect a bunch of academics to be clever.)
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
realpolitic
Obama does care!
12:18 AM on 02/20/2010
You are so right, August. One week it is something about tree rings in China disproving the science, the next week it is the CRU stolen emails, then it is the IPCC making a mistake in a long study on a section on the Himalayas. Deniers just bounce from one conspiracy to the next and soon forget the last one. They are so easily steered by the far right wing websites. It is incredible.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
FranklinCat
18 claws & 3½ fangs
12:29 AM on 02/20/2010
There's probably a big party at CPAC.
12:04 AM on 02/20/2010
OK, some of my comments disappear. What are the words I cannot use? I don't do this too often.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
realpolitic
Obama does care!
12:09 AM on 02/20/2010
"Electronic dipole moment" is forbidden. Just kidding!
12:24 AM on 02/20/2010
I was censured a couple of times for using 'li ar' with a pundit.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
realpolitic
Obama does care!
12:29 AM on 02/20/2010
Yes, when I use the word "liar" they rarely print it.
11:54 PM on 02/19/2010
Since we are all posting links:

http://www.newscorp.com/energy/

Yes, that's right. News Corporation will be completely carbon neutral later this year! They buy green electricity from coned here in NYC, and they buy carbon offsets whenever Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly...etc.. travel on news corp business. I love cognitive dissonance (for pay)!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
realpolitic
Obama does care!
11:56 PM on 02/19/2010
Cognitive dissonance is a great way to describe it. Will Hannity call out his boss as an alarmist? Never happen!
11:58 PM on 02/19/2010
cognitive dissonance for propaganda purpose too. Remember when Murdock publicly courted HClinton and claimed to be climate change conscious?
12:02 AM on 02/20/2010
That's what is maddening. Murdoch is climate change conscious. He is not a flat-earther, his ideology is closer to Milton Friedman than to Sarah Palin. However, Fox News is an excellent business model. People are more than happy to watch if you tell them what to hear.

Ironically if he keeps his pledge to go past carbon neutrality the revenue he makes from the deniers could help fun future green initiatives. We'll see what he does.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
realpolitic
Obama does care!
12:03 AM on 02/20/2010
Yes.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
realpolitic
Obama does care!
11:48 PM on 02/19/2010
At the bottom of the link is a video showing the foolishness of Anthony Watts, the former weatherman now denier.

http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/4385
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
FranklinCat
18 claws & 3½ fangs
12:08 AM on 02/20/2010
Oh, oh: "Climate Crock Anthony Watts Scrubs YouTube Video"
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
realpolitic
Obama does care!
11:41 PM on 02/19/2010
It is always the same. The deniers always run when a few critical thinking people arrive to get past their far right propaganda or as Bush would say to "catapult the propaganda."
11:44 PM on 02/19/2010
I can tell you are well versed in the classics ;)
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
realpolitic
Obama does care!
11:49 PM on 02/19/2010
Thanks! Bush is fluent in ancient Greek.
11:46 PM on 02/19/2010
Normally once I use words and phrases like "electronic dipole moment" they either change the subject or try to claim I'm making stuff up to confuse them.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
realpolitic
Obama does care!
11:51 PM on 02/19/2010
Yes, it threw me too, but I hung in there. Great post! The denier community does not realize that scientists are not trying to take over the world, they are trying to figure things out.
11:28 PM on 02/19/2010
It's the weather, not the climate. Just like the 90's were relatively warm.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
realpolitic
Obama does care!
11:36 PM on 02/19/2010
"January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. Throughout the last three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade."

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/
11:50 PM on 02/19/2010
I'll be honest. I don't really care either way.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
realpolitic
Obama does care!
11:22 PM on 02/19/2010
One can say the most innocent things and deniers will claim they are being attacked personally. This is really an intellectually insecure crowd.
11:17 PM on 02/19/2010
I am more inclined to believe that the el Nino is the cause of the weather this winter. Then again, I just pulled that out of my @$$.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
realpolitic
Obama does care!
11:53 PM on 02/19/2010
You may be right, though.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:16 PM on 02/19/2010
really, all of the "science" is settled. Why all the fuss?
11:33 PM on 02/19/2010
Classic strawman argument. Nobody claimed all of the science was settled. Climate scientists said the anthropogenic nature of global warming was certain enough to act now on climate change remediation.
12:10 AM on 02/20/2010
AlGoreJr - remember him? He said the science is settled.
11:03 PM on 02/19/2010
The global warming end timers will stop at nothing to gin up the myth. Now, anything and everything can be caused by global warming. There is nothing that can be cited as evidence to the contrary. Even so much as saying "But, its colder this winter here in the states", response: "because global warming makes things warm then colder, then the world blows up, pay us carbon taxes and walk through our naked body scanners please."
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
realpolitic
Obama does care!
11:15 PM on 02/19/2010
Yes, if temperatures got cooler for thirty years it would be huge evidence to dismiss warming, but I bet it does happen. Wanna bet?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
realpolitic
Obama does care!
11:54 PM on 02/19/2010
Meant to say: "bet it does not happen." i stand corrected!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Brendan H
12:31 AM on 02/20/2010
So your argument is that people who care about science don't take your circumstantial evidence seriously enough?
12:57 AM on 02/20/2010
No. My argument is that no evidence will dissuade those who seek to enrich themselves or gain power by alarming the masses about end times due to global warming.