From his perch in the Happy Hunting Ground, that ubiquitously sad Indian from the seventies forces out one last tragic tear…*
****
update: “Their TIGER STYLE SCIENCE is strong. But our DRAGON STYLE SCIENCE will defeat it!”*
(h/t Pillage Idiot)
Okay, maybe it’s part of the joke, but you do realize that guy was a fraud as well, right?
I watch “The Sopranos,” sure.
Interesting that Snopes doesn’t list Mental Ward as another fake Indian.
Maybe someday…
I’m OK as long as those sobriety offsets I bought through Teddy K hold up.
Carbon-shmarbon, tonight I need some methane offsets.
Slow dissipating gluttony is in the air tonight.
Al Gore:”….mgrrblr…You see because Gloubaul Warhmingh….can be reduced by carbon offsets…..I buy mine from Generation Investment Management, and theirs are great. They like totally kill off gloubaul warhmingh. The best offsets you can buy!”
Inquisitive Tennessean: “Um, hey Al, aren’t you on the board of Generation Investment Mgmt? So basically you’re buying offsets from yourself? Cause if that’s true, well, that’s pretty weak man. You sound as stupid as Cameron Diaz did on “Trippin’”.”
Al Gore:”You know I invented the internet, right?”
Inquisitive Tennessean: “I can’t fucking believe I voted for you in 2000.”
“Dissipating Gluttony” would be a good name for a rock band.
If there were still rock bands.
P.S.: The Sun, reached for comment while on vacation in the Large Magellan Cloud, said that it had never heard of Al Gore, Cheryl Crow, Laurie David, or “carbon offsets.”
But Guinness is great anywhere–even outside the galaxy.
Bummer, I was about to start-up an carbon offset opportunity by offering to plant colonic inducing-like berries as a bonus for those seeking nature’s deeper internal pureness.
Such people usually get eaten by bears with which they are “communing.”
Whoa. The Anchoress totally pwns Sheryl Crow, Sting, Bono, U2, Leo, etc. for their massive energy-consuming ways.
I’m passing this one on.
Sorry, Iron Eyes Cody has already wept his last tear … as the new Blackhawks symbol – he ran dry in just one season.
Generation Investment Management holds “green” companies like Aflac, Staples, and GE.
Speaking of powerful stuff, check out Jackie Chan’s all Chinese The Drunken Master. Chan has developed drunken kung fu. At one point he’s in a street fight with some villians while his mother happens to be attending a party nearby. She notices his problem and commands the girls to ~ “come with me”. So they run into the booze room and gather up all the bottles they can handle, then return to the balcony and start throwing Chan bottles of booze. He chugs them like spinach and defeats the enemy.
Most of us boomers who were around at the time can also remember that the “ecology movement” was the exclusive venue of the left wing of the hippie movement, as was it’s red-headed bastard stepchild climatology.
Iron Eyes Cody was actually an Italian-American from New York. They had a feature on him in Guns of the Old West a couple years ago.
Oddly enough, the real Indian actors didn’t give a damn. It was the Depression and they knew a guy had to work…
so you guys are saying that Iron Eyes Cody wasn’t a native american? for reals?
sorry, is there an echo in here?
Snopes said he wasn’t native american, but then they say this:
Make of that what you will. I suspect they don’t know what native means exactly, but that is just me.
Is that a trick question, maggie?
Cody was a native American, that is, he was born here.
He was not a Native American, i.e., an Indian.
Note that “Indian” is what the Native Americans prefer when they aren’t shaking Leftists down for bigger handouts.
Regards,
Ric
tw: meeting54—no, dammit, the number’s up to three figures at least.
bedtime, but I’ll add quickly: capital letters can be important.
Regards,
Ric
Anybody can be an injun these days. Hell, Tony Curtis was an indian once, I think. As was Ward “call me Walking Eagle” Churchill.
Lots of previously extinct tribes running casinos in Califorinia these days, too.
I mean, the Heckawi? Is that a real tribe?…
yeah, yeah, i get drunk and lazy and everyone picks on me. ;p
Boy there were some whoppers in this one.
Really? Did somebody over there just make that up right now? Or is possibly one of those old laws that they never took off the books like having to get out of your car before entering an intersection to check for traffic?
AYFKM? IS somebody with a straight face trying to tell me that the BBC is impartial? You get into real trouble when you start selectively enforcing BS laws like this.
To see a communist in a grain of sand.
Joseph Fourier, early 19th c., planetary energy balance, atmospheric gases raising temperature through slowing heat loss.
John Tyndall, mid 19th, absorption of longwave radiation by trace gases and implications for climate.
Svante Arrhenius, late 19th – early 20th, first simple model of the effect on temperature from a doubling of co2 (4-6 c)
Thomas Chamberlin, late 19th, model for co2 exchange.
Milutin Milanković, early 20th, orbital cycles responsible for ice ages.
Guy Callendar, early 20th, enhanced greenhouse effect.
And of course, mid 20th century, John Von Neumann kicked the ball rolling with those naughty communist hippie computer models. Self-described militant anti-communist.
Regards
Mark Durkin, the director of a feel-good, opportunistic fraud:
He has got to be kidding.
Here’s a free video shredding their false and logically fallacious claims, half-truths and innuendo.
Claiming volcanoes emit more co2 per year than from human activities, forging a graph of the 20th c. temperature trend: minor errors.
Hate to break it to ya, Lazer, but volcanoes DO produce more CO2 than humans.
Google it!
Wheeeeee! New troll! Get the welcoming muffin backet and cookie bouquet!
Just the other night I was watching a highly entertaining show on The History Channel that posited that all of human history, from the Babylonians to present day, was guided by a mysterious conspiracy that can be traced through (in more recent history) the Knights Templar, the Illuminati, the Freemasons, Skull and Bones, and the National Hockey League (I might be off on that last one). The main guy being interviewed was a barking loon, of course.
So, according to this limey fussbucket quoted above, should the authorities be out arresting everyone at the History Channel associated with this diverting piece of ahistorical fancy? Or are such measures only called for when they offend our political positions?
The USGS says volcanoes do not emit more CO2 than humans. And according to the story, the producer himself admitted it was an error.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp
Interesting snopes entry contrasting the eco-friendliness of Gore’s belle meade home and W’s crawford ranch.
Lazar, why is Mars warming?
What’s with the new mega-storm on Jupiter?
What ended the Little Ice Age?
What ended the last full-blown Ice Age?
I resent that.
Hell, I’ll bet insects produce more carbon dioxide than humans based on sheer numbers. Good luck erradicating those.
Lazar: n. a leper..
Call me paranoid, but *lphie gets barred and something going by the name of “leper” appears…
BTW, I have no carbon footprint at all. Following the example of Judge Roy “Asshole” Pearson, I don’t own a car.
I go everywhere by cab.
Ooooo…..Oooooooo…..
Can I be a hockey goon?
I always wanted to be a hockey goon!
Dave Schultz is my hero.
My favorite scaremonger is Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, eugenics advocate and racial bigot.
There. If this doesn’t hijack the thread, nothing will.
A new drink!
“What’ll ya have, stranger?”
“I’ll have a Limey Fussbucket!”
“With one or two nipple fruits?”
“Two, of course!”
Oh, all right, all right. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than all humans except Al Gore. Nitpickers.
.
Doesn’t sound like a nipple.
Errors kind of like the Mann Hockey Stick graph, eh what, Lazar? Or like the small error involved in Jones’ refusal to archive or otherwise release his data concerning his new World temperature reconstructions for recent atmospheric temperatures? So that his claims can actually be peer reviewed?
Lazar, have you even read the TAR or the SPM4?
Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier (March 21, 1768 – May 16, 1830) was a French mathematician and physicist…
John Tyndall (August 2, 1820 – December 4, 1893) was an Irish natural philosopher.
Svante August Arrhenius (February 19, 1859 – October 2, 1927) was a Swedish chemist and one of the founders of the science of physical chemistry.
Thomas Chrowder Chamberlin (1843 – 1928) was an influential American geologist and educator
Milutin Milanković (May 28, 1879 – December 12, 1958, Belgrade) was a Serbian civil engineer and geophysicist
Guy Stewart Callendar (Feb 1898 – Oct 1964) was an English steam engineer and inventor
Not a “ecologist” or “climatologist” in the bunch. I don’t expect you to understand the distinction, but my point was that both of those specialties came to popularity in the 60s and 70s, and were politically charged from the outset. I was there. I was a lefty. I know the people and agendas involved. The motivation was purely to stop corporate growth, capitalization, and the expoitation of natural resources. Objective scientific research wasn’t a concern.
(Oops… I mean muffin “basket” – not sure what a muffin “backet” might be, but it sure doesn’t sound like something offered to your new, possibly-unhinged neighbor.
I would also like to note that my use of the term “limey” is normally meant with affection, but in this case – not so much.
And nothing but love for the barking loons, yo.)
I am suing for 1 billion, kajillion dollars for emotional distress from the pain caused by the coke I just blew through my nose laughing when I got to the update.
And speaking of capital letters being important (or was that another thread?)… Frank, I think you meant “Coke”?
That assumption is unsound.
It’s a storm. What was the question?
Volcanic and solar forcings.
Milankovitch cycle, solar forcing, co2 and albedo feedbacks.
My turn now.
Do you think there is a certain degree of refusal, witness this thread so far, to discuss, to confirm or to deny, the substance of denialist claims when they are put to scrutiny; how do you think this tallies with a self-image as rational, unbiased pundits devoted to The Truth, whatever that may be, opposed to the wicked COCK OF LIES of those commie hippie atmospheric physicists, paleoclimatologists, meteorologists et al. intent on enslaving us in a worker’s utopia of solar-powered bicycles and organic soya milk?
Do you think that such prominent garbage as the pseudo-documentary above, is helpful—I mean, to conservatives, to denialists, to the general public, to scientists, to policy makers, to anyone other than those who made money from it?
Why do you ask me questions which are answered by many authoritative sources on the net and in print? Why do you think many responses in this thread show more interest in me personally than in the veracity or not of Durkin’s documentary? Why do you think many insist on pointing elsewhere—‘the Mann hockey sitck’, ‘global warming on Mars’? How do you think this type of response is perceived?
Why do you think hypocrite Al Gore saw political and financial capital in the global warming issue?
Is there an increasing dissonance between practical—scientists and Joe public—and ideological, philosophical—watermelon greens on the left and denialist fundies on the right—views of the environment and resource usage? What do you think are the likely responses of decision makers?
Lazar Lazar I can’t hear you I’ve got my fingers in my ears and my head in the sand.
Thank you, you sir are a gentleman. Now I feel right at home, except with muffins, and cookies!
You are getting close, Lazar, but this is the question:
Do you think that such prominent garbage as the carbon offset pseudo-industry in the OP above, is helpfulâ€â€I mean, to conservatives, to denialists, to the general public, to scientists, to policy makers, to anyone other than those who make money from it?
My introduction to the global warming issue was in fact McIntyre and McKitrick’s 2003 paper in Energy & Environment, and after that I read denialist sites. So to begin with, I was in fact a denialist. But then, oh horror, I actually bothered to read the ‘other side’. So I went back… read all the M&M papers, the Wegman report, the NAS report, the MBH98 paper, the Wahl and Amman paper, individual responses by Mann and McIntyre, all the testimonials to both House Committe on Energy & Commerce hearings, and assorted commentary by pundits and scientists on both sides. And then I realized why claims by McIntyre and McKitrick were completely wrong. Do you know why?
If you mean the 98 paper, it was peer reviewed. Peer review doesn’t actually involve going through the data and doing the reconstruction.
Yes, I’ve read the TAR. I’ve skimmed the SPM4, and will go through it when the FAR is released.
No, it is completely unhelpful.
Your turn.
So someone who advances climatology is not s climatologist.
Sigh… we’re getting back to the meaning of ‘is’.
Oh, I can guess. Since you pointed out there was a ‘left-wing’ of the hippie movement.
You old sausage.
Those who are not lefties by age 20, have no heart. Those who are still lefties by age 30, have no soul. So the saying goes.
Those who are not lefties by age 20, have no heart. Those who are still lefties by age 30, have no brain.
That’s the saying.
There were left and right wings, absolutely. All hippies were not socialist necessarily. The left wing has evolved into the socialist-green-progressive alliance of today, and the right has kind of been absorbed into the libertarian, classic liberal, socially-liberal republicans of today. I was originally a left wing hippy but have slowly been forced to the right by life’s realities.
You keep missing the point, I am talking about people who follow a certain curriculum, that of Ecology or Climatology, that was created specifically to differentiate itself from the more conventional courses that had previously covered these area, Natual Science, Biology, Meteorology etc, because of political motives.
The “ecology movement” was co-opted by political opportunists almost immediately. You need to keep that in mind when trying to balance all the bullshit involved with AGW. There are ulterior motives and axes to grind on both sides. As well as a shit load of money to be made.
Speaking of denial…
Lazar. If it’s consensus it isn’t science. You need something called objective scientific proof. Real scientists disagree on whether GW is agrivated by human activity or not. Skepticism is your friend. Otherwise you’ll be seeing Elvis in the most unusual places.
Climatology graduates appear uncommon though compared to physics, mathematics, assorted others. E.g. the RealClimate bios. Look, I do not doubt that certain people joined what can be loosely described as ‘earth sciences’ for the reasons you describe. Those are your experiences, and that’s fine. I know that some scientists on the AGW side are polemical (and I don’t like it), and perhaps some even wish AGW be true. What I do know is that there is good, hard science in support of AGW. On the other hand, denialist claims are mostly, well,—they’re bullshit, they’re not science.
Now if only the denialist camp would take your advice, instead of reacting in an emotional or hand-waving manner.
Where can I find evidence of a Martian global warming trend?
Disagree. There is consenus the mass of a muon is 105.7 MeV/c^2. I don’t mean this to appear facile.
Evidence is objective, it is out-there. ‘Proven’ (outside a formal context) is an evaluation—an opinion—of the likelihood of a certain theory or result being true. A scientist may say a theory is proven beyond reasonable doubt when they believe some or all of the following to an acceptable (to them) degree; the evidence in favor is compelling, the evidence has been replicated, alternative hypotheses have been discounted, testable predictions have been validated, and the theory is not in grave disagreement with other accepted fact.
There is no perfect knowledge. There is no ground for certainty. Truth is contingent. Jeff knows that. You know that. Scientists mostly know that, although it offends their sensibilities.
Genuine skepticism is all well and good.
To read both sides of a dispute in their own words as one rather famous classical liberal put it. Denialists are generally not doing so, with rather embarrassing results.
BBC
National Geographic
Everybody Else
I like that John Stuart Mill link, good stuff:
and this:
and especially this:
Sounds to me like “denialists” play an important role in reasoned scientific study.
Frozen co2 shrinkage observed in a small part of the south pole is evidence of a regional trend. This has only been observed over six earth years, three martian years.
Observed changes in albedo, plugged into a Mars GCM, give a warming of 0.65 deg c since 1970. Small fish compared to the large yearly fluctuations in temperature, on which dust storms have a huge effect.
Habibullo Abdussamatov claims a 6 earth year regional trend ‘explains’ a century scale global trend on a different planet.
Pluto…
Well, the MIT article says…
Jupiter…
The article is a bit confused; there is possibly an unspecified type of global change that might cause regional changes in temperature of unspecified sign. Business as usual? The article does not state that there is a globally averaged temperature increase (and at what height would such a hypothetical change occur which could have any significance?)
Triton…
Ok, we’ve covered this one, and the article itself states…
Censorship ever creates more problems than it solves. Scientists are generally terrible at PR and politics. By appealing to authority they insult the intelligence of the public, when they have the great weight of evidence on their side.
What about the unwise man? You know propaganda has its currency.
That is the biggest problem I have with pro-warming size, the data pool you are using compared to the scope of the project would get you laughed out of any field of engineering. I can’t see getting all that worked up about it just yet. I have no problem with reasonable efforts that don’t have major effects on the economy, most of them make sense regardless. But if the change is going to be as great as some predict, I would rather have the capital and technology a vibrant economy provides to deal with it, than drive ourselves into a depression trying to reverse the inevitable.
size = side